Athul S. Cheruvayalil Kunath Veedu et al. v. The Kerala University & ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 33231 of 2016 (D)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **1. ATHUL S, CHERUVAYALIL KUNNATH VEEDU,** **PATTATHANAM P.O,KOLLAM 691 021.** **2. SHANTHINI DAS, SATHYA MUNDAKKAL,KOLLAM691001.** **3. SOUMAY V, NANDANA KORANI.P.O, ASSEMBLY MUKKU,TRIVANDRUM,695 104.** **4. SUMITH S.S, SUDHA BHAVAN KURIVIKKDU, VATTIYOORKAVU,TRIVANDRUM,695013.** **5. BINDU.P.O, PALAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRITHALA PATTITHARA,PALAKAD 679 534.** **6. VIRGIN M, PUTHUVAL HOUSE,THUMBA ST.XAVIERS, COLLEGE P.O,TRIVANDRUM,695 586.** **7. H.AKSHAYA GOMATI, QTR NO.C/3/25/RTTC CAMPUS, KAIMANAM,TRIVANDRUM P.O,695 040.** **8. ARCHANA A.G, PULLIYIL HOUSE,MELMURI 27 P.O, MALAPURAM 676 517.** **BY ADVS.SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB** **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **--------------** **1. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,** **UNIVERSITY OFFICE,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.** **-2-** **-2-** ## **WPC NO 33231 OF 2016:** - **--------------------** **2. THE REGISTRAR,THE KERALA UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OFFICE,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.** - **ADDL R3 IMPLEADED** **3. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAZ ZAFAR MARG,NEW DELHI 110 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **ADDL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/11/2016 IN IA NO 16982/2016.** - **R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 35574/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **K.V.** **WPC NO 33231 OF 2016: --------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** ## **-------------------** - **P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.3.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P3: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF 4TH PETITIONER.** - **P6: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P7: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER BY 1STRESPONDENT.** - **P8: COPY OF THE COMPETED APPLICATION FORM OF 7TH PETITIONER.** - **P9: COPY OF THE TIME TABLE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** - **P10: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR ISLAMIC HISTORY,UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS.** - **P11: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR THEATRE ARTS AND FILM AESTHETICS FOR EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT.** - **P12: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR HISTORY,UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT.** - **P13; COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR MUSIC,UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT.** - **P14: COPY OF THE PRESS NOTE DATED 17.9.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** - **P15: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE FOR INTERVIEW ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** - **P16: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.7.2016 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** - **P17: COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS UNION (2015-16).** - **P18: COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY 1ST PETITIONER.** **-2-** **-2WPC 33231 OF 2016:** **------------------** **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:** **----------------------** **R1(A): COPY OF THE NO.AC D/M.PHIL/2016-17 DATED 18.10.2016.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **KV.** ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.** =============== W.P. (C) Nos. 33231 & 35574 of 2016 ======================= Dated this, the 28[th] day of November, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** These two writ petitions concern a common issue and therefore heard and decided together. Petitioners are candidates who had applied for admission to M.Phil Course pursuant to notification dated 11/3/2016. They participated in the entrance examination and are also included in the rank list. But, in the meantime, University by order dated 20/7/2016 accorded sanction to the University Grants Commission Regulations of 2016 with effect from 5/7/2016 by which certain restrictions have been imposed in respect of the number of candidates to be attached under one Guide. 2. Petitioners therefore submit that their opportunity to be a Research Scholar has considerably been reduced on account of the restrictions imposed by the University based on UGC Regulations. 3. The common contention urged by the petitioners is that as per the prospectus, it is indicated that the strength of M.Phil students at the University Teaching and Research Departments shall be in the ratio of two students per permanent qualified teacher in ## W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16 -:2:- the concerned subject, and in the University College, Thiruvananthapuram, the total strength of each subject shall be 5 seats subject to usual rules of reservation for SC/ST and OBC candidates. It is therefore contended that by virtue of the University adopting the regulations by University order dated 20/7/2016, their right to become research scholars for M.Phil has been considerably reduced. It is contended that since the selection process has already been commenced by receiving application, conducting entrance test and publishing the rank list, no deviation can be made from Ext.P1 notification. Contention urged by the petitioners is that the rights of the parties are to be decided as per the notification and cannot be regulated by a subsequent adoption of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2016 with effect from 5/7/2016. In other words, the conditions in the regulation cannot be made applicable to the selection process initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the University inter alia stating that UGC notified the UGC Regulations of 2016 prescribing new criteria and procedures, which came into effect ## W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16 -:3:- from 5/7/2016. The rank list published in the website on 25/8/2016 was provisional as the University is bound to implement the Regulation 2016 w.e.f. 5/7/2016. The procedure for M.Phil admission also had to be adhered according to the Regulation. Interview was conducted as part of the new UGC guideline. It is further submitted that as per the Regulations, the number of M.Phil seats for 2016 admission has been enhanced in some departments whereas in some of the departments University is forced to reduce the intake owing to the paucity of qualified Research Supervisors. Since the admission procedures are going on, memos were issued for first allotment and other allotments are remaining. It cannot be stated that the petitioners are denied admission at this point of time. It is further submitted that University is bound to implement all conditions laid down by UGC and accordingly, University has issued order dated 20/7/2016. In regard to the decrease in number of seats, it is further submitted that University has decided to solve the problem by allocating research supervisors duly approved by the University from School of Distance Education, University of Kerala, Affiliated Colleges, Research Laboratories in Geographical ## W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16 -:4:- jurisdiction of University of Kerala, strictly in accordance with M.Phil Regulations and to maintain _status quo_ of 2015-16. Annexure R1(a) is the University order dated 18/10/2016 in that regard. 5. Having regard to the University order dated 18/10/2016, according to the University, substantial grievance of the petitioners have been taken care of. But the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the procedure that was contemplated at the time when the prospectus had been issued ought to have been continued during the present academic year. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in _**Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi**_ (AIR 2008 SC 2103). In the above case, the question concerned was relating to the decision taken by the High Court to prescribe cut off marks for viva voce test subsequent to the notification. It was held that a prescription of cut off marks to viva voce test by the respondent was not in accordance with the settled legal position as held in _**K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another**_ [(2008) 3 SCC 512]. 6. Yet another judgment relied upon is _**P.Mahendran v.**_ W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16 -:5:- _**State of Karnataka**_ [(1990) 1 SCC 411]. That was a case relating to appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors. After the commencement of process of selection, Rule was amended changing the eligibility criteria for selection and appointment. It was held that the change in rule could not affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post. It was held that the selection process is to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at its commencement. 7. The case on hand does not call for a situation where the concern is with regard to a selection process, as far as appointment to a particular post is concerned. Here, the notification has been issued for preparation of a rank list to be a candidate for undertaking M.Phil Course. There is no change in the selection process and there is no change in the eligibility conditions also. The change effected by the 2016 UGC Regulation is with reference to the number of candidates who can be attached to the Research Supervisor/Guide. Such a change by itself will not affect the candidate in any manner. Of course, as contended by the petitioners, as per the prospectus, if two W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16 -:6:- students could be attached to a permanent qualified teacher and in University college, the total strength in each subject could be 5 seats, as per the UGC Regulations, a Professor as Research Supervisor at any given point of time shall not guide more than three M.Phil Scholars, an Associate Professor a maximum of two and an Assistant Professor only one M.Phil Scholar. This procedure had been adopted by UGC to have a uniform standard of research activity being undertaken by students. Comparing it with prospectus condition, in the prospectus though it is mentioned regarding the strength of M.Phil students, in comparison to the present Regulations, it cannot be contended that it would affect the candidates in any manner. UGC Regulations being statutory in nature, before the completion of the selection process, Rules have been amended. Necessarily, the said rules have to be complied with by the University. The petitioners can insist for implementation of the notification conditions only if they have a vested legal right. Even before the selection process is completed, the UGC Regulations are implemented by the University and it will not affect the eligibility criteria as far as selection is concerned. Hence, there is nothing wrong on the part W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16 ## -:7:- of the University in adopting the UGC Regulations, 2016. 8. As far the right of a candidate who finds a place in a select list to get an appointment in a recruitment process is rather well settled. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in _**Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab**_ [(2016) 6 SCC 532], it was held that merely for the reason that the name of a candidate finds a place in the select list/merit list, it does not give him indefeasible right to appointment as well and it is always open for the Government not to fill up the vacancies, however, such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once it is found that the decision is based on valid reasons, the Courts should not interfere with the matter. However, in the matter relating to admission based on a prospectus and a select list is prepared based on such prospectus, it is not open to the State Government to alter the terms of conditions as held by the Apex Court in _**Parmender Kumar v. State of Haryana**_ [(2012) 1 SCC 177]. There is no such situation in the present case. Here the change is only in regard to the number of candidates who could be attached to a Guide. In other words, it does not affect the select list in any manner. W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16 -:8:- 9. Even otherwise, the University is bound by the Regulations framed by the UGC. Further, University having taken note of the dearth in the number of Research Supervisors available has taken preventive measures by issuing notification dated 18/10/2016, which will substantially redress the grievance of the persons who are in the ranked list. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the action taken by the University in this regard. Writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** Rp //True Copy// P.S to Judge