Back
2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 9539
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
J.B.KOSHY, P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ
AJITH M.GOPINATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA/106/2006
SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.), SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA, SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.), SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SMT.N.SANTHA, SRI.K.A.BALAN, SRI.SANDESH, SRI.E.S.ASHRAF
A lack of required qualifications in the selection process for employment nullifies the appointment, regardless of community reservation provisions.
Headnote:
Qualification - Employment - Ext.P1 Notification - Indication of Qualified Candidates and Reservation Policies - It Summarizes the irregularities in the selection of candidates for a lecturer position due to non-compliance with qualification mandates and reservation policies stipulated under applicable laws.
Fact of the Case:
The writ appeal concerned the appointment of the 5th respondent as Lecturer in the Children's Theatre, which was reserved for the Muslim community. The appellant challenged this appointment, citing qualification issues and procedural irregularities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 5th respondent did not meet the qualification requirements at the time of her appointment and that the appointment process was flawed. It ruled that her selection was not in line with existing norms and regulations.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the 5th respondent as Lecturer was valid given her lack of required qualifications and the applicable reservation policies for specific communities.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of the 5th respondent was quashed as she did not possess the necessary NET qualification stipulated in the Ext.P1 notification, and the irregularities in her selection were significant.
Final Decision: The appointment of the 5th respondent was quashed but her salary during service was not to be recovered.
J U D G M E N T
KOSHY,J.
This writ appeal is filed challenging appointment of 4th and 5th respondents consequent to Ext.P1 notification. Fourth respondent already left the service and we are concerned with the 5th respondent. Fifth respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the Children's Theatre. In Ext.P1 notification, that post was reserved for Muslim community. We are of the opinion that notification itself was not correct because as per the relevant rules in force at the time of notification, if for posts reserved for a particular backward community no candidate is available, by default it can be given to Other Backward Communities. This position continued till 2006. The notification was published in 2003. Since it is stated that this post is available for Muslim candidates, other eligible candidates might not have applied for the posts. Apart from the above, 5th respondent was not qualified to be W.A.106/06 2 appointed to the above post as per qualification in Ext.P1. A Committee was appointed regarding the alleged irregularities in the selection and appointment of teaching staff in the University by resolution passed in the meeting held by the Syndicate of University on 16.1.2007. With regard to the appointment of the 5th respondent, the committee found as follows:
“Only one candidate, Smt.Najmul Shahi, attended the interview and she was selected and appointed. She has not qualified the NET examination and she received M.Phil Degree in 2001 only. Therefore, she is not even eligible to be considered for selection and appointment. But the selection committee awarded 35 marks for qualification (she is eligible for only 20 marks), 15 marks for publications and 5 marks for qualification (she is eligible for only 20 marks), 15 marks for publications and 5 marks for experience (in her application she did not claim to have publications and experience to her credit). This selection and appointment was also challenged in WP(C).No.23986/2004, but the Hon'ble High Court did not find any reason to interfere and quash the appointment mainly for the reason that the petitioners do not belonging to Muslim Community etc., and therefore, not aggrieved. However, the selection and appointment are irregular and against norms, as Smt.Najmul Shahi does not possess the essential requiremt, NET. This selection and appointment need be reviewed. It is to be noted that the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar are capable to twisting facts to justify their misdeeds and W.A.106/06 3 corrupt practices. A typical example is cited here. In the counter statement submitted by the then Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar before the Hon'ble Kerala Lok Ayukta against complaint No.2752 of 2005, it was stated that “The finding of the Enquiry Officer that the appointment of Thulaseedhara Kurup and Najmul Shahi to the post of Lecturer in Drama is irregular since they do not have NET qualification is incorrect. The UGC as per the Notification No.F.No.1-1/2002(PS) Exemp. Dated 14.6.2006 has exempted the requirement of NET for appointment of Lecturers.”
It is submitted that even now she has not passed NET. In any event, 5th respondent at the time of her selection had not passed the test and was not academically qualified as per Ext.P1 notification. Exemption notification issued in 2006 is not available at that time and on the last date fixed for filing application as per Ext.P1 or at the time of her appointment she was not qualified. Unqualified persons like petitioner might not have applied for the post as they did not possess the required qualification of NET. Even otherwise she was not academically qualified as per notification. Therefore, we quash the appointment of the 5th respondent. However, the salary paid to her during the period she was in service shall not be recovered. Merely because 5th respondent was not W.A.106/06 4 appointed to that post, appellant will not become eligible for appointment because proper notification is to be published and selection is to be bas
