High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-08-02Writ petition allowed; appointment ordered

Dr. Mary Senterla P.S. v. Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarsini Hills, Kottayam and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 21429 of 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-08-02
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner to the post from the date of her interview and to pay all salary and arrears to which she is entitled.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; appointment ordered

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Mary Senterla P.S.

Respondents

Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarsini Hills, Kottayam (represented by its Registrar)
Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University
Director, School of International Relations & Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University
Selection Committee represented by its Chairman, School of International Relations & Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Mohan Jacob George
• T. K. Navas
• Nigi George
• P. V. Parvathi
• Reena Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Asok M. Cherian

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dr. Mary Senterla P.S., the petitioner, challenged Mahatma Gandhi University’s rejection of her application for the post of Professor in the School of International Relations & Politics (reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian) on grounds that the selection process and its interpretation of eligibility were inconsistent with UGC norms and the composite-qualification doctrine. The University had rejected her claim on the basis that she lacked the minimum number of publications (ten, under pre-2010 UGC norms) and treated teaching experience and guiding doctoral research as separate qualifications. The petitioner, who had been recognized as a Research Guide and had publications and conference involvement, contended that the qualifying standard is composite: a combination of postgraduate teaching experience, research and supervising at the doctoral level, and a track record of high-quality publications. The matter traces back to earlier writ petitions (including W.P.(C) No. 4248/2012) and a 2015 judgment (Ext.P14) that directed screening per certain notifications, with the University subsequently conducting a re-screening (2016–2017) and again rejecting the petition. Relying on the Supreme Court’s composite-qualification doctrine in BC Mylarappa, the petitioner argued that the University improperly counted the eligible criteria. The court examined these contentions, found the impugned decision arbitrary and contrary to law, and ultimately allowed the writ petition, directing appointment from the date of interview and payment of salary/arrears. The judgment underscores the need to count teaching and guiding-research together in evaluating eligibility for professorships and to apply high-quality scholarly output, not merely numeric publication counts.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Regulations for Professor (pre-2010 norms)UGC Guidelines for qualification to the post of Professor (composite qualification requirement)UGC Regulations regarding counting of teaching and research experience as a composite qualificationRight to Information Act (RTI) – cited in RTI exhibits

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Composite qualification doctrine: teaching experience and guiding research to be counted together
Quality over quantity principle in academic publications (prefer high-quality publications to meet eligibility)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the eligibility criteria for the post of Professor must be applied as a composite standard, taking into account both teaching experience and guiding doctoral research, along with quality publications. She highlights the Supreme Court’s composite-qualification principle (as per BC Mylarappa) and points out that the screening committee relied on pre-2010 UGC norms that emphasized numbers rather than an integrated assessment of teaching, research, and supervision. The petitioner produced evidence of research guidance, publications, and professional activity (Exts. P8–P11) and argues that the impugned rejection misinterpreted the norms and ignored the composite requirement, causing prejudice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that eligibility was determined under the UGC norms applicable at the relevant time, focusing on ten publications for the post and treating research guidance as not constituting a separate requirement. They assert the selection committee thoroughly examined the candidate’s qualifications and that the decision to reject was based on lack of evidence of guiding doctoral research at the time of application, as well as the absence of hard copies of publications as claimed. They contend the court’s intervention is unwarranted given the criteria and the University’s notification (Ext.P7) and the directions from W.P.(C) 4248/2012 (E).

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
B.C Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors	(2008) 14 SCC 306	Positive	Supports the composite-qualification doctrine; holds that teaching experience and guiding research must be considered together rather than separately.
W.P.(C) No. 4248 of 2012 (E)	W.P.(C) No. 4248 of 2012 (E)	Mentioned Only	High Court’s directions to base screening on that judgment; used as background, not a direct ratio for the present case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. Mary Senterla P.S. v. Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarsini Hills, Kottayam and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** DR.MARY SENTERLA P.S. AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.P.V.JOSEPH, PERIKILAKKATTU HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL P.O.,PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686575 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SRI.T.K.NAVAS SMT.NIGI GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 M.G.UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686001,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 2 VICE CHANCELLOR M.G.UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686001 3 DIRECTOR SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & POLITICS,M.G.UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM686001 4 SELECTION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & POLITICS,M.G.UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686001 BY ADV SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SC. ASOK M CHERIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The facts in brief are that the first respondent, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam vide notification dated 30.4.2010, Ext.P1 notified the petitioner to be a member of the Post Graduate Board of Studies in the Department of Political Science. The petitioner is also recognized Research Guide of the first respondent University as per order dated 30.5.2009, Ext.P2 and member of several Interview Board as subject Expert, Ext.P2(a). She had been conferred Doctorate in International Relations as per the certificate 7.3.1995, Ext.P3 and a first class holder in M.A Politics, Ext.P4. 2. Pursuant to the notification dated 18.8.2009 caused by the first respondent University notifying the post of Professor in the Department of School of International Relations & Politics, petitioner submitted an application for the said post which has been rejected by the Respondents on the ground that the required number of publications as per the UGC norms was not held by the petitioner. The aforementioned rejection was **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **3** challenged by the petitioner vide W.P.(C) No.5980/2010 which was opposed by the respondents on the ground that it was not the number of publications that is warranted but the quality of the publications. This Court vide judgment dated 11.11.2011 repelled the contentions. 3. On 28.7.2010, respondents invited another application for the post of Professor in the said Department from members of the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian Community, Ext.P7. Petitioner, having ten years of experience in Post Graduate teaching and experience in Research in the University including experience of guiding research at doctoral level, satisfied the aforementioned qualifications, applied for the same which has also been rejected by the first respondent , on the premise that she did not have the minimum of ten (10)publications as Books and for Research/Policy papers vide Ext.P11 dated 13.1.2012. The aforementioned selection was challenged in W.P.(C) No.4248/2012. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, University conducted a re-screening of the application and again rejected. Ultimately the writ petition was heard and **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **4** allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 12.8.2015, Ext.P14. As per the judgment, screening committee was constituted by the first respondent with the Vice Chancellor as the Chairman and considered the application of the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P7 notification. Petitioner was informed that the matter was placed before the Syndicate. However, in the meantime, received a communication dated 6.9.2016 to appear before an interview to be conducted on 26.9.2016, Ext.P16. But interview was postponed as per the communication Ext.P17. In that circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file contempt case. Accordingly, the date of interview was rescheduled and the petitioner appeared before the selection committee. No communication regarding application/interview was received, resulted in seeking information under RTI. 4. On going through the minutes of the Selection Committee Ext.P21, it was found that the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that she did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed by UGC prior to 2010 Regulations. The decision of the respondents is wholly atrocious, for, the **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **5** respondents have taken the guiding research and teaching as separate and not together, which is not in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in _**B.C Mylarappa @ Dr. Chikkamylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah and Ors**_ . _**[(2008) 14 SCC 306].**_ In the aforementioned judgment, identical conditions were notified in the notification and the respondents had considered the teaching experience separately than that of the guiding research which was negated by Supreme Court, as it was to be considered compositely. Even in the aforementioned cited judgment, the Chairman of the Department on scrutiny and verification found the petitioner to be eligible by fulfilling all conditions. In this case also, Screening Committee held on 16.12.2015 after scrutiny of the application was resolved to shortlist her for selection and interview to be conducted by a Committee duly constituted under the statutes. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University supported the impugned decision on the premise that the petitioner was the only candidate and the first Ph.D scholar **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **6** under the guide-ship of the petitioner, was registered only on a date well after the date of submission of the application, which clearly deciphered that the petitioner did not have prescribed qualification on the date of the submission of the application. The selection committee did not recommend appointment of the petitioner of having not satisfied the standard of qualifications required for appointment as Professor. She had neither the experience of guiding research at Doctoral level nor had published works of high quality. 6. The aforementioned contentions were repelled by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to series of documents Exts.P8, P8(a), P8(b) and P9 ie., the Articles published in Stars (International Journal on Humanities and Social Sciences) in June 2005 as well as in December 2005. Another Article in 'The Pharmaceutical patents in India: Challenges and Opportunities' was published in another reputed journal ie., Holistic Thought in June 2010, Ext.P9. Petitioner attended various Seminars both at the International and National level and presentations in various Seminars and **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **7** Refresher courses was made. Copy of the application submitted by the petitioner also evidencing her Profile, Ext.P10. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. The qualification prescribed for the aforementioned post was as per the UGC guidelines same reads thus: ## 1.3.1 Professor An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, with 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level. OR An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge. ## The reasoning assigned by the respondents in rejecting her ## candidature is extracted herein below: The Selection Committee for the post of Professor in the School of International Relations and Politics (Reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian) has examined the application of Dr. Mary Senterla. P.S. The Committee made a thorough examination of all the documents in this regard placed before it. It also interviewed the candidate and clarified all aspects related to claims in the application form, her qualifications, research experience and publications. The Committee found that she had no evidence of guiding research at the doctoral level at the time of submission of application. Also she could not produce hard copies of the publications as on date of application that she had claimed in her application. **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **8** The Committee took into consideration the directions of the Honourable High Court of Kerala that the selection be done on the basis of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 4248 of 2012 (E). On the basis of the above mentioned points the Committee unanimously found that she did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed by the UGC prior to 2010 Regulations and the Mahatma Gandhi University notification as on the date of application. Thus the Committee did not recommend the candidate for the post of Professor in the School of International Relations and Politics as per the UGC and University notification referred above. On perusal of the reasoning assigned in Ext.P21, the committee found that the petitioner did not have the evidence of guiding research at the doctoral level at the time of submission of application. Nor she could produce hard copies of the publications. The qualification as enumerated above, do not segregate 10 years experience for consideration of the candidature by treating the guiding research as a separate qualification. It is a composite one. Paragraph 13 of the judgment in _**B.C Mylarappa**_ cited (supra), noticed arguments of the affected candidate in Para 19 and findings in Para 27 and 28 are extracted herein below: 13. The University thereafter issued a notification on 30th of September, 2002, inviting various persons to apply for the post of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in the University. In the said notification, the University invited candidates for the post of Professors in which the following qualifications were **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **9** required :- "An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in Research with : 10 years of experience of Post-Graduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level Institutions (including experience of guiding research at Doctoral Level). Or An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge." 19.xxx Secondly it was argued by Mr.Rama Jois, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the High Court also erred in allowing the writ petition of the respondents by holding that having regard to the wording of the prescription both the periods of experience in teaching as Lecturer for a period of 8 years 7 months and 2 days and experience as Research Assistant for a period of 5 years 5 months and 10 days ought to have been taken into account and after taking into account the aforesaid period, the High Court ought to have held that the appellant was eligible for being selected as a Professor in the Sociology Department of the University and by not doing so, the High Court erred in setting aside the appointment of the appellant. 27. Before we conclude, at the risk of repetition, we may reiterate that the Chairman, Department of Sociology, University of Bangalore submitted his scrutiny and verification report in which it was stated as under: "On my scrutiny, I am satisfied that the candidate under reference fulfils all the requirements as laid down in the University Notification under reference and the candidate may be invited for the interview. If the candidate is not eligible, please furnish the details." 28. A reading of the scrutiny report which was extracted by the learned Single Judge in his order would clearly show that the Chairman found only four persons eligible for the post and invited the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and one more candidate for interview. After being satisfied **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **10** and after verifying the report of the eligibility and the requirements for appointment to the post of Professor in the Sociology Department of the University, the scrutiny and verification report was filed by the Chairman and on the basis of which the appellant was selected and appointed in the post of Professor in the University. That being the position and in view of our discussions made herein above, we are of the view that the Division Bench as well as the learned single judge ought not to have exercised the writ jurisdiction and interfered with the selection of the expert committee of the University for the reasons made in the order and particularly when the selection of the appellant was not challenged on the ground of mala fides. It is not in dispute that the petitioner do not have 10 years of experience but the respondents for the sake of repetition have taken the guided research as Separate. Petitioner has done UGC sponsored minor project on 'the impact of Epidemics on the Economy of Kerala State' as evidenced by Ext.P26. She was appointed by the University as a research guide in view of series of Ext.P8; Articles of the petitioner were published in STARS journal. She had minimum three publications including a book at the time of submission of the application ie., Ext.P8, P8(a), P8(b) and P9. Thus the decision of the respondent Ext.P21 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable and hereby set aside. Petitioner fulfills the qualification and therefore required to be appointed on the said post. Writ **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **11** petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the said post from the date of her interview and pay all the salary and arrears which the petitioner is entitled to. The aforementioned directions are issued as this Court while admitting the writ petition vide order dated 7.7.2017 observed that the appointments, if any with respect to Sl.No.2 in Ext.P21 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. Sd/- sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **12** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21429/2017** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF NOTIFICATION| ||NO.2954/2010/1/ELEN. DATED 30.04.2010| |EXHIBIT P2|COPY OF ORDER NO.2365/C./VI/1/RG/2009/ACAD. DATED| ||30.05.2009| |EXHIBIT P2(A)|COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23.10.2008 ISSUED BY| ||ST.DOMINIC'S COLLEGE, KANJIRAPPILLY| |EXHIBIT P3|COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 07.03.1995 EVIDENCING| ||THE AWARD OF PH.D IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS| |EXHIBIT P4|COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.2.1988 PLACING THE| ||PETITIONER IN FIRST CLASS IN M.A.POLITICS| |EXHIBIT P5|COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 15.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE| ||FIRST RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P6|COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY| |EXHIBIT P7|COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 28.07.2010| |EXHIBIT P8|COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF BOOK TITLED "INDO| ||SOVIET RELATIONS 1971-80" PUBLISHED BY POLITICAL| ||SCIENCE ASSOCIATION OF KERALA| |EXHIBIT P8(A)|COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL STARS| ||TITLED "TERRORISM : SOCIAL -POLITICAL DIMENSIONS"| ||VOL.6, NO.1, JUNE 2005| |EXHIBIT P8(B)|COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL TITLED| ||"INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM : A GLOBAL THREAT", VOL.6,| ||NO.2 DECEMBER 2005| |EXHIBIT P9|COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL TITLED "THE| ||PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS IN INDIA : CHALLENGES AND| ||OPPORTUNITIES"| |EXHIBIT P10|COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| |EXHIBIT P11|COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 13.01.2012| **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** **13** - EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF ORDER NO.4233/L/ACAD/2011 DATED 1ST AUGUST 2011 - EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.AII/3186/2010 DATED 10.03.2015 - EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THEM JUDGEMENT DATED 12.08.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.4248/2012 - EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE DATED 16.12.2015 - EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.09.2016 EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.9.2016 INFORMING THAT THE INTERVIEW IS POSTPONED - EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF THE STATEMENT/AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY - EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF A NEWS ITEM THAT APPEARED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 29.12.2016 - EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT - EXHIBIT P20(A) COPY OF THE REPLY NO.AD .AII/3/15/RTI/2017/ADMN. DATED 07.02.2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY - EXHIBIT P21 COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE EXHIBIT P22 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 20.1.2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT - EXHIBIT P23 COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE UGC REGULATIONS REGARDING QUALIFICATION TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR - EXHIBIT P24 COPY OF THE ACCEPTANCE LETTER DATED 31.08.2010 EXHIBIT P25 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF JOURNAL TITLED "PUBLISHED RESEARCH ARTICLES"- LIFESTYLE DISEASES A THREAT TO KERALA ECONOMY, STARS **14** ## **WP(C) NO. 21429 OF 2017** EXHIBIT P26 COPY OF THE COVER PAGE OF THE PROJECT- "THE IMPACT OF EPIDEMICS ON THE ECONOMY OF KERALA STATE - A CASE STUDY OF MEENACHIL TALUK" EXHIBIT P27 COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.6264/AC.AIX/I/2011/AC.AIX/I/2011/ACAD. DATED P.D.HILLS, 21.11.2011 EXHIBIT P28 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.1998 EVIDENCING THE APPOINTMNET OF DR.A.M.THOMAS AND DR.K.M.SEETHI EXHIBIT P29 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD ALL(1)/5038/2017/ADMN DATED 19.06.2017 ISSUED BY M.G.UTY FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF PROFESSORS EXHIBIT P30 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.07.2017 NO.AII(1)5038/2017/ADMN ISSUED BY M.G.UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P31 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2018 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. UO 781/A11(1)2018.