Dr. Rajeswari R. v. Registrar, Cochin University of Science and Technology & Others (WA No.1568 of 2019)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **FRIDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1944** ## **WA NO. 1568 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 28/3/2019 IN WP(C) 39924/2017 OF HIGH COURT** ## **OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **DR.RAJESWARI.R, AGED 42 YEARS D/O. M.S RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT 2/139, NEW KALPATHY, PALAKKAD 678 003** **BY ADVS.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.) SMT.B.SHAMEERA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, COCHIN 682 022** - **2 THE PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, COCHIN 682 022** - **3 THE DEAN, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, COCHIN 682 022** - **4 DEVI SOUMYAJA, REG. NO. 5004 TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (OPEN) CUSAT, COCHIN 682 022** - **5 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, NEW DELHI 110 001 BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN FOR R4 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY FOR R5** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 29.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** **“C.R.”** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------------** ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** **------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2022** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **C.S.Sudha, J.** This appeal is against the judgment dated 28/03/2019 in W.P. (C)No.39924/2017. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein, the respondents in the writ petition. The parties in this appeal and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P3 rank list notified by the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), the 1[st] respondent, by which the 4[th] respondent has been declared as the first rank holder and the petitioner, the second rank holder. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 4[th] respondent is not having the necessary qualifications prescribed under Ext.P2 notification. So, the 4[th] respondent is ineligible to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, Human Resources Management, School of Management Studies, CUSAT. Hence the writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing Ext.P3 rank list ; for a direction prohibiting the first respondent University from appointing the 4[th] respondent to the post of Assistant Professor Human Resource Management (open) as notified in 3 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** Ext.P2 notification ; to declare that the petitioner is an eligible candidate based upon her qualification to the aforesaid post and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1[st] respondent University to post the petitioner to the aforesaid post. 3. Respondents 1 to 3, namely, the CUSAT filed counter contending that the 4[th] respondent has a Master's Degree in Human Resource Development (MHRD) from the University of Madras and a Ph.D. She has qualified the National Eligibility Test for Lectureship in the subject of Psychology. The Master's Degree in Human Resource Development (MHRD) obtained by the 4[th] respondent from the University of Madras has been recognised by CUSAT for the purpose of employment/higher education as per Ext.R1(a) certificate dated 01/01/2016. As CUSAT does not give MHRM Degree, it cannot issue an equivalency certificate, but can only issue a certificate like Ext.R1(a) recognising the degree for higher education/employment. Till date, the nomenclature of the degrees issued by various Universities has not been standardised. Each University names its degree as decided by the Academic Council. Therefore, when a notification for employment is issued, it is not possible for the University to list out all relevant degrees, but can only give an indicative list on which the Selection Committee, consisting of experts in the relevant subjects, takes a decision on 4 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** the acceptability of the degrees obtained by the candidates after perusing their certificates and the subjects they have studied for the relevant course. It is after considering all these aspects and verifying the certificates and marks obtained by the 4[th] respondent, that the duly constituted Selection Committee consisting of experts in the subjects had decided to rank the 4[th] respondent at rank no.1 and consequentially she was given appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Human Resource Management. The petitioner has not made out any valid grounds to sustain a challenge against Ext.P3 rank list. The petitioner does not have any allegation of malafides against the Selection Committee or against respondents 1 to 3. Without any allegation of malafides or arbitrariness against the Selection Committee or the selection process, the selection conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee consisting of experts in the relevant subjects, is not liable to be interfered with, contends respondents 1 to 3. 4. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter denying the allegations of the petitioner and asserting that she has the necessary qualifications to be selected. On the other hand, the petitioner, who has obtained her qualifications _via_ distant education, is not qualified and so it is doubtful as to how she has managed to secure the 2[nd] rank in the rank list. 5. The 5[th] respondent UGC has filed counter contending that clause 5 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** 4.4.5 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, prescribes the qualifications for the post of Assistant Professor in Management Studies and it is mandatory for all educational institutions to follow the same. The UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges, 2010, notified on 18/09/2010, is applicable for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors. The question whether M.Sc. Human Resource Resource Development (Psychology) could be treated as a Masters Degree in a relevant management related studies, has to be decided by the appointing authority concerned with the help of subject experts in the field concerned. The UGC cannot give or decide any type of relevance in the subjects. 6. The learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the case of the petitioner and so dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 7. Heard Adv.V.P.Seemanthini, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Adv.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, the learned counsel for the first respondent, Adv.Rajasimhan, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent and Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel for the UGC. 8. As per Ext.P2 notification, the qualifications prescribed for the post reads - _“Minimum Qualifications:_ 6 **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** ## _i. Essential:_ _1. First Class Master's Degree (specializations required for each post given in the table below) or first class in two years full time PGDM declared equivalent by AIU/ accredited by the AICTE/ UGC_ |_Sl.No. of the post_|_Specialization_|_Master's degree_<br>_should be in:_| |---|---|---| |_….._|_….._|_….._| |_22_|_Human Resource_<br>_Management_|_MHRM/M.A. (PM &_<br>_IR) / MBA with Human_<br>_Resources management_<br>_specialization or M.A._<br>_Psychology with MBA_| |_…._|_…._|_…..”_| According to the 4[th] respondent, she is holding a Masters Degree in HRD and hence she is fully qualified to hold the post. Ext.R1(a) Recognition certificate issued by the CUSAT reads - _“Certified that all Degrees/Diplomas and other academic distinctions specified by the University Grants Commission under Section 22 of the UGC Act, awarded by Statutory Universities approved by the University Grants Commission, stand recognized by Cochin University of Science and Technology for the purpose of employment/higher education in the Cochin University of Science and Technology._ _University of Madras, Tamil Nadu, is a Statutory University recognized by the University Grants Commission. Hence it is certified that the Degree of Master of Science in Human Resource Development awarded by University of Madras, Tamil Nadu stands recognized by Cochin University of Science and Technology only for the purpose of employment/higher education in the Cochin University of Science and Technology._ 7 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** _This Certificate is issued to Ms. Devi Soumyaja, G6, Sree Primus Apartment, Opposite Sri Sri Tennis Academy, Hosapalya Main Road, Managmanapalya, Bommanahalli P.O., Bangalore - 560 068 on her request only for the purpose of applying for the post of Assistant Professor in Cochin University of Science and Technology.”_ 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the 4[th] respondent does not hold the necessary qualification as stipulated in Ext.P2 notification. On the other hand, she claims to be well qualified for the post as she is holding a Masters Degree in Business Administration (MBA), Master of Human Resource Management (MHRM), Master of Foreign Trade (MFT) and a Doctorate degree in Philosophy. As pointed out by respondents 1 to 3, in the absence of allegation of malafides or arbitrariness against the Selection Committee or selection process, the selection conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee consisting of experts in the relevant subjects, is not liable to be interfered with. The only challenge raised is regarding the qualifications of the 4[th] respondent. It is true that Ext.R1(a) is only a certificate issued by CUSAT recognising the qualifications of the 4[th] respondent for the post. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, equivalence certificate is required to be produced by the petitioner to show that she satisfies the qualifications prescribed in Ext.P2 notification. However, that 8 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** cannot be issued by CUSAT because they are not conducting an academic programme in MHRD. Even as per the Procedure to apply for Equivalence Certificate, a copy of which was handed over by the learned Senior counsel during the course of arguments, says that, as per the decision of the Academic Council, the equivalence certificate shall be issued only against the academic programmes conducted by CUSAT, on the condition that, at least 70% of both the syllabi are equal. Therefore in such circumstances, it is impossible for the petitioner to produce a equivalence certificate as submitted on behalf of the petitioner. 10. Further, the question whether a particular subject is relevant to a particular discipline or otherwise are not matters that this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can delve into or state affirmatively on, being guided by the well recognised constraints of jurisdiction when it comes to academic issues. ( **Gijo Ittoop (Dr.) vs. Kerala University of Fisheries, 2018(4) KHC 285** ). 11. We also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.232/2020 dated 21/07/2020. In the said case, the _lis_ was relating to the post of a 'Labour Welfare Superintendent' in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The issue which fell for consideration in the appeal was whether the first respondent therein fulfilled the requirements of 9 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** eligibility for the post. The advertisement issued by the appellant, namely, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi specified that the essential qualifications would consist of - (i) a degree of a recognized University or equivalent ; (ii) a post-graduate degree/diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management or in any other allied subject of a recognized University/institution or equivalent. The stand of the 1[st] respondent was that, during the course of MBA degree programme, he had studied the subjects of Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. The Apex Court considered the question whether this was sufficient to conclude that the 1[st] respondent had fulfilled the eligibility requirements. It was noticed that the 1[st] respondent did in fact have a MBA degree to his credit. The marksheets which were relied upon, indicated that during the course of the programme, the first respondent had studied among other subjects, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. Studying these two subjects, however, would not lead to the conclusion that the first respondent had a post graduate degree or diploma in the disciplines which had been specifically spelt out in the advertisement or in any allied subject. It was held that MBA degree could not be regarded as allied to a post graduate degree or diploma in Social Work, Labour Welfare, Industrial Relations or Personnel Management. The advertisement did not 10 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** specifically provide how equivalence was to be established between a postgraduate degree/diploma in the subjects specified in the advertisement and a postgraduate degree/diploma in an allied subject. It was held that the Municipal Corporation, the employer, was best suited to judge whether the degree of the first respondent was in an allied subject. Unless this assessment was found to be perverse or contrary to the requirements prescribed, it was held that no reason had been made out to interfere with the decision taken by the Corporation. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court had gone wrong in holding that the first respondent was qualified merely because he had studied two subjects as part of his MBA degree programme, namely, Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations and Labour Legislation. 12. Likewise in the present case also, respondents 1 to 3, the employer, is the best judge to decide whether the qualifications of the fourth respondent satisfies the prescriptions in Ext.P2. Unless this assessment is found to be perverse or contrary to the requirements prescribed, the same cannot be interfered with. The Selection Committee comprising of experts consisting of eminent academicians is stated to have conducted a due selection process and selected the candidate. The petitioner does not challenge or dispute the expertise of the Selection Committee or allege that 11 ## **W.A.No.1568 of 2019** there was anything arbitrary or illegal in the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee. That being the position, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for an interference. In the result, the appeal is found to be without any merits and hence the same is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** Sd/- **C.S.SUDHA JUDGE** ami/