Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5474
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
DR.SMARTY P.MUKUNDAN – Appellant
Versus
MATHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WP(C)/28730/2019
SRI.AGINOV MATHAPPAN, SMT.K.SHERIN MOHAN, SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR, SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF, SRI.D.SREEKANTH, SHRI.ANOOP KRISHNA
The decision emphasizes the broad interpretation of relevant qualifications under UGC regulations, reaffirming the legitimacy of the selection committee's discretion in academic appointments.
Headnote:
Qualification - Appointment of Assistant Professor - UGC Regulations 2010 - Section 4.4.5 - The court upheld the selection committee's decision, indicating that the second respondent possessed the relevant qualifications as per the UGC guidelines and emphasizing the non-justiciability of selection merit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the second respondent as Assistant Professor, claiming he lacked the required qualifications. The petitioner had a Ph.D. in Management, while the second respondent had a degree in Finance. The selection committee appointed the second respondent based on his qualifications and ranking.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent's qualifications were relevant and met the UGC requirements. Marks for the petitioner's Ph.D. were not awarded due to timing issues, and his experience did not meet necessary criteria, affirming the committee's decision.
Issues: Whether the second respondent met the qualifications for Assistant Professor as prescribed and the legitimacy of the selection committee's scoring process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the selection committee's decision was valid under UGC regulations, confirming that qualifications are interpreted broadly within relevant disciplines and that the timing of credentials affects consideration in scoring.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of December 2020
Challenge, in the present writ petition, has been laid to the appointment of second respondent to the post of Assistant Professor on account of not having fulfilled the qualification as prescribed in the notification.
2. Petitioner is an MBA holder in Management, Master of Human Resource Management (MHRM), NET in (Labour Welfare/Personal Management/Industrial relation/Labour and Social Welfare/Human Resource Management) and have Ph.D in Management. The vacancy sought for is in the subject 'Management' in School of Management and Business Studies. Qualification as per Clause II (sub Clause 2) in the notification is as per UGC Regulations 2010 as amended from time to time.
3. The petitioner applied for the post Asst.Professor in Management in the School of Management and Business Studies under the reservation category Dheevara. He was called for interview along with others on 6.8.2019. The petitioner secured 2nd rank (under reservation category) in the rank list issued on 17.8.2019. Since there was only one seat under the Dheevara reservation quota, the 2nd respondent herein being the 1st rank holder was appointed as the Asst.Professor in the School of Management and Business Studies.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the minimum qualification for appointment of Assistant Professor was First Class Degree in Business Management/Administration/ in a relevant management related discipline or first class in two year full time PGDM, declared, equivalent by AIU/accredited by the AICTE/UGC. Second respondent who is the 1st rank holder did not have the required discipline, in fact, he holds a Post graduation in Finance, M.Phil in Commerce, Ph.D in Commerce, NET in commerce. The aforementioned information was obtained by the petitioner as per RTI document produced as Ext.P5. Ext.P9.
Petitioner had applied for the scores awarded during the interview via RTI and it surfaced that no points were awarded for petitioner's Ph.D and teaching experience. Second respondent obtained a total score of 46.79/100, whereas, the petitioner obtained 40.84/100. Had the marks for Ph.D and teaching experience been considered, the score of the petitioner would have been above the 2nd respondent. Concluding the argument, it was submitted that the appointment of the 2nd respondent for the post of Assistant Professor in the school of Management and Business Studies, Kottayam is per se illegal and liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra Sri. Asok.M.Cheriyan, learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that notification Ext.P1 was issued in tune with UGC Regulation 2010 and as per Clause 4.4.5 of UGC Regulation 2010, essential qualification for the post of Assistant Professor in Business Management/Administration/in a relevant management related discipline was First Class Master Degree in the aforesaid discipline or First Class in two year full time PGDM declared equivalent by AIU/Accredited by the AICTE/UGC or First Class Graduate and professionally qualified Chartered Accountant/Cost and Works Accountant/Company Secretary of the concerned statutory bodies. Candidates having qualifications under relevant discipline were eligible for the post, including, the Post Graduate Degree in Commerce, which come under the management related discipline thus the 2nd respondent was eligible for the post Assistant Professor.
6. Selection of Assistant Professors in various teaching departments was based on the recommendations of the duly constituted selection committee as prescribed in the Clause 5.1.1. of the UGC Regulations 2010 consisting of five members. The said committee interviewed all the candidates having minimum qualifications prescribed and recommended the names of those who were found suitable for appointment by the Selection committee. The 2nd respondent, Dr.Madhu Lal M was placed 5th in the rank list and was holding the first position among Dheevara category and hence was ap
