High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-12-09Disposed; Writ petition dismissed and relief de...

Dr. Smitha Chacko v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 28283 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-12-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. No relief granted to petitioner; Court notes the interplay of 2018 Regulations and the authority of the University to revise procedures under Regulation 6.0; giving deference to the University’s process, the court held that the petitioner’s challenge is unsustainable and declined to interfere with Ext.P7.
Final Disposition: Disposed; Writ petition dismissed and relief denied. The University may proceed under 2018 Regulations with the selection process as revised; no interference with Ext.P7.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Smitha Chacko

Respondents

State of Kerala
Mahatma Gandhi University
Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
Manager, Corporate Management of Malankara Orthodox College
Principal, Catholicate College, Makkamkunnu
University Grants Commission
Dr. Mini George
Dr. Lija Achamma George Thoompunkal

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jacob P. Alex
• Joseph P. Alex
• Manu Sankar P.
• Amaal Amir Ali

Counsels for Respondents

• Surin George
• S. Krishnamoorthy

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No. 28283 of 2021) was filed by Dr. Smitha Chacko, an aspirant for a teaching post in Hindi, challenging an administrative order of the University (Ext.P7) dated 30.10.2021 that fixed 50 marks for the interview in the selection process for Lecturer/Assistant Professor in colleges under the University. The petitioner contends that UGC Regulations, 2018 regulate the selection process, with shortlisting based on Appendix II, Table 3A (universities) and Table 3B (colleges), and that the final selections should be based on performance in the interview as per these tables; the self-appraisal format provided by the colleges proposed 100 marks plus 20 for the interview, and the impugned order deviated from Ext.P5/4 and the 2018 Regulations. The respondents, including Mahatma Gandhi University, argued maintainability issues citing D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helene Thilakom and Others (2017) 9 SCC 478, asserting that a person who participates in the process cannot challenge its outcome, and that Regulation 6.0 permits the University to revise selection procedures, provided adherence to Appendix II Tables 1–5 and 3A/3B. The court examined Regulation 6.0 (II) and the interplay of Tables 3A/3B, noting the petitioner’s participation and the mid-stream alteration. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, holding no ground for interference, while noting that the practice criticized in the cited judgment had been deprecated. The final outcome is a dismissal of the writ petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Others Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018Regulation 6.0 (Selection Procedure)Appendix II, Table 3AAppendix II, Table 3BNote under Regulation 6.0Regulation 2(ii) of 6.0Tables 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 in Appendix II

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that the UGC 2018 Regulations prescribe Appx II Tables 3A/3B for shortlisting and for the interview; the self-appraisal format (100 marks + 20 for interview) was to be used for shortlisting, and Ext.P7’s fixation of 50 marks for the interview deviates from these rules and postpones final selection criteria. The change mid-process amount to negating the agreed procedure and undermines the fairness of the process. The petitioner asserts that the University cannot alter the procedure after inviting applications and that the alteration after the petitioner's participation is illegal and prejudicial, requiring quashing Ext.P7 and directing adherence to the Regulations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend maintainability issues under the authority of D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helene Thilakom and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 478; Regulation 6.0 empowers universities to adopt and revise selection procedures, provided adherence to Appendix II (Tables 1–5) and Appendix II Tables 3A/3B; they argue that the University’s action is within its regulatory scope to ensure transparency and fairness, and that the petitioner had already participated in the process; hence, the petition should be dismissed for lack of grounds for interference.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helene Thilakom and Others	(2017) 9 SCC 478	Mentioned Only	The court cites this Supreme Court decision to indicate that the practice of challenging post-selection actions has been deprecated; however, it does not follow the principle and dismisses the petition, using the judgment more as a cautionary reference than a binding precedent for the outcome.

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. Smitha Chacko v. State of Kerala 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`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` DR.SMITHA CHACKO, AGED 40 YEARS, VAYALINKAROTTU, ELAKOLLOOR P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 691. ``` ``` BY ADVS. JACOB P.ALEX JOSEPH P.ALEX MANU SANKAR P. AMAL AMIR ALI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ``` - `2 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHANI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 560.` - `3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, NEAR FIRE STATION, VAYASKARA KUNNU, KOTTAYAM, PIN-6896 001.` - `4 MANAGER, CORPORATE MANAGEMENT OF MALANKARA, ORTHODOX CHURCH COLLEGES, DEVALOKAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 004.` - `5 PRINCIPAL, CATHOLICATE COLLEGE, MAKKAMKUNNU, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645.` - `6 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.` - `7 DR. MINI GEORGE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI,` ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -2- ``` ``` CATHOLICATE COLLEGE, MAKKAMKUNNU, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. ``` ``` 8DR.LIJA ACHAMMA GEORGE THOOMPUNKAL, MALAYIL, KANIYAMPARA, KAVIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 582. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.SURIN GEORGE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -3- ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** Order dated 31.10.2021 of the University Ext.P7 before conducting the interview for section of teachers to the Colleges fixing the criteria for awarding of the marks in the interview after completion of the selection process on 16.11.2021 has been challenged through the instant writ petition. 2. Petitioner, an aspirant, for having been appointed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Hindi pursuant to the notification caused by respondent No.4 by inviting applications, submitted an application. University Grants Commission (UGC) came out with ‘UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 fixing certain conditions. Note under Regulation B of Regulation 4.1 dealing with the direct recruitment for the disciplines of various courses including the subject Hindi, specified that the academic ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -4- ``` score would be as per the Appendix II (Table 3A) for Universities and Appendix II (Table 3B) for Colleges, for the purpose of short listing of the candidates for interview only, and selections would be based on the performance in the interview. 3. Mr.Jacob P.Alex, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills the conditions as per Table 3B of Appendix II for the purpose of short listing, in as much as that the Corporate Management of the Colleges had given a format to the petitioner to do the self-appraisal by fixing hundred(100) marks and twenty(20) for interview. Vide communication dated 16.10.2021 an intimation was sent for holding the interview on 16.11.2021. But thereafter and before the interview, the impugned order Ext.P7 dated 30.10.2021 had been issued fixing the marks for interview as fifty(50) which is in complete deviation of the format Ext.P5/4 and against the 2018 Regulations. Unfortunately, petitioner could not be selected and in this regard, submitted a ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -5- ``` representation Ext.P8 dated 20.11.2021. The rank list Ext.P9 reveals that for the subject Hindi only three(3) candidates had obtained ranks and 5[th] respondent who stood rank No.1 has been offered appointment. University cannot change the rules of business or the procedure in midway by following the procedure prescribed in UGC 2018 Regulations by fixing the marks for interview on consideration of the same material the one considered for short-listing. Though it may be an attempt to overcome the objection of prejudices and biasness, but it is settled law that such practice cannot be adopted/deviated midway of the selection process. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Surin George, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Mahatma Gandhi University accepted notice and drew the attention of this Court to certain provisions of the UGC Regulations and raised the objection of maintainability of the writ petition by citing the judgment in **D.Sarojakumari** v. **R.Helene Thilakom and Others** [(2017) 9 SCC 478] ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -6- ``` that no candidate after having participated in the selection process can be permitted to challenge if found unsuccessful. Regulation 6.0 of 2018 Regulations deals with the selection procedure and for the purpose of revising the procedure University is not precluded from adherence to the same procedure as prescribed in Table 3A and Table 3B for Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Universities and Colleges. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books. 6. It would be apt to reproduce Regulation 2(ii) of 6.0. taking to the selection procedure and Table 3B Criteria for short listing of the candidates for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges. ## “6.0 SELECTION PROCEDURE: I. xxxxxx II. The universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedure through their respective statutory bodies incorporating Appendix II, Table 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, and 5 at the ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -7- ``` institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges/ affiliated colleges (Government/Government-aided/Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. The universities may devise their own self-assessment-cum-performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to the Appendix II, Table 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, and 5 specified in these Regulations.” ## " **Table 3B** Criteria for Short-listing of candidates for Interview for the Post of Assistant Professors in Colleges |S.N|Academic Record|Score|Score|Score|Score| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Graduation|80% & Above = 21|60% to less than 80% = 19|55% to less than 60% = 16|45% to less than 55% = 10| |2|Post-Graduation|80% & Above = 25|60% to less than 80% = 23|55% (50% in case of SC/ST/OBC (non-creamy layer)/PWD) to less than 60% = 20|| |3|M.Phil|60% & above = 07|55% to less than 60% = 05||| |4|Ph.D.|25|||| |5|NET with JRF|10|||| ||NET|08|||| ||SLET/SET|05|||| |6|Research publication (2 marks for each research Publications published in Peer- Reviewed or UGC- listed Journals)|06|||| |7|Teaching/Post Doctoral Experience|10|||| ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -8- ``` ||(2 marks for one year each)#|| |---|---|---| |8|Awards|| ||International/National Level (Awards given by International Organisations/Govern ment of India/Government of India recognised National Level Bodies)|03| ||State-Level (Awards given by State Government)|02| #However, if the period of teaching/post-doctoral experience is less than one year then the marks shall be reduced proportionately. |Note:|M.Phil. + Ph.D. Maximum - 25 Marks JRF/NET/SET Maximum - 10 Marks In awards category Maximum - 03 Marks Number of candidates to be called for interview shall be decided by the college. Academic Score - 84 Research Publications - 06 Teaching Experience - 10 TOTAL - 100 SLET/SET score shall be valid for appointment in respective State Universities/Colleges/institutions only."| |---|---| |(A) (i) (ii) (iii) (B) (C) (D)|| ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -9- ``` 7. Table 3B though in the first look would make out an opinion for every prudent person its application only for the purpose of short-listing, but on a joint reading of Regulations (ii) of 6.0., extracted above, it is also to be used for the purpose of selection process i.e., for holding of the interview. University is not precluded from devising its own procedure for self assessment-cumperformance appraisal forms for the teachers in strict adherence to the Appendix II, Table 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 of the 2018 Regulations. Petitioner had already participated in the interview on 16.11.2021 whereas the impugned order specifying the marks as 15 for the interview by taking into consideration the same process meant for short-listing was promulgated on 30.10.2021. Thus the cause of action accrued only after its promulgation and nothing prevented the petitioner to approach this Court with alacrity. 8. Having not able to make into the rank list every candidate is dis-heartened and frustrated. The wisdom ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -10- ``` dawned for challenging in the manner as has been done in the present case. Such practice has already been deprecated in the judgment cited (supra). No ground for interference is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` vv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 28283 OF 2021 -11- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28283/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** - `Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF 'UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHERS ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2018.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.5020/AC L/2019/MGU DATED 19.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.2169/AD A 2/2021/MGU DATED 23.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.5.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.5.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CALL LETTER DATED 16.10.2021.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.5761/AC L/2021/MGU DATED 30.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 21.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ATTACHED COMPLAINT.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.`