Dr. Mini Devi.B v University of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932** **WP(C).No. 22438 of 2008(U)** **----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------------** **DR.MINI DEVI.B, W/O.AJAYAN, FLAT NO.11, C.R.H.S, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, HARIHAR NAGAR, NALANDA JUNCTION, KOWDIAR (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (WORKING AS REFERENCE ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)** **BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------** **1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY VICE-CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.** **2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR AND CHAIRPERSON OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF LECTURER DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.** **3. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARIAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.** **4. SHRI.SUDHIER.K.G., C-7, UNIVERSITY STAFF QUARTERS KARIYAVATTOM CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581 (NOW WORKING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON 24/02/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **svs** ## **WP(C).No. 22438/2008(U)** ## **APPENDIX** - **P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.H/2904/2007 DATED 26/02/2007 PUBLISHED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.AD.AVI.1/2352/2006 DATED 19/01/2006 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA FOR MLISC. DATED 23/12/1999.** - **P4: COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE DATED 10/01/2000 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA FOR MLISC.** - **P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION FOR NET.** - **P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION FOR JRF.** - **P7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11/12/2006 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PH.D FROM THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION.** - **P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AD.H/1814/2008 DATED 08/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **P9: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.AD.H.1814/2008 DATED 29/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **P10: COPY OF THE TABULATION STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE SHOWING MARKS OBTAINED BYTHE CANDIDATES WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE INTERVIEW.** - **P11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** - **P12: COPY OF CONTENTS OF JOURNAL KELPRO BULLETIN, VOLUME - 11, NO.1, PUBLISHED IN JUNE 2007.** - **P13: COPY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE PUBLICATION SRELS JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT VOL.44, NO.3 PUBLISHED IN SEPTEMBER,2007.** - **P14: COPY OF THE FACING SHEET OF THE SOUVENIR ONLINE NEWS PAPERS-A CASE STUDY OF THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY, CHENNAI PUBLISHED AT THE CONFERENCE.** **svs** **.........2/-...** **...2...** **WPC.NO.22438/2008** - **P15: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY ON 25/03/2007 CERTIFYING AS ACADEMIC COUNSELLOR OF IGNOU.** - **P16: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/03/2007 OBTAINED THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY CERTIFYING AS AN ACADEMIC COUNSELLOR OF IGNOU STUDY CENTRE, KOLLAM FOR THE BLISC. PROGRAMME.** - **P17: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED FROM LYOLA COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SHOWING THE TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN CLISC.** - **P18: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20/03/2007 OBTAINED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FORM THE GOVERNMENT COLLEGE , ATTINGAL.** - **P19: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 29/05/2008.** - **P20: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/03/2009 RECEIVED FROM THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** - **P21: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS SHOWING THE NUMBER OF TEACHING HOURS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY DATED 09/07/2008.** - **P22: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS SHOWING THE NUMBER OF TEACHING HOURS AND REMUNERATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE REGIONAL STUDY CENTRE, INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY, TRIVANDRUM DATED 17/11/2009.** - **P23: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS SHOWING THE NUMBER OF TEACHING HOURS AND REMUNERATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, ATTINGAL VIDE LETTER DATED 12/01/2009.** - **P24: COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS SHOWING THE NUMBER OF TEACHING HOURS AND REMUNERATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN TLAYOLA COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, TRIVANDRAM VIDE LTR. DATED 09/12/2008** - **P25: COPY OF THE RESUME AND DETAILED CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE PETITIONER.** - **P26: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/12/2008 SERVED BY THE EDITOR OF ANNALS OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION STUDIES, TO THE PETITIONER.** **svs** **............3/-...** **...3...** ## **WPC. NO.22438/2008** - **P27: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/03/2008 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE PUBLISHER OF KELPRO BULLETIN.** - **P28: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/12/2008 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SARADA RANGANATHAN ENDOWMENT FOR LIBRARY SCIENCE.** - **P29: COPY OF THE COVER PAGE AND CONTENT PAGE OF ILA BULLETIN.** - **P30: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/11/2008 RECEIVED FROM BY THE PETITIONER EDNOYONS, POSTER CHAIR THROUGH E.MAIL.** - **P31: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE AND PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER IN SALIS-2007.** - **P32: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION/ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE 53RD ALL INDIA CONFERENCE IN HYDERABAD.** - **P33: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER RECEIVED FROM THE PROF. & HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** - **P34: COPY OF THE IASLIC BULLETIN VOL.53 NO.1 MARCH, 2008 CONTAINING THE REPORT ON XXVI IASLIC-ALL INDIA CONFERENCE, 2007.** - **P35: COPY OF THE INVITATION CARD REGARDING THE RELEASE OF BOOK ON ALUMINI MEET, 2009, TRIVANDRUM.** - **P36: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/02/2010 IN WPC. NO.15330/2005.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R4(1):COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 28/03/2007.** **R4(2):COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KELPRO BULLETIN.** **R4(3):COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL.** ## **R4(4):COPY OF THE REPRINT PROGRAMME SCHEDULE AND THE CONTENT PAGES OF THE SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS** ## **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **svs** S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 22438 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 24[th] day of February, 2011. ## J U D G M E N T This writ petition relates to rival claims between the petitioner and the 4[th] respondent for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Library and Information Sciences in the 1[st] respondent-University. Applications were invited by Ext. P1 notification for selection to the said post. The last date stipulated in the notification for submitting the applications was 9.4.2007. The petitioner, the 4[th] respondent and others applied. An interview was conducted. The 4[th] respondent was selected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the selection of the 4[th] respondent. 2. The ground on which the petitioner challenges the selection of the 4[th] respondent is that the 4[th] respondent has been awarded marks contrary to Ext. P2 norms for award of marks for selection. As per Ext. P2, which are the norms prescribed by the University for award of marks in selection for various posts, marks were to be awarded for six components viz. (1) academic qualification, (2) additional qualifications, (3) publications in standard/approved journals (4) participation and presentation of papers in National and International Seminar/Conferences, (5) Teaching or Research experience and (6) performance in the interview. The petitioner's objection relates to component numbers (3) and (4). In respect of the 3[rd] component, the total marks awardable was 10 at the rate of 2 marks each in each paper subject to a maximum of 10 marks. For the 4[th] component, one mark each was awardable for each participation or presentation of papers for National and International Seminar/Conferences subject to a maximum of 3 marks. The petitioner's contention is that for these two components, only W.P(C) No. 22438/2008 -: 2 :- publications and attendance in seminars and conferences prior to the last date fixed for submission of applications alone can be considered. The petitioner points out that the 4[th] respondent was given the full marks of 10 although only two of his publications were prior to 9.4.2007. So also, the 4[th] respondent was given marks of 3 for participation and presentation of papers for National and International Seminar/Conference. According to the petitioner, the participation in seminars and conferences of the 4[th] respondent claimed by him was also after the last date of 9.4.2007 and therefore no marks could have been awarded to him in respect of the same. The petitioner's contention is that if the 6 marks excess awarded to the 4[th] respondent for the 3[rd] component and the 3 marks awarded for the 4[th] component are reduced, the total marks scored by the petitioner would be more than that of the 4[th] respondent. It is pointed out that as per Ext. P10 mark sheet, the 4[th] respondent scored 87.31, the petitioner scored 81.40 and another candidate by name Sri. Muhammed Haneefa scored 81.60. The petitioner contends that the said Sri. Muhammed Haneefa is no longer interested since he has already been appointed in another post in the Calicut University in which case the petitioner would be the next man to be selected and appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relies on Ext. P36 judgment in support of the contentions which was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in **Jaya v. Suchit,** 2010(2) KLT 709. The petitioner contends that the Special Leave Petition filed against the same has also been dismissed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11248/2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available to me a copy of the order in that SLP. 3. The University and the 4[th] respondent have filed counter W.P(C) No. 22438/2008 -: 3 :- affidavits justifying the selection of the 4[th] respondent. The contention of the 4[th] respondent is that the 3[rd] and 4[th] components need not necessarily be prior to the last date. Only qualification prescribed need be prior to the last date prescribed for submitting applications. The contention is that as per Ext. P1, the minimum qualification prescribed is good academic record with at least 55% or an equivalent grade at Masters Degree level in the relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent Degree from a Foreign University. The 3[rd] and 4[th] components mentioned in Ext. P2 are not essential qualifications prescribed. In Ext. P2 norms, they are included only for the purpose of deciding the good academic record of the candidate and the University has been deciding the good academic record of candidates as per Ext. P2 in all selections as on the date of interview. The contention is that an expert body consisting of the selection committee has, after considering the 3[rd] and 4[th] components applicable to the candidates, formed an expert opinion regarding their academic competence. The further contention is that the 4[th] respondent has produced documents to show that although the publications were subsequent to the last date for submitting the applications, the publications were actually accepted by the journal for publication prior to the last date for submitting applications. Therefore, the same can be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the good academic record of the 4[th] respondent is the contention. Counsel for the 4[th] respondent relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others** , (2010) 8 SCC 372 for the proposition that courts should not interfere with opinions formed by expert W.P(C) No. 22438/2008 -: 4 :- academicians in academic matters. The contention is that the expert body, viz. the selection committee has formed an opinion about the competence of the 4[th] respondent on the basis of the publications made, which decision should not be interfered with by this Court , who is not an expert on such matters. Counsel for the 4[th] respondent also submits that Ext. P36 judgment cannot be pressed into service in support of the petitioner's case since that was a case which related to qualifications and not in respect of publication and participation in national and international conference. Counsel for the 4[th] respondent also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Bimla Devi v. State of H.P.** , (2010) 11 SCC 710 for the proposition that this Court should not exercise the discretion vested with it in the mater of considering the validity of opinions of an expert selection body. 4. The University in their counter affidavit would take the contention that the University has all along been following the same procedure and insofar as there is no allegations of mala fides, this Court should not interfere with the selection. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. Although the arguments of the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent sounds attractive, I am afraid that that question is squarely covered by Ext. P36 decision, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench in **Jaya's case** (supra) and the Supreme Court. Of course, the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent would strenuously contend that that was a case which related to acquisition of Ph.D qualification before the last date fixed for submitting applications. But, in Ext. P36 judgment, while narrating the case of the petitioner therein, it is specifically W.P(C) No. 22438/2008 stated thus: -: 5 :- “. . . . . The petitioner also obtained Ext. P9 information by resorting to proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the date of the publications of the 3[rd] respondent and the dates of seminars she attended, all of which were subsequent to the last date for submitting applications, namely, 10.4.2003. . . . . .” In fact, in that judgment, I was considering the necessity to have the 3[rd] and 4[th] components mentioned in Ext. P2 in similar norms, apart from the question of Ph. D degree, which is clear from the judgment. In fact, in the operative portion of the judgment, I had specifically directed that if the marks given to the contesting respondent therein for all the three components acquired by her subsequent to the last date for submitting applications are excluded, the petitioner in that case is entitled to get first rank in the selection. The said three components include component numbers 3 and 4 in Ext. P2, which are publications in standard/approved journals and participation and presentation of papers in National and International Seminar/Conference. That means, those components also should have been acquired before the last date fixed for submitting applications. Admittedly, the 4[th] respondent had acquired the third component only in respect of two publications and therefore in respect of the same, he was entitled to only 4 marks. I do not find any merit in the contention of the 4[th] respondent that since the articles were accepted for publication prior to the last date for submitting applications, the same can be taken into account. When the norms prescribe publication, the date when the same was accepted for publication cannot be relevant. If the same is accepted, there is chance of malpractice. It is also W.P(C) No. 22438/2008 -: 6 :- admitted that in respect of the 4[th] component, the 4[th] respondent attended the seminars/conferences only subsequent to the last date fixed for submitting applications. That being so, the marks awarded to the 4[th] respondent in respect of the same are liable to be excluded from consideration. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. I hold that the award of marks has to be revised by excluding the marks awarded for components 3 and 4 acquired by any candidate after the last date for submitting applications, namely, 9.4.2007. For enabling respondents 1 to 3 to do the same, the selection of the 4[th] respondent is quashed. Fresh orders regarding the selection and appointment shall be made as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, the 4[th] respondent shall be allowed to continue. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/