Dr. K.K. Venu v. University of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/20TH MAGHA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 38323 of 2007 (K) ---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** **-----------** **DR.K.K.VENU, S/O.P.KUMARA PILLAI, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION S.N.TRAINING COLLEGE, NEDUNGADA, VARKALA.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.) SRI.R.RAMADAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,** - **UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE REGISTRAR,** - **UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. DR.EUGIN SUNIL,** - **ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION** - **(ON DEPUTATION), UNIVERSITY OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. DR.SABU P.SAMUEL, SELECTION GRADE LECTURER IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE.** - **R1 TO 3 BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,** **SC,KERALA UNIVERSITYTY. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, S.C.KERALA UNIVERSITYTY. R4 BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SMT.APARNA RAJAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-02-2012,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **VK** **WP(C).No. 38323 of 2007 (K) ------------------------------** **APPENDIX --------** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.05.2007 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** **EXT.P2. COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 04.12.2007 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** **EXT.P3. COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MARKS AWARDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE SELECTION COMMTTEE TO EACH OF THE CANDIDATES DATED 24.12.2007.** **EXT.P4. COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 05.01.2011 IN CONNECTION WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION.** **EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P4(A) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION INTIMATING MY APPOINTMENT DT. 31.12.07** **EXT.P4(B). COPY OF THE ORDER APPROVING MY APPOINTMENT DT. 6.3.08.** **EXT.P4(C). COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SYNDICATE DATED 4.6.09.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL** **--------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9[th] day of February, 2012. **==> picture [110 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** This writ petition relates to selection of a candidate for appointment to the post of Director of Physical Education and Sports in the Department of Physical Education of the University of Kerala. Ext.P1 notification was issued inviting applications for that post. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 applied pursuant to the notification. All the three of them were qualified for that post. A selection committee consisting of (1) the Vice Chancellor, (2) the Convener, Finance Committee of the University (Syndicate Member), (3) Two Syndicate Members nominated by the Vice Chancellor and (4) the Registrar of the University, conducted the interview for selection to the said post. The petitioner filed this writ petition after the interview, challenging the selection process on the ground that the selection committee had not been properly constituted. According to him, the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 stipulates the mode of constituting the selection committees for various posts including the above post. The petitioner submits that the Director of Physical Education and Sports being a teaching post, the constitution of the selection committee should have been in accordance with Statute No. 4 of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, as per which the constitution of the selection committee should have been as follows: ## W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 2 :- - “(i) The Vice-Chancellor who shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Selection committee and - (ii) (a) For the posts of Professor and Teaching Posts of similar status:- One Syndicate member to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, three outside experts chosen by the Syndicate and the Dean of the Faculty, concerned. - (b) For the posts of Reader, Lecturer etc:- One Syndicate member to be nominated by the ViceChancellor, two outside experts chosen by the Syndicate and the Head of the concerned University Department or the teacher holding charge of the Head of the Department.” The petitioner submits that the selection committee constituted did not contain the three outside experts as mentioned in Statute 4(ii)(a). Therefore, the constitution of the selection committee and consequent selection process by that committee are not in accordance with the statutes and hence the selection is liable to be quashed, is his contention. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: - “a. Call for the records of the case leading upto Ext.P1 notification and to quash the entire selection process for appointment to the post of Director, Department of Physical Education, University of Kerala. - b. Declare that the entire selection process for appointment to the post of Director, Department of Physical Education, University of Kerala is vitiated since the selection committee is not constituted in terms of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977. - c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to make any appointment to the post of Director, Department of Physical Education, W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 3 :- University of Kerala pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, pending disposal of the above writ petition.” 2. At the time of admission, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that any appointment made would be subject to the result of the writ petition. Subsequently, the 4[th] respondent was selected and appointed to the said post pending the writ petition. 3. Both the University and the 4[th] respondent who was subsequently selected, have filed counter affidavits. 4. The contention raised by the University is that the post of Director of Physical Education is not a teaching post but a non-teaching post and therefore what is applicable is not Statute 4(ii)(a) of Chapter 3, but Statute 8 of Chapter 4 of the Statutes applicable to non-teaching post, which reads thus: “8. Recruitment to posts:- The Recruitment to posts shall be made on the basis of the recommendation made by a Selection Board consisting of the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman, Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on staff, equipment and buildings, Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Finance and two Syndicate Members to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor from time to time. The Registrar shall be the Secretary to be Board. The Board may conduct such tests as are deemed necessary to determine the suitability of candidates for appointment. It may also fix the rates of fee for admission to the tests. In making appointments by direct recruitment to posts of non-teaching staff in the University, the University shall observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 14 and rules 15, 16 and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 as amended from time to time. W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 4 :- Provided that it shall be competent for the ViceChancellor to make recruitment to posts the maximum of which does not exceed Rs.600 with or without the aid or advice of the Committee, in case he is of opinion that appointments to the University should be made immediately.” According to the University, the selection committee has been constituted in accordance with Statute 8 of Chapter 4 of the Statutes and therefore there is no illegality in the constitution of the selection committee. 5. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in **P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University and another** , AIR1997 SC 3433, which was followed by two Division Benches of this Court in **Cochin University of Science and Technology v. Joseph James** , 2005(4) KLT 555 and **Sivasankara Kaimal v. University of Calicut,** 2003(1) KLT 146 to hold that Physical Education Teachers and Coaches come within the definition of 'Teacher' in the respective University Acts. The petitioner would contend that even assuming that the post is not a teaching post, even then, the constitution of the committee is not in accordance with Statute 8 of Chapter 4 of the Statutes, insofar as the selection committee did not comprise of the Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff, Equipment and Buildings. 6. Counsel for the University would submit that the Supreme Court had rendered its decision on the question as to whether Physical Education Director would come within the definition of 'teacher' in the particular statute W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 5 :- only on the basis of materials available with the Court as to the duties and functions of the post of Physical Education Director. He would argue that just because the Physical Education Director of Cochin University of Science and Technology has been held to be a teacher, that does not ipso facto mean that a Director of Physical Education and Sports of the Kerala University also would be a teacher, since it would depend on the duties and functions of the post of Director of Physical Education and Sports of the Kerala University. He points out that the petitioner has not furnished any materials in that direction and without such materials, this Court cannot automatically apply the decisions relied on by the petitioner for coming to the conclusion that the term 'teacher' would take in Director of Physical Education and Sports of Kerala University. Counsel for the University would take another contention that in the schedule to the Kerala University First Ordinance, 1978, the post of Physical Education Director is included as a non-teaching post and insofar as the petitioner has not sought a declaration that the same is ultravires the Act, the petitioner cannot sustain a contention that the post of Director of Physical Education of the University of Kerala is a teaching post. He tries to distinguish the decisions relied on by the petitioner on these grounds. Counsel for the University also submits that the petitioner waited for 20 days after participating in the interview for challenging the constitution of the selection committee and W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 6 :- that also would go against the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the 4[th] respondent also adopts the contentions of the University . She would further contend that just because one of the members of the selection committee did not participate in the selection proceedings, the constitution of the selection committee and consequent selection process cannot be held to be vitiated. She would further submit that after having participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot thereafter turn around and contend that the selection process is vitiated. 8. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 9. On a perusal of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. It was perfectly open to the University, who is in the know of the duties and functions of the Director of Physical Education better than anybody else to state in their pleadings what are the duties and functions of the Director of Physical Education and Sports to disprove the contention of the petitioner that the post of Director of Physical Education and Sports of the Kerala University is a non-teaching staff. The fact that they have not done so would prompt me to hold that the duties and functions of the Director of Physical Education and Sports of Kerala University is none other than those of the Director of Physical Education of other Universities in Kerala, particularly Cochin University of Science and Technology, which was considered in **Joseph Jame's case** (supra). The W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 7 :- term “teacher” has been defined in the Kerala University Act in Section 2(27), which reads thus: “2. (27). 'teacher' means a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, instructor, or such other person imparting instructions to students or supervising research in any of the colleges or recognized institutions and whose appointment has been approved by the University.” ## In **Ramamohana Rao's case** (supra), the Supreme Court has held thus in paragraphs 10 and 11 as follows: “10. From the aforesaid affidavit it is clear that a Physical Director has multifarious duties. He not only arranges games and sports for the students every evening and looks after the procurement of sports material and the maintenance of the grounds but also arranges inter-class and inter-college tournaments and accompanys the students team when they go for the inter-University tournaments. For that purpose it is one of his important duties to guide them about the rules of the various games and sports. It is well known that different games and sports have different rules and practices and unless the students are guided about the said rules and practices they will not be able to play the games and participate in the sports in a proper manner. Further, in our view, it is inherent in the duties of a Physical Director that he imparts to the students various skills and techniques of these games and sports. There are large number of indoor and outdoor games in which the students have to be trained. Therefore, he has to teach them several skills and the techniques of these games apart from the rules applicable to these games. 11. Having regard to the above-said material before us, we are clearly of the view that the appellant comes within the definition of a teacher in sub-clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act.” If the duties and functions of the Director of Physical Education and Sports were anything other than those stated W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 8 :- in the said decision, the University would have stated so in their pleadings and in the absence of such pleadings, it can be inferred that the duties and functions of the Director of Physical Education and Sports of the University of Kerala is the same. In the decisions of the two Division Benches of this Court in **Joseph Jame's case** (supra) and **Sivasankara Kaimal's case** (supra), the Division Benches held that similar posts are teaching posts. In fact, in **Sivasankara Kaimal's case** (supra), the Division Bench went to the extent of saying that even Coaches are teachers. Insofar as it is common knowledge that practically the Directors of Physical Education in all the Universities in Kerala carries out the same duties and functions, I am inclined to follow the two Division Bench decisions of this Court to hold that the post of Director of Physical Education and Sports of the University of Kerala is a teaching post. 10. As far as the contention of the counsel for the University that since the petitioner has not challenged the entries in the schedule to the Kerala University First Ordinance, 1978 describing the post of Director of Physical Education as non-teaching post, all I have to do is to quote paragraphs 12 and 13 of **Sivasankara Kaimal's case** , which reads as follows: “12. Ordinances are framed by the University as empowered under S. 36 of the Calicut University Act. The said section reads as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, the Syndicate shall have power to make Ordinance providing for all ## W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 ## -: 9 :- or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the levy of fees in colleges and other institutions, by the University; (b) the residence and discipline of students; (c) the work load and pattern of teaching staff in colleges; (d) the fixation of the scales of pay of various posts in the University and the terms and conditions of service of officers of the University; and (e) all other matters which by this Act or the Statutes are to be or may be, provided for by the Ordinances.” Thus any Ordinance framed shall be subject to the provisions in the Act. In other words, any provision contained in the Ordinance cannot run contra to any of the provisions in the Act. The Schedule, a relevant provision in the Ordinance, categorise “coaches” into non-teaching category. We have already held that coaches come within the definition of teacher or teacher of the University as the case may be in terms of the Act. When in terms of the Act coaches are teachers, by making a provision in the Ordinance, such teachers cannot be categorised as members of non-teaching staff. The definition is contained in the plenary legislation, whereas the exclusion comes in subordinate legislation brought in as empowered by the plenary legislation. Necessarily, the plenary legislation will prevail over the subordinate legislation and whatever stated in the subordinate legislation contrary to the parent legislation, shall have no enforceability and has to be declared ultra vires. In the result, the prayer sought for by the appellants in that regard has to be allowed. 13. When we do so, necessarily, the petitioners/appellants have to be treated as teachers. When they are teachers, it shall have to be declared that they can continue until the age of superannuation as are applicable to the teachers viz., 60 years as per the First Statute.” 11. The provision of the University Acts of both Universities are in pari materia in that respect. Even assuming that the post is not a teaching post, the petitioner W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 10 :- would point out that the selection committee has not been constituted even in accordance with Statute 8 of Chapter 4 of the First Statutes, insofar as the selection committee did not contain the Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff of Equipments and Buildings as per the Statute. Counsel for the University could not satisfy me that the selection committee was constituted with the Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff, Equipment and Buildings. The petitioner has specifically stated in the writ petition the constitution of the selection committee, which has not been controverted by the University. I am also not able to countenance the contention of the 4[th] respondent that simply because in the process of interview one of the members of the Committee did not participate the selection cannot be vitiated. For accepting that contention, essentially, either the 4[th] respondent or the University should contend before me that actually the selection committee constituted consisted of all the members as prescribed in Statute 8 of Chapter 4 and one of them did not participate on the date of interview. No such pleading is forthcoming in the counter affidavits. Even though the petitioner has not specifically sought a declaration to the effect that the entries in the schedule to the First Ordinance are ultravires the Kerala University Act, insofar as that is a pure question of law and no other fact has to be ascertained for deciding that issue, I am inclined to follow the Division Bench decision to hold that W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 11 :- the Schedule to the Ordinance being contrary to the definition of 'teacher' in the Act, the same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of negativing the contention of the petitioner. As such, I am inclined to hold that the post of Director of Physical Education and Sports in the Kerala University is a teaching post. That being so, necessarily the constitution of the selection committee for selection to that post should have been in accordance with Statute 4(ii) (a) of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes quoted above. 12. It is not disputed before me that the selection committee did not contain three outside experts or the Convener of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff of Equipments and Buildings. Therefore, the constitution of the selection committee is vitiated. 13. Of course, a contention is raised by the counsel for the 4[th] respondent that the omission to include one of the two persons, stipulated in the statute, in the selection committee will not vitiate the selection itself if the selection has been conducted bona fide. I am unable to countenance that contention also. A learned Judge of this Court in **Ajitha v. Mahatma Gandhi University,** 2001(2) KLT 878 has held as follows on the same question: “3. When the statute provides for the constitution of the selection committee, any committee which is not constituted in terms of the statute cannot be termed as one legally constituted and the selection conducted by such a committee cannot have legal efficacy. This Court in the decision reported in Sree Sankaracharya University of ## W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 12 :- ## Sanskrit v. State (1996 (2) KLT 378) held as follows: “The Supreme Court as well as this Court has consistently held that when an Act prescribes a particular mode or manner in which certain things are to be done by an authority, it could be done only in the manner or mode prescribed by the Act. Thus, in this case, when S. 31 enjoins that the Vice Chancellor shall appoint the teachers on the advice of the selection committee constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statute, the selection committee must be constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statute. That has not been done.......” ## Further, appointment shall be on the advice of: “.....the Selection Committee constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statutes. As per this Section, the selection committee must be constituted in the manner prescribed by the Statutes and not otherwise. The constitution of the Selection Committee should be in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act....” When admittedly Dr. V.D. Sebastian, a guest lecturer in the University, is associated in the selection committee in place of an outside expert, it cannot be said that the selection committee was one property and legally constituted. The Constitution of the selection committee was not thus in the mode or manner prescribed by the Act. 4. Even very recently the Supreme Court has held in S. Ramanathan v. Union of India & Ors. (2000 (2) SCC 118) that: “........ if there has been an infraction in the matter of compliance of the said Rule, what direction could be given to the appropriate authority? The Cadre Rules are statutory in nature, having been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. The language of sub-r. (2) of R. 4, as it stood prior to its amendment is rather peremptory in nature and thus it requires that the Central Government has to re-examine the strength and composition of each cadre in consultation with the State Government concerned and make such alteration therein, as it deems fit. It is no doubt true that an infraction of the aforesaid provisions does not confer a vested right with an employee for requiring the court to issue any mandamus. W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 13 :- But it cannot be denied that if there has been an infraction of the provisions and no explanation is forthcoming from the Central Government, indicating the circumstances under which the exercise could not be undertaken, the aggrieved party may well approach a court and a court in its turn would be well within its jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions.... That apart when rules and regulations provide for certain things to be done at a certain period, the same should normally be observed and if there has been failure, the court should compel the performance of that duty.” Here no situation of extra ordinary nature not to apply normal rule is pleaded and substantiated by the University. In such situation the ruling relied on by the contesting respondents cannot improve their case and it has no bearing on the fact situation in this case. As held by the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr. (AIR 1975 SC 1331), rules and regulations framed under a statute have the force of law and breach of such rules and regulations would render the executive action justiciable. The importance of observance of the rule in the matter of recruitment has been again reiterated by the Supreme Court though in a different context in Dr. M.A. Haque & Ors. v. Union of India (1993 (2) SCC 213) as follows: “We cannot lose sight of the fact that the recruitment rules made under Art. 309 of the Constitution have to be followed strictly and not in breach”. This is applicable to the statutory rules in the first statute as extracted above. I am in agreement with the ratio of that decision. Therefore, applying the same, I do not find any merit in that contention of the 4[th] respondent's counsel. 14. I do not also find any merit in the contention of the University that the challenge made by the petitioner is belated because he waited for 20 days after the interview to challenge the constitution of the committee as not properly W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 14 :- constituted. The petitioner knew about the constitution of the Selection Committee only when he appeared for the interview before the selection committee and after the interview, within a period of 20 days, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the selection committee, at which time he was not made aware of the result of the selection. 20 days is a reasonable time to form an opinion about the illegality, get legal advice and to challenge the same. Therefore, I cannot non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay. For the same reason, I cannot accept the contention of the counsel for the 4[th] respondent that the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the constitution of the selection committee after having undergone the selection process. The petitioner could know about the illegality in the selection process only after he appeared for the interview before the selection committee and found that the selection committee was not properly constituted. 15. I also note the contention of the petitioner that the selection of the 4[th] respondent is mala fide, which is evident from Ext.P3 marks awarded to the three candidates, which shows that for all components except interview, the petitioner was awarded more marks than the 4[th] respondent, which would go to show that for the interview the 4[th] respondent was deliberately given more marks and the petitioner was given less marks so as to facilitate the selection of the 4[th] respondent. Ext.P3 mark sheet reads W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 15 :- thus: |**_Sl._**<br>**_No._**|**_Name of_**<br>**_Candidate_**|**_Academic_**<br>**_qualificati_**<br>**_on (% of_**<br>**_marks_**<br>**_secured at_**<br>**_the PG_**<br>**_Exam._**<br>**_reduced to_**<br>**_25)_**<br>**_25_**|**_Publicatio_**<br>**_n of_**<br>**_Research_**<br>**_Papers in_**<br>**_approved_**<br>**_Journals_**<br>**_(2 marks_**<br>**_for each_**<br>**_paper)_**|**_Teaching_**<br>**_experience_**<br>**_(1 for_**<br>**_each year)_**<br>**_maximum 10_**<br>**_marks) at_**<br>**_the_**<br>**_Uty./Colle_**<br>**_ge level_**<br>**_10_**|**_Marks_**<br>**_for_**<br>**_produ_**<br>**_cing_**<br>**_Ph.D_**<br>**_(3_**<br>**_for_**<br>**_each)_**<br>_15_|**_Other_**<br>**_related_**<br>**_qualifi_**<br>**_cations_**<br>**_and_**<br>**_academi_**<br>**_c_**<br>**_excelle_**<br>**_nce_**<br>**_5_**|**_Participa_**<br>**_tion/Pres_**<br>**_entation_**<br>**_of papers_**<br>**_in_**<br>**_National/_**<br>**_Internati_**<br>**_onal_**<br>**_Conferenc_**<br>**_e (1 mark_**<br>**_for each_**<br>**_paper)10_**|**_Total_**<br>**_(Col._**<br>**_3-8)_**|**_Perfor_**<br>**_mance_**<br>**_in the_**<br>**_interv_**<br>**_iew_**<br>**_25_**|**_Total_**<br>**_(Col._**<br>**_9 &_**<br>**_10)_**| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |**_1_**|**_Dr.E.Eugine_**<br>**_Sunil_**|**_14.75_**|**_4_**|**_10_**|**_--_**|**_--_**|**_4_**|**_32.75_**|**_22_**|**_54.75_**| |**_2_**|**_Dr. Sabu P._**<br>**_Samuel_**|**_15.5_**|**_4_**|**_10_**|**_--_**|**_--_**|**_6_**|**_35.5_**|**_6_**|**_41.5_**| |**_3_**|**_Dr._**<br>**_K.K._**<br>**_Venu_**|**_17.25_**|**_10_**|**_10_**|**_--_**|**_--_**|**_7_**|**_44.25_**|**_8_**|**_52.25_**| I am of the opinion that the pattern of the marks would lend credence to the contention of the petitioner. But, since I am holding that even otherwise the selection is vitiated, I am not elaborating on the same. 16. For all the above reasons, I am satisfied that the Selection committee constituted for selection to the post of Director of Physical Education and Sports of the Kerala University pursuant to Ext.P1 notification was not constituted in accordance with the University Statutes and therefore the selection by that selection committee is not sustainable. It is declared so. Since the selection was made subject to the result of the writ petition, the selection of the 4[th] respondent subsequent to the passing of the interim order also cannot be sustained. The order appointing the 4[th] respondent being result of an unsustainable selection, the same is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the University is directed to constitute a W.P(C) No. 38323 of 2007 -: 16 :- proper selection committee in accordance with Statute 4(ii) (a) of Chapter 3 and conduct a fresh selection from among the candidates who applied for the post pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The said exercise shall be taken up and completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, the 4[th] respondent shall be allowed to continue. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/