Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38087
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
DR SAILAS BENJAMIN – Appellant
Versus
DR SANTHOSH NAMBY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 3685/2012
The court asserted that universities are not obliged to adopt later UGC guidelines if they haven't been formally adopted prior to a selection process.
Headnote:
Selection - University Appointment - UGC Regulations - (30/06/2010), (06/11/2008) - The court upheld the selection process conducted by the University under previous guidelines, clarifying that the subsequent UGC regulations were not applicable at the time of notification or interview, influencing the decision to dismiss the petitioner's claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a Professor position, challenging the University's selection process for not adhering to UGC guidelines. Disputes arose regarding the marks awarded for experience during the selection interview.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the University rightly followed the guidelines in force at the time of selection, and the marks awarded by the selection committee were justified based on the candidates' verified credentials.
Issues: Whether the University was bound to follow the UGC guidelines when they were not approved at the time of selection and whether the marks awarded were based on adequate verification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the UGC regulations could not retrospectively apply to the selection process, as the University was correct in following the guidelines established prior to the UGC's approval.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is an applicant to the post of Professor in Botany, in terms of notification issued by the University of Calicut on 27/12/2010. Initially petitioner challenged the selection process and sought for a declaration that Ext.P4 guidelines were to be followed as against Ext.P3 guidelines in the matter relating to awarding index marks during interview. According to the petitioner the University while conducting the selection process was under obligation to follow Ext.P4 Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) which came into effect on 30/06/2010. The University had followed the guidelines for selection to the post of Professor which were framed on 06/11/2008 as per Ext.P3. It is contended that the State Government and the University implemented UGC scheme in 2006 and the Government approved Ext.P4 with effect from 18/09/2010. It W.P.C.No.3685/2012 2 is contended that Mahatma Gandhi University has already issued orders implementing Ext.P4 with effect from
01/08/2011.
2. The interview for the above post was held on
25/01/2012 and according to the petitioner only during interview it was noticed that the selection was not conducted in accordance with Ext.P4 guidelines whereas the University was following Ext.P3 guidelines.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner found that the University had prepared the rank list and the additional 4th respondent was given the first rank. The writ petition was thereafter amended challenging the manner in which marks were awarded to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was given only 4.5 marks towards experience whereas he was entitled for six marks. In regard to the 4th respondent he was granted 13.5 marks, whereas he was only entitled for six marks. The total marks obtained by the W.P.C.No.3685/2012 3 petitioner is 62.5 marks and the 4th respondent got 67.5 marks. If both of them were granted six marks for experience, the marks would have been 64 for the petitioner and 60 for the 4th respondent. It is contended that the 4th respondent got Ph.D. only in the year 1995 and he had not undertaken any research in the St.Joseph's College Devagiri till the year 2000. Petitioner challenges the certificate issued by the college in favour of the 4th respondent as Ext.P17 by contending that when the same certificate was produced for another selection, the 4th respondent did not get the same marks as awarded by the Committee for the present interview. While amending the writ petition, the petitioner challenges the selection and appointment of the additional 4th respondent as Professor in Botany in the Calicut University. In fact during the pendency of the writ petition, by an interim order dated 18/09/2012 this court had permitted the University to fill up the vacancy subject to the final result of the writ petition.
W.P.C.No.3685/2012 4
4. The additional 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia supporting the stand taken by the University. It is contended that the 4th respondent has sufficient experience and therefore the selection committee was justified in granting him the requisite marks towards experience. The petitioner did not have sufficient experience and taking into consideration her experience, 4.5 marks was awarded which was in accordance with the prescribed procedure. That apart, it is contended that in so far as the University Grants Commission Regulations were approved by the University only after the date of notification, as far as the post in question is concerned, the selection process was rightly held in accordance with Ext.P3 guidelines.
5. Having regard to the contentions urged in the above writ petition the question for consideration is whether the process of selection conducted by the University in terms of Ext.P1 notification is proper or not.
W.P.C.No.3685/2012 5
6. There is no dispute about the fact that as on the date of Ext.P1 notification the qualification prescrib
