Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31685
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
VIDHYA I V – Appellant
Versus
SMITHA P V – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 22907/2014
Qualifications for marks in selection processes must be conferred by relevant dates; premature awarding renders the selection invalid.
Headnote:
Legality - Assistant Professors Appointment - Calicut University Act - Sections 57, 58, and relevant Statutes - The court emphasized that marks for qualifications must be awarded only when they are formally conferred, thus invalidating the appointment based on erroneous mark allocation for unawarded Ph.D degrees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 4th respondent as Assistant Professor, arguing that awarding 10 marks for a Ph.D not yet conferred at the time of application and interview was illegal, affecting the ranked list's validity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the award of marks for Ph.D before it was conferred violated the established guidelines and misled the selection process, justifying intervention.
Issues: Whether the awarding of marks for unawarded qualifications in the selection process violated applicable guidelines leading to an improper appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that eligibility for weightage concerning qualifications must align with the date of conferment, rendering the assessment of the 4th respondent's marks erroneous and affecting the appointment's legality.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appointment of the 4th respondent and directed a revision of the ranked list.
JUDGMENT
The issue raised in this writ petition is with regard to the legality of appointments made by the selection committee to the post of Assistant Professors in Economics in the Sree Kerala Varma College, Thrissur.
2. It is submitted that the educational agency was permitted to fill up various vacancies in the Colleges run by it. A notification dated 2.9.2013 was published as prescribed and applications were received in pursuance thereto, pursuant to which the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent had applied. The last date for submission of application was on 1.10.2013. An interview was conducted on 18.5.2014 and Exhibit P4 is the score sheet. A ranked list was published and by Exhibit P6 order dated 19.6.2014, the 4th respondent who had secured first rank was appointed. This is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the 10 marks awarded to the 4th respondent for Ph.D by the selection committee was erroneous.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Board, learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. The primary contention raised against the selection by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the award of ten marks as weightage to the 4th respondent for Ph.D as is evident from Exhibit P4 score sheet by the selection committee was totally illegal. It is submitted that the notification inviting applications was dated 2.9.2013. Applications were to be submitted on or before 1.10.2013. Though the 4th respondent submitted her thesis on 31.12.2012, Ph.D was awarded only on 28.2.2014. It is contended that as on the last date for submission of application, the 4th respondent did not possess the Ph.D. Even as on the date of interview, the Ph.D had not been awarded. It is therefore contended that the award of additional marks for Ph.D was patently irregular. If those additional marks are deducted, the petitioner would be entitled to be placed above the 4th respondent in the ranked list and would be entitled to be appointed, since two vacancies had been filled up, it is contended. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court inRekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [(1993) Supp (3) SCC 168] to contend that relevant date for adjudging qualification would be the last date of filing applications and not the date of selection. The decision of the Apex Court inHitendra Singh v. P.D.Krishi Vidyapeeth [(2014)8 SCC 369] is also relied on to contend that where selection is found to be vitiated by illegalities, delay cannot be pleaded by the candidate who was the beneficiary of the illegality as a groud to sustain the tainted appointment.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would contend that Exhibit P5 are only guidelines issued by the University for award of marks and has no statutory force. Section 58 of the Calicut University Act prescribes the qualification for appointment. Section 60 provides for enactment of Statutes prescribing conditions of service. Statute 3 of Chapter 2 of the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 provides for advertisement in two English and two Malayalam daily newspapers approved by the University giving a minimum period of thirty days for the aspirants to apply. Statute 4 of Chapter 2 specifies in detail the constitution of selection committee for appointments. Matters like quorum for meetings of the selection committee and the method of selection are also provided in detail in Statutes 5 and 10 of Chapter 2. It is, therefore, contended that since the 4th respondent possess all the qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post in question and no allegations having been raised as against the constitution of the selection committee, the challenge against the selection is totally devoid of merits. It is argued that the 4th respondent being a
