Dr. Faizal P. v Kannur University and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ||DR.FAIZAL P.| |---|---| ||ROSEBED, CHADALAPUZHA ROAD, KADIRUR P.O., THALASSERY, KANNUR,| ||PIN - 670 642.| ||BY ADVS.| ||P.K.IBRAHIM| ||KUM.SREEJI K.B.| |**RESPONDENT/S:**|| |1|THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY| ||THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 002| ||REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.| |2|THE VICE CHANCELLOR| ||KANNUR UNIVERSITY, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR| ||DISTRICT, PIN - 670 002.| |3|THE CHAIRMAN/THE VICE CHANCELLOR| ||SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED TO THE POST OF ASST. PROFESSOR| ||DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY,| ||THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN - 670 002.| |4|UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)| ||BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS| ||SECRETARY.| |5|ANEESH CHANDRAN N.A.| ||ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY AND| ||MICROBIOLOGY, SCHOOL OF LIFE SCIENCES, KANNUR UNIVERSITY| ||THALASSERY CAMPUS, PALAYAD P.O., PIN - 670 661.| ||BY ADVS.| ||M.SASINDRAN| ||SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC| ||SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN| THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner, after having participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Biotechnology and Microbiology of the respondent University, through the instant writ petition assailed the appointment of respondent No.5 on various grounds. 2. Kannur University, first respondent issued notification dated 3.10.2019 re-notifying certain posts of Assistant Professors in various departments including the department in question, Ext.P1. General instructions to the applicants for the notified posts were also issued, vide Ext.P2. The posts notified in Ext.P1 carried UGC pay scale and the qualification required was as per UGC Regulations 2018 and National Eligibility Test (NET) was a mandatory qualification for appointment but that qualification stood waived since in the discipline of Medical Biochemistry no NET was conducted by the UGC. However, PhD. in the relevant subject was required. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **3** submitted that petitioner has qualified M.Sc and Ph.D in Medical Biochemistry with NET qualification. He has 11 year and 7 months of Pre doctoral teaching experience in the Post graduate teaching department of School of Health Sciences of the 1[st] respondent University and post doctoral teaching experience from 1.4.2018 to 30.4.2019 and from 25.7.2019 to 10.11.2019 in the 1[st] respondent University. Four research papers have been published out of which two papers are published in pre-reviewed journals and two research papers in UGC listed journals. Over and above the aforementioned qualification, the petitioner possesses administrative experience and also served as a Chairman, post graduate examinations in Health Sciences, Member in Post Graduate Board of studies as well as a subject expert in academic bodies/interview selection board. Numerous papers in National and international seminars/conferences have also been presented. Being fully qualified as per the UGC guidelines. Kannur University adopted the UGC guidelines for screening the candidates applied to the post of Assistant Professors, Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5, all **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **4** candidates securing 55 marks and above shall be called for interview. But the marks granted during the process of screening would not have any weightage / credit or merit during assessment/interview. 4. The selection committee conducted interview and prepared a rank list recommending to the syndicate to appoint the 5[th] respondent as Assistant Professor on 15.9.2020, which was approved by the Syndicate and provisional rank list dated 22.9.2020 was published. The 5[th] respondent joined the department in October 2020. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the procedure adopted by the Selection committee as the appointment of the 5[th] respondent was arbitrary and illegal and there was a deviation from the UGC regulations, in order to fortify the contentions, submitted an application for obtaining certain information under RTI Act, which was supplied Exts.P6 (a) and (b). As per the information, it is evident that against the award of marks in interview, marks have been awarded under four heads namely Research, Publication, Teaching ability and Language competence and **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **5** Inter disciplinary and Domain Knowledge. In the category of 'research', 10 marks were given without mentioning any aspect of research; there was no criteria of awarding 10 marks. Under the head 'interdisciplinary and domain knowledge' 20 marks were allotted was also against the UGC Regulations. 5. In fact, clause 6(1) of Ext.P3 Regulations mandated that the selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on the weightage given to the performance of the candidate in different parameters based on Appendix II, Tables 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 5. On perusal of Tables, it is evident that the University conducted the interview without proper consideration of the criteria. There is no column of pre teaching experience which the petitioner possessed. Neither any Academic Council nor any Syndicate framed any criteria for selection committee to award marks during interview either before or after notification for awarding of marks to assess the merits of the candidates, thus the Selection Committee had no power or authority to prescribe any **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **6** norms of selection. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University countered all the arguments by submitting that 131 applications were received by the University, out of which 123 applications were short listed for interview. It was clearly stated in the UGC Regulations 2018 Clause 4(1)(B) that the Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for Assistant Professors at Universities, be considered for short listing of the candidates for interview only, and the selection shall be based only on the performance in the interview. Note (B) below the table 3 A of the UGC Regulations specified that 'number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the concerned Universities'. Interview was conducted on 5 (five) days and the Syndicate held meeting on 15.9.2020 considered the recommendation of the Selection committee which was constituted as per U.G.C Regulations 2018. Petitioner cannot fix his suitability for the post. 5[th] respondent was selected on the basis of the highest marks awarded by the selection committee. **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **7** 7. Recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Biotechnology and Microbiology is justified and legal. Clause 6.3 of UGC Regulation, Appendix II Table 1 is applicable only for College/University teachers for considering promotions under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and Table 2 is applicable for calculating Academic/Research score of University and College teachers. Table 3 A is the criteria for short listing candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professors in Universities. The short listing of the candidates for the advertised post ie., the stream, in question, was as per the criteria mentioned in Table 3A. Table 3A, prescribed for the direct recruitment of Assistant Professors at Universities, in which details of pre-publications were not mentioned. To buttress the arguments regarding the maintainability, judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Sarojakumari D. v. R. Helen Thilakom and Others (2017 (4) KHC 898)**_ was cited. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The facts as noticed above, reveals that the petitioner after having participated in the selection **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **8** process in the absence of any malafides have tried to introduce a new criteria as per his own whim and wish for awarding the marks. It is settled law as per the judgment cited supra, once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection. Para 11 of the judgment reads as under: “11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised.” 9. The facts of the present case is similar to the one. Even on examination of Appendix and Tables attached to the 2018 Regulations, Table 1 deals with assessment of criteria and methodology for University/college teachers, Table 2 is for Methodology for University and College Teachers for **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **9** calculating Academic/Research Score whereas Table 3A is for short-listing of candidates for interview for the Assistant Professors in Universities, Table 3B is for criteria for shortlisting of candidates for Interview. It would be apt to reproduce Note under sub clause B of clause 4.1 (I) of the Regulation. Note: The Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for Universities, and Appendix II (Table 3B) for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only, and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview. The methodology adopted by the selection committee is in accordance with Table I. Court cannot assume the role of an expert like the members of the statutory committee and form a different opinion than the one arrived at. Writ petition sans merit. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly dismissed. SD/- sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 28583 OF 2020** **10** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28583/2020** |**APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28583/2020**|**APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28583/2020**| |---|---| |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE RE-NOTIFICATION DATED| ||03/10/2019.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED| ||IN THIS REGARD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT| ||UNIVERSITY.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES UGC| ||REGULATIONS 2018 (18/07/2018).| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE APPLICATION| ||FORM SUBMITTED BY ONLINE.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDE LINE FOR SCRENING THE| ||CANDIDATES APPLIED TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT| ||PROFESSORS.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED| ||25/09/2020.| |EXHIBIT P6(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02/11/2020| ||RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P6 APPLICATION| ||WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURE.| |EXHIBIT P6(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE ENCLOSURE IN EXT.P6(A).| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE OPTIONS| ||MADE AVAILABLE IN THE ONLINE APPLICATION| ||REGARDING RESEARCH PUBLICATION DETAILS.| |EXHIBIT P7(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE FULL-TIME| ||TEACHING EXPERIENCE DETAILS.| ## RESPONDENT EXHIBITS R1(a) TRUE COPY OF HTE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF U.G.C REGULATION 2018