Dr. A.K. Abdul Gafoor v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/16TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WA.No. 748 of 2016 () IN WP(C).7024/2016 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.7024/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-03-2016 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------DR. A.K.ABDUL GAFOOR (ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, GOVERNMENT ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE - 18) AMBALAKANDY HOUSE, CHERUVAYOOR P.O., (VIA) VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-673 645. BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 2. REGISTRAR COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI 682 022 3. VICE CHANCELLOR COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022 ## 4. MUJEEB .A (MEMBER OF THE SYNDICATE OF COCHIN UNIVERSTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY) PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING (CUCEK), PULINCUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 504 NOW ON DEPUTATION AS DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, LAL BAHADUR SASTRI CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 033. R4 BY ADV.DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **W.A.No.748 of 2016** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of April, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** ## Antony Dominic, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dismissing W.P.(C) No.7024 of 2016. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant, challenging the selection of the 4[th] respondent to the post of Professor in Opto-Electronics, Laser Technology & Spectroscopy. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge rejected the challenge and dismissed the writ petition. It is this judgment which is under challenge. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent. 3. Ext.P1 is the vacancy notification. As per Ext.P1, the University invited application to the post of Professor, Opto-Electronics, Laser Technology and Spectroscopy. The post in question was reserved for candidates from Muslim community. The qualification prescribed for the post are the following: 2 WA No.748/2016 _“Professor Sl.No.16:_ _A_ _i. An eminent scholar with Ph.D qualification(s) in Ultra-fast Optical processes/Applied Optics/ Optoelectronics and published work of high quality actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of ten publications as books and/or research/policy papers._ _ii. M.Sc (Physics/Photonics) or M.Tech_ _in Applied Optics/Optoelectronics and Laser technology/Electronics._ _iii. A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level._ _iv. Contribution to educational_ _innovation, design of new curricula and courses and technology-mediated teaching learning process._ _v. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based_ 3 WA No.748/2016 _Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in the UGC Regulations 2010 and published in the University Website._ ## _Or_ _B. An outstanding professional, with established reputation in the relevant field, who has made significant contribution to the knowledge in the Concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials.”_ 4. In response to the notification, applications were received from the appellant, 4[th] respondent and another candidate. A Scrutiny Committee, consisting of the Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of the Department of Technology of the University, scrutinised the applications received. Ext.R1 (a), the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, shows that the Scrutiny Committee rejected the application made by the appellant and the third candidate. The application submitted by the 4[th] respondent was accepted and he was eventually selected and appointed. 5. In the writ petition, the correctness of two grounds mentioned in Ext.R1(a) was raised for consideration. The first one was that the Ph.D of the appellant is not in the prescribed discipline and the second one being that the appellant did not have the experience in research guidance. 4 WA No.748/2016 6. Insofar as the first ground that the Ph.D of the appellant is not in the prescribed discipline is concerned, Ext.R4(a) is the Ph.D certificate of the appellant, which shows that the doctorate he was awarded from the University of Calicut is in Physics and Ext.R4(b) is the Ph.D certificate of the 4[th] respondent, which shows that the doctorate awarded to him from the University of Kerala is in the subject 'Opto-Electronics'. Admittedly, the post notified is in the discipline of Opto-Electronics, Laser Technology and Spectroscopy and it was for that reason, the Scrutiny Committee concluded that the qualification possessed by the appellant is not in the discipline in which the application was invited. However, relying on the judgment of this Court in **Dr.V.P.Mahadevan Pillai v. University of Kerala (2005 KHC 1199)** , the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the constitution of the Scrutiny Committee is illegal. It is contended that the Scrutiny Committee did not include experts from the subject 'Opto-Electronics'. However, we are unable to accept this contention for the reason that insofar as this case is concerned, as is evident from Ext.R1(a), the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, one of the members of the Scrutiny Committee was Dr.Poulose Jacob, Pro Vice-Chancellor and Dean of the Faculty of Technology. It is also pointed out that the Department to which the appellant submitted his application comes under the Faculty of Technology. Therefore, even if it is accepted that it is the requirement of 5 WA No.748/2016 law that the Scrutiny Committee should contain an expert as pointed by this Court in the judgment in **Dr.V.P.Mahadevan Pillai** 's case (supra), that requirement, in our view, is satisfied in this case. Therefore, the first finding of the learned Single Judge, upholding the finding of the Scrutiny Committee that the Ph.D of the appellant is not in the prescribed discipline, has to be upheld and We do so. 7. The second ground is that the appellant did not have experience in research guidance. As we have already stated, in Ext.P1 notification, one of the qualifications prescribed for the post is a minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/College, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level. The contention of the appellant is that he, having more than ten years teaching experience, satisfied the aforesaid requirement. However, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that there should be research experience also to satisfy the prescriptions in the notification. This finding, as rightly pointed out, is contrary to the principles laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in **Basheer v. Saiful Islam (2014 (4) KLT 521)** , where this Court considered the prescription by the Kerala University, which read as, “eight years experience of teaching and/or research including upto 3 years for research degree”. Dealing with the 6 WA No.748/2016 expression “and/or”, the Full Bench held thus: _“14. In this context, it is to be noticed that the_ _expression used in the prescription of experience is “and/or”. This legal phrase has been taken as indicating that the choice can either be between the two alternatives or that both can be chosen. It has been held that when and/or is used, they are to be read either disjunctively or conjunctively and it means either or both of.”_ Thereafter, the purport of prescription of experience was interpreted by the Full Bench thus: _17. The experience prescribed can be_ ## _dissected into the following:-_ _(1) 8 years of experience of teaching._ _(2) 8 years of experience of teaching and_ _research._ _(3) 8 years of research._ _18. However, in so far as research is concerned, there is a further condition that it shall be only upto 3 years for research degree. “_ If the principles thus laid down by the Full Bench are applied, there is merit 7 WA No.748/2016 in the contention of the appellant that he did satisfy the experience requirement. 8. However, even if the second contention is accepted, having regard to the fact that appellant's doctorate is not in the prescribed subject, he could not succeed in the writ petition. For that reason, we do not want to interfere with the judgment under appeal. We find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.** ## **A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.** **cks**