Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Aligarh Muslim University & Others

W.P(c).No.5932/17 1 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 5932 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V., AGED 61 YEARS KARTHIAYANAM, KANHANGAD SOUTH PO, KASARAGOD, PIN 671 531.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.S.DEEPAK SRI.V.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH (UP), PIN - 202 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** - **2 VICE CHANCELLOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH (UP), PIN 202 002.** - **3 REGISTRAR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY,ALIGARH (UP), PIN 202 002.** - **4 DIRECTOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA PO, PERINTHALMANNA (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 340.** **5 DR.ABDUR RASHEED K.M "KADIYARAKTH", FAROOQ COLLEGE PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 632.** W.P(c).No.5932/17 2 **6 ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED** **LT.GEN.ZAMEER UDDIN SHAH (RETIRED), FORMER VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, B-926, ANSALS PALAM HOUSE, GURGAON, HARYANA - 122017. (ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/02/2019 IN IA 3221/2018.)** **7 ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AN ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.7 AS PER ORDER DATED 21.02.2019)** **BY ADVS. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN SRI.BONNY BENNY SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.03.2019, THE COURT ON 12.04.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(c).No.5932/17 3 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ **--------------------------** W.P(C).No.5932 of 2017-N ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 12[th] day of April, 2019_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ The appointment of Director in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) at the Malappuram Centre is under challenge in this Writ Petition. As per Ext.P1 notification issued on 28.09.2016 applications were invited for the post of Director in Malappruam AMU Centre for a tenure of 5 years in the pay band of Rs.37,40067,000 with AGP Rs.10000 plus allowance. Qualifications prescribed were as follows: _I. An eminent scholar with Ph.D qualification in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers in indexed/ISBN/ISSN numbered Journals and/or books and the University developed ISBN/ISSN numbered books and list of journals/books hosted in the website of the concerned University._ _ii. A minimum of 10 years of teaching experience in University/College, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at Doctoral level._ _Iii. Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology mediated teaching learning process._ _iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based on performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) developed by UGC in these regulations_ ## _OR_ _An Outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contribution to knowledge_ _Desirable: the candidates are expected to have considerable experience in:_ _a. Designing of Agenda and drafting of the minutes of the various University authorities and handling legal matters of the Centre_ _b. Exercising close and effective supervision, monitoring and implementation of policy decisions._ _Candidates are also expected to have knowledge of modern methods of management and their application in an Institution of higher education and research._ W.P(c).No.5932/17 4 2. As per Ext.P2 corrigendum issued on 27.09.2016 one more sentence - “in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials” - was added to the advertisement in the last line under the heading “OR” of the qualification of the post i.e, to the effect that the alternate qualification was amended as “an outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contribution to knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials”. The last date fixed was 03.10.2016 and interview was fixed on 07.11.2016, but it was postponed. While so, the respondents issued Ext.P5 notification on 07.11.2016 again inviting applications to the very same post and with the very same qualification. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 notification was issued only to help the 5[th] respondent. It is also alleged that the 5[th] respondent is a favourite of the Vice Chancellor. The credentials of the petitioner are given in Ext.P7. The petitioner is having MA Degree in Hindi, M.Phil in Hindi, Ph.D in Hindi awarded in 1989 by the Calicut University. He is having PG Diploma in Russian language. He has worked in the Central University of Kerala as a Guest Faculty during the period from July, 2012 to December, 2015. He was a visiting Professor in Vallaloyed University, Spain during the period from July, 2007 to October, 2010. He worked as Asst. Professor and Associate Professor in Payyannur College. He has to his credit several national awards, publications, etc. He is also having Post Doctoral Higher Research/Minor Research Projects of UGC. He has published 8 books (sole author) + 19 (chapters/conf. Proceedings/edited) + 3 SLM W.P(c).No.5932/17 5 Books; 44 (Hindi/English/Spanish&Malayalam languages) Research Papers; 14 articles to his credit. He was appointed as the Chair of Hindi and First Secretary (non diplomatic status) at Embassy of India, Madrid and was actively involved in administrative and academic activities and governing bodies like Board of Studies, Doctoral Committees etc. 3. However when the rank list was published the 5[th] respondent was ranked no.1. The complaint of the petitioner is that marks are not awarded in tune with the UGC Regulations and in tune with the API score given in Table 1 under Appendix III (Ext.P10) of UGC Regulations. Ext.P11 UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)(4[th] Amendment), Regulations, 2016 was issued on 11.07.2016 whereby there were modified API scores under each head and separate points are awarded bifurcating different heads. The petitioner points out that the selection is made placing the 5[th] respondent at rank no.1 in total disregard of the unamended as well as amended API scores given in Exts.P10, P11 and Ext.P11(a) Regulations. The 5[th] respondent was appointed as Director as per Ext.P13 order dated 14.2.2017. Producing Ext.P14 CV of the 5[th] respondent, it is pointed out that the only research work he has done is for a period of one year under Prof. SM Usman of AMU. He got M.Phil from AMU and Ph.D from Kannur University; LL.B from Calicut University; as per the CV he has completed 3 refresher courses at INS, Kochi and INS, Visakhapatanam; 3 UGC sponsored refresher courses in W.P(c).No.5932/17 6 Chemistry; his publications are in Teachers' voice and PCTA journals, apart from one in journal of Spices and Aromatic Crops and of Indian Chemical Soiety and in NCC journal. Under academic merit he has stated that he is a Ph.D holder with LL.B, secured first class in all examinations starting from Pre-Degree to M.Phil and in B.Ed; According to the petitioner, the 5[th] respondent does not have the essential qualifications for appointment to the post. His teaching experience is only minimal because he was working as a Registrar of Kannur University after a short spell of service as a teacher in Farook College Kozhikkode. His API score is far below the minimum required. At the same time, the petitioner claims that apart from the fact that he himself is a Ph.D holder, he has guided 13 Research scholars. It is also pointed out that the 5[th] respondent does not have at least 10 publications in indexed journals; he has not acted as a Ph.D Guide and he does not have the API score to the extent of 400 which is the minimum requirement. The petitioner claimed that he should have been given 54 out of 80 marks in accordance with Exts.P10 and P11-the API score as prescribed for Category III under Table I of Appendix III of the UGC Regulations in respect of Research and Academic Contributions under IIIA and IIIB, for research publications published in referred journals under IIIA carry 10 points per publications and for the publications in Book, chapters in Books other than referred journal articles, under III(B) 50 points if sole author of text or reference books published by international publishers; 10 points if it is a chapter only in an edited book; 25 points for sole author of books published by National level publishers and 5 points per chapter; 15 points for W.P(c).No.5932/17 7 books of state level publication and 3 points per chapter. As per Ext.P11-UGC Amendment Regulations 2016, the points are revised; for research papers published in referred journals carry 25 points per publication in the place of 10; 10 points per publication in reputed journals; for subject books of International level publications approved by the University and posted on its website for sole author is 30 points and subject books of national level publications it is 20 per single author if approved by University and posted in their website; for state level publications it is 15 points. Apart from that points are provided for research projects in III(C) according to which majr projects with grant above Rs.10 lakhs carry 20 points per project; for projects with grants between 1 lakh to 5 lakhs 10 points per project. Separate points are earmarked in IIID for Research guidance and for fellowships, awards and invited lectures in conferences/seminars under IIIE; 15 points per award of Ph.D and 10 for thesis submitted per candidates; 15 per award/15 per fellowship international; 10 if National award/fellowship and 5 per State level/university level award. 10 points are earmarked under IIIF for Development of e-learning delivery process/material. Ext P11(a) provides for API score as per the amended Category III for research and academic contribution. Pointing out these it is alleged that the API score in respect of the 5[th] respondent would be far below the required minimum. It is also alleged that the appointment of 5[th] respondent was made within 15 days of his interview, which also points out that there was a calculated move for appointing the 5[th] respondent. 4. The petitioner challenges the selection and appointment of the 5[th] W.P(c).No.5932/17 8 respondent alleging that the same is in violation of the UGC Regulations and that the regulations of the University cannot be in variance with the UGC Regulations. It is also alleged that the API score should have been arrived at in accordance with Exts.P10, P11 and P11(a). It is further alleged that by way of the illegal selection and appointment made the legitimate opportunity of the petitioner is deprived of. 5. The respondent University as well as the 5[th] respondent have filed separate counter affidavits and additional counter affidavits. Respondents 1 to 4 have stated that the post of Director is one included among the officers of the University as per Section 16(4) of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) Act XL of 1920 as amended on 12.10.2010 and the schedule to Statute 6A, among Registrar, Finance Officer, etc. It is stated that even though the qualifications prescribed for the post of Director are that of the Professor of a University, with regard to the qualification, perks, etc. the post is that of an Administrator equivalent to that of a Registrar. Therefore, it is stated that the desirable qualifications prescribed in the notification are more relevant than that of the minimum qualifications. The Vice Chancellor directed to re-advertise the post, in the absence of necessary qualified persons with desirable qualification. Thereafter, Ext.P5 advertisement was issued again calling for applications fixing the last date as 8.12.2016. 5 more applications were received on the basis of Ext.P5 advertisement. An outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contribution to knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline was the alternate qualification prescribed. W.P(c).No.5932/17 9 Candidates are expected to have considerable experience in designing of Agenda and drafting of the minutes of the various University authorities and handling legal matters in centre apart from exercising close and effective supervision, monitoring and implementation of policy decisions, which are notified as desirable qualification. After shortlisting of candidates by the screening committee candidates were called for the interview. It is stated that the Vice Chancellor is having the power to add any more outstanding personalities as per the UGC norms and regulations and such exceptionally outstanding personalities can be appointed even by invitation under Section 19(3) of the AMU Act which is in tune with the UGC Regulations. Ext.R3(a) is produced to show the evaluation made by the selection committee of the performance of the candidates and the marks awarded. It is stated that the 5[th] respondent is much more qualified and experienced with about 13 years of academic, administrative experience in the University field alone apart from the other administrative and academic experiences at college level and in NCC. The post of Director is more that of administrative in nature. Producing Ext.R3(b) API score of the 5[th] respondent it is stated that he was the Registrar and OSD of the Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod and the Registrar of Kannur University; he was a member of Syndicate of University of Calicut for 5 years and member of the Senate for 9 years; he was a Lecturer in the Post Graduate and Research Department of Chemistry in Ferook College for 26 years and was relieved as Head of the Department to join as Registrar. He was also the NCC officer for 20 years and was relieved as Lieutenant Commander. He is a Ph.D W.P(c).No.5932/17 10 holder in Chemistry with LLB Degree with first class. He has won scholarships/fellowships. Therefore, he was considered on the basis of his outstanding qualification. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not have any complaint when Ext.P5 advertisement was issued on 7.11.2016; the petitioner was also benefited because of the postponement of the selection as he could update his API score. The selection committee unanimously selected the 5[th] respondent to the post of Director, on the basis of merit and performance assessed following due procedure. The 5[th] respondent assumed office of the Director on 20.2.2017, after 14 days of the interview. The AMU had adopted the proforma for API score prescribed for the Professor post. But it is not API score alone which is considered for selection to a post which is totally administrative. The performance in the interview and experience in academic administration is much more relevant in the case of Director post. 6. In the reply affidavit filed on 14.09.2017, petitioner pointed out that as per Section 6B(7) of the AMU Act the Director shall be responsible for the conduct and maintenance of the standard of teaching and research in the campus and he shall have such other functions as may be prescribed. Therefore petitioner claimed that the preference given to him merely based on the desirable qualifications is contrary to the UGC regulations. According to him there is no material to show that the 5[th] respondent is an eminent person who has contributed towards knowledge as provided in the notification. Producing Exts.P19 to P21, collected on application under the Right to Information Act, petitioner points out W.P(c).No.5932/17 11 that from the first page of the application submitted by the 5[th] respondent, which is Ext.P19, it is evident that he remitted the application fee at SBT Feroke on 31.10.2016; at the same time Exts.P18 and P20, which are the first page of applications of petitioner and Smt.Sheena Shukoor, rank no.2, the date of remittance of fees are in 9/2016. Petitioner points out that the last date for submitting application pursuant to Ext.P1 was 28.09.2016; as per Ext.P2 corrigendum it was 03.10.2016 and the next notification was issued only on 07.11.2016. Therefore as on 31.10.2016 there was no notification based on which the 5[th] respondent could remit the application fee, in anticipation of Ext.P5 notification of 07.11.2016 fixing 08.12.2016 as last date. He has also produced Ext.P21 file notings dated 26.10.2016 of the Deputy Registrar (selection committees) of the university, referring to an e-mail received by the Vice Chancellor -the 6[th] respondent from the 5[th] respondent. The noting read as follows: _1. May kindly peruse the email of Prof.(Dr.) Abdur Rasheed KM and observations of the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor thereupon placed on file. Prof.(Dr.)Abdur Rasheed KM in his email has requested for consideration of his candidature for the post of Director, AMU, Malappuram Centre._ _2. In the above context, it is submitted that the post of Director was advertised vide Advt.No.5/2015 dated 29.08.2016 and last date for submission of application forms was 28.09.2016, his mail dated 11[th] October, 2016 has been seen by the Vice-Chancellor on 18.10.2016. However, if the Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor deemed proper, the candidate may be requested to apply on the prescribed application forms and also deposit requisite fee of Rs.300/-. As soon as the Office received the same, the same will be put up before the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor for determining his eligibility as per advertised qualifications ic. API for the said post._ ## 7. In Ext.P17 statement of qualification of candidates who applied for the post, prepared on 14.12.2016, subsequent to Ext P5 notification, it was noted against the name and qualification of the 5[th] respondent - _**N.E only ISSN**_ W.P(c).No.5932/17 12 _**publication**_ ” . At the same time as against 4 out of the 6 candidates in that page it was noted “ _**Eligible**_ .” 8. Respondents 1 to 4 filed an additional counter affidavit thereafter reiterating their stand that the post of Director is not a teaching post. It is stated that as per Statute 6A the Directors of the Centres shall be officers of the University in accordance with Section 16(4) of the AMU Act, XL of 1920 and as per Section 6B(7) of the Act the Director is responsible for the conduct and maintenance of the standard of teaching and research in the campus. It is stated that he shall have such other functions as may be prescribed by the ordinances. Therefore according to them the Director is an officer on par with Registrar, Controller of Examinations, Finance Officer, etc, as per the Statutes read with Section 16 and 22 of the Act and therefore the desirable qualification are having great relevance than the minimum qualifications. It is further stated in para 4 as follows: _“It is pertinent to note that even though the screening/selection of application was done earlier and there were people with minimum qualification, the apt persons with administrative experience and capability as per the desirable qualification mentioned in the notification were absent. It was brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor and on seeing the application of the 5[th] respondent who had ample administrative experience with sufficient qualification and good academic record which is required for the post of Director who is the supreme head of all matters at the centre and who had to administer the day to day affairs and for the future development of the centre and developing it into the status of autonomous university within the near future, as envisaged in the DPR prepared by EdCil under MHRD._ 9. The respondents have also stated that petitioner got appointment as Associate Professor in Central University of Kerala subsequent to the selection. They have also produced certain documents to show that he had to face W.P(c).No.5932/17 13 departmental action which led to termination of his service from the Central University of Kerala on complaints before the internal complaint committee for misbehaving towards girl students.; about the writ petitions he filed, etc. 10. The 6[th] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that his appointment as Vice Chancellor of AMU in May, 2012 and he continued there as Vice Chancellor till May, 2017. It is stated that the 5[th] respondent studied in the University during 1976-79 when he was in the Army and did not have any connection with the University. Denying the allegations raised against him with respect to the alleged involvement in the appointment of the 5[th] respondent he has stated that the appointment was made on the basis of selection by the selection committee constituted under the provisions of the statute. Being the Vice Chancellor, he was the Chairman of the selection committee. There were 2 executive council nominees and one academic council nominee also; selection was made by the collective decision of the selection committee. Executive council made the appointment on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee. It is stated that out of the 20 persons who had submitted applications only 2 persons were found eligible. On 11.10.16 the 5[th] respondent had sent an e- mail enclosing his CV seeking appointment as Director ; Ext.P21 note was given only with the sole intention that a candidate with exemplary qualification may be appointed to the post of Director. It is also stated that Smt.Sheena Shukkoor, who was the former Vice Chancellor of the MG University had also submitted application, but the selection committee found the 5[th] respondent as the most W.P(c).No.5932/17 14 eligible and suitable and there is no nepotism as alleged by the petitioner. 11. Respondents 1 to 4 have produced Ext.R3(a) statement of marks awarded by the selection committee, according to which the petitioner was awarded 6 points out of 10. The 5[th] respondent was awarded 8.5 points. Smt.Sheena Shakkoor was awarded 8 points. One Dr.A.Nujum was awarded 7 points. The petitioner and Dr.Syed Arif Wali stands 1[st] and 5[th] position. 12. In the counter affidavit of the 5[th] respondent also it is stated that the Director of the Centre is an officer of the University and also an authority on par with the Registrar, Controller of Examinations, Finance Officer, etc; the duties and functions of the Directors at the Centre are similar to that of the Registrar. According to him, the desirable qualification mentioned is for giving preference among the candidates having essential qualification when coming to final selection, having regard to the administrative nature of the post for which experience is required from the candidates in designing of agenda, drafting of minutes of the various University authorities and handling legal matters of the centre, etc. It is stated that in the notification itself it was stipulated that higher initial start may be given to candidates possessing exceptional qualifications and experience. He has also stated that among the applications received pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, there was none having desirable qualification prescribed to the post and therefore a re-notification was necessitated. The Vice Chancellor approved the recommendations of the selection committee and thereafter 5[th] respondent was appointed as per Ext.P13 communication dt.14.2.2017. According W.P(c).No.5932/17 15 to the 5[th] respondent, the petitioner who did not challenge Ext.P5 notification cannot be heard to challenge the selection after the rank list was published and therefore the contention raised by him that fresh notification was issued only for obtaining the application from the 5[th] respondent is unsustainable. It is stated that the 5[th] respondent was a Lecturer and thereafter a Professor in the Post Graduate and Research Dept. of Chemistry in Farook College for 26 years. When he joined as Registrar of Kannur University he was working as Head of the Dept; he was a member of the Curriculum Steering Committee of the State Council and Training. He was a member of the Technical Support Group of the Biodiversity Board. He has got a total API score of 125. He claims that he is an expert in academic administration with 13 years experience in the field of University administration. He was the first Registrar of Central University of Kerala. He worked as Registrar of Kannur University for 5 ½ years. He pioneered five campuses and Headquarters for Kannur University and Central University of Kerala during which period the Universities got maximum grant. Apart from that he was the member of the syndicate and a member of the senate. It is also pointed out that as the rank list as such is not challenged and the appointment of the 5[th] respondent's alone is challenged without impleading other candidates included in the rank list, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. It is alleged that the petitioner does not have any administrative experience and the API score calculated by him is erroneous. 13. The petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit producing W.P(c).No.5932/17 16 Exts.P22 to P46 out of which P22 to P33 are copies of his publications and P34 to P46 are various certificates awarded to him. The petitioner has produced various certificates in order to assert the qualification he acquired. It is stated that he has got 5 Ph.D. He has done one major UGC research projects, 2 minor research projects. He therefore claims that his API score is liable to be arrived at based on all those which are all recognised publications/text books, etc 14. I have heard Sri. V.Varghese, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sanjeetha, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, the learned Counsel for the 5[th] respondent and Sri. Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel for the 6[th] respondent. 15. The contention of the respondents is that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner is not the candidate who is included as rank No.2 and therefore, even if the selection is set aside the petitioner would not be benefitted. Apart from that, he has not challenged the rank list or impleaded the members of the selection committee. It is also their case that petitioner who did not challenge the re-notification as per Ext P5 cannot be allowed to turn round and challenge the selection after the appointment is made, when he participated in every process of selection without any objection. 16. The qualification prescribed in the notification Ext P1 as corrected in Ext P2 corrigendum as well as in Ext P5 was the following: _“Qualifications – Essential:_ W.P(c).No.5932/17 17 _(I) An eminent scholar with Ph.D qualification in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or reseaerch/policy papers in indexed/ISBN/ISSN numbered Journals and/or books and the University developed ISBN/ISSN numbered books and list of journals/books hosted in the website of the concerned University._ _(ii) A minimum of 10 years of teaching experience in University/College, and/or experience in reseaerch at the University/National Level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for reasearch at Doctoral level;_ _(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology mediated teaching learning process._ _(iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based on Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) developed by UGC in these regulations._ _OR_ _An outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contribution to knowledge. In the concerned/allied /relevant discipline to be substantiated by credentials”_ 17. The first qualification prescribed is as in the case of a candidate for the post of Professor, which requires Ph. D, minimum of 10 publications, minimum teaching experience of 10 years, research experience, experience as guide, minimum API score, etc as provided therein. The respondents admit that the 5[th] respondent does not have those qualifications. At any rate they do not have any claim that 5[th] respondent is having any research experience except for a period of one year; they do not have a casse that he has any experience as a guide of research scholars; therefore his case does not come under the first qualification. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 argued that the 5[th] respondent is having the alternate qualification apart from all the desirable qualifications. It is also their case that since the post is of administrative nature what is required more are desirable qualifications. It is repeatedly stated including W.P(c).No.5932/17 18 in para 3 of the additional counter affidavit as follows: _“ Since the post of Director is administrative in nature, desirable qualification mentioned in Ext P1, P2 and P5 have great relevance than the minimum qualifications”._ 18. It is therefore relevant to examine what is the alternate qualification notified. An outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline to be substantiated by credentials. The 5[th] respondent is a post graduate in Chemistry. The respondents do not claim that he is an outstanding professional who has made significant contribution to knowledge in the discipline of Chemistry or in any allied subjects. The notification does not provide for any qualification in any particular discipline; but a candidate should be one who possess either of the essential qualifications. From the counter affidavit, it is clear that the respondents 1 to 4 have found the 5[th] respondent the most eligible candidate, because “desirable qualifications are more relevant than minimum qualifications” having regard to the administrative nature of the post. There is no provision in the ordinance which prescribes the qualification of Director in a centre under AMU. However when a notification is issued prescribing the minimum qualifications which are essential the respondents are not right in their stand that desirable qualifications should be given more relevance than minimum qualifications. On the other hand there would not be any objection for a selection from among those having essential/minimum qualifications giving preference to those with desirable qualifications. W.P(c).No.5932/17 19 19. The main contention of the petitioner is that the 5[th] respondent does not have the qualification required under the essential qualifications as he cannot be said to be an outstanding professional in the relevant field with any significant contribution to knowledge so as to select him in preference to others. The alternate qualification is also essential qualification and only “an outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contribution to knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline to be substantiated by credentials” is eligible. Apart from the fact that the 5[th] respondent is a Ph.D holder and he has got teaching experience the respondents do not have a case that 5[th] respondent made any outstanding contribution to knowledge in any relevant field. The contributions he made are in the administrative field only. The alternate qualification does not provide that such outstanding contributions are to be or can be in the field of administration. Even the 5[th] respondent does not have a case that by his administrative experience he has made significant contribution to knowledge in the discipline. However what is required under alternate qualification as well as the qualification mentioned just before that indicates the contribution in particular academic disciplines. Under the first mentioned qualifications Ph. D along with research, experience as research guide, publications, API score, etc of requisite number as that of Professor in any particular discipline is required. The only difference in the alternate qualification is that the particular Degree to be acquired, research publications or research or guiding experience, API score, etc. are not required for it. But he should be an W.P(c).No.5932/17 20 outstanding professional; he should have established reputation as such professional in the concerned/ relevant/allied filed and he should have made significant contribution to knowledge in that particular discipline as a professional; there is nothing in the counter affidavit of either of the respondents to indicate that he does possess any of such qualifications as provided in the alternate qualification. 20. In view of repeated assertions in the counter affidavit that the post of Director is of administrative nature as that of Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Finance Officer, it is relevant to note the duties attached to each of these posts as provided under the Schedule in the Statutes of the University of the Registrar under Statute 5 (5); of the Controller of Examination given under Statute 5A(4) (I) to (4); and that of the Director given Statute 6 A and 6B(7): _Registrar:5. (1) xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx_ - _(6) It shall be the duty of the Registrar -_ _(a) to be custodian of the records, the common seal and such other property of the University as the Executive Council shall commit to his charge ;_ _(b) to issue all notices convening meetings of the Court, Executive Council, Academic Council, *Faculties,* Boards of Studies and of any committees appointed by the authorities of the University;_ _( c ) to keep the minutes of all the meetings of the Court , Executive Council, Academic Council,*Faculties and of any committees appointed by the authorities of the University!_ _(d) to conduct the official correspondence of the Court, Executive Council and Academic Council;_ - _(e) Deleted._ _(f) to supply to the Visitor, copies of the agenda of the meetings of the authorities of the University as soon as they are issued and the minutes of the meetings;_ _(g) to represent the University in suits or proceecS'mgs by or against the University, sign powers of attorney and verifjj pleadings or depute his representative for the purpose; and_ _(h) to perform such other duties as may be specified in thesg Statutes, or prescribed by the Ordinances or thi Regulations or as may be required, from time to time, b$ the Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor._ W.P(c).No.5932/17 21 _xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx_ _5A. 4) The Controller of Examinations shall:(1) Control the conduct of all Univesity examinations and admissions to the University and Superintendent all other arrangements necessary therefore and the execution of all processes connected therewith in accordance with the manner prescribed by the Ordinances;_ _(2) Issue all notices for convening meetings of the Committee of Examinations, Admission Committee, the Boards of Examiners, Board of Secondary Education or any Boards and Committees appointed by authorities of the University in connection with the examinations, and maintain and keep the minutes of all such meetings;_ _(3) Call from any office or Institution under the University any information or returns that he may consider necessary for the performance of his duties and to discharge his responsibilities;_ (4) _Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Statutes, the Ordinances and the Regulations, perform such other duties, administrative or academic, as may be prescribed, from time to time, by the Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor._ _xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx_ _6 A. Directors of the Centres shall be the Officers of the University in accordance with Section 16(4) of AMU Act XL of 1920._ _B. Directors of Centres -(1) xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx_ _(7)The Director of a Centre shall be responsible for the conduct and maintenance of the standard of teaching and research in the campus. He shall have such other functions as may be prescribed by the Ordinances.”_ 21. From the aforesaid provisions it can be seen that the post of Director alone is made responsible for the conduct and maintenance of standard of teaching and research in the campus. He has to perform other duties also as prescribed by ordinance. However, no such ordinance is pointed out. 22. A candidate without having the minimum qualification cannot be selected and appointed on the ground that he is having the desirable qualifications when he does not have the minimum qualification. 23. In case the respondents wanted a person of administrative experience, qualifications should have been prescribed and notified for the post in such a manner. After prescribing and notifying the qualification in a particular manner the respondents cannot be permitted to go back and search for a person with desirable qualification alone. W.P(c).No.5932/17 22 24. In this view of the matter, the fact that petitioner did not implead other candidates in the rank list or that he did not challenge Ext.P5 notification or his participation in the selection or even the subsequent events which occurred in respect of his appointment in another institution would not make him ineligible to challenge the selection. These aspects do not make the writ petition not maintainable also, as alleged by the respondents. 25. The petitioner cannot be expected to be aware of the qualifications of the candidates who are appearing in the selection. He cannot also be expected to be aware of the the correspondence made in respect of applications received after the last date fixed in Exts.P1 and P2. 26. From Ext.P19 application of the 5[th] respondent remitting the fee on 31.10.2016 when the last date fixed as per Exts.P1 and P2 was 03.10.2016 and when the date of publication of the subsequent notification Ext.P5 was only 7.11.2016 and from Ext.P21 notes read with the remarks in Ext.P17, the contention of the petitioner that the notification Ext.P5 was issued in order to induct the 5[th] respondent cannot be brushed aside. 27. It is settled law that interference under Art.226 in matters of selection by a selection committee, especially in academic matters is normally unwarranted and courts shall keep the hands off from these, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the 5[th] respondent relying on the judgments in _**Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr.B.S.Mahajan & Ors.**_ [1990 (1) SCC 305], **Madras** W.P(c).No.5932/17 23 **Institute of Develop Sudies V Dr. K. Siva subramanyam:** AIR 2015 SC 3643, **University Grants Commission V Neha Anil Bobde** : (2013) 4 SCC 519. it is pertinent to note the following observations in Neha Anil Bobde's case: _**“31.** We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts.”_ 28. I find that this is a case where the respondents themselves have stated that 5[th] respondents was selected giving more relevance to desirable qualifications than to minimum qualifications. Therefore those judgments would not be applicable to the present case. 29. The judgments in _**University of Cochin, rep. By its Registrar v. N.S.Kanjoonjamma & Ors.**_ [1997 (4) SCC 426], _**Sarojakumari D. v. R.Helen Thilakom & Ors.**_ [2017 (4) KHC 898], _**Durga Devi v. State of H.P.**_ [AIR 1997 (4) SCC 575], _**Manikandan M.A. & anr. v. Suresh Kumar B. & Ors.**_ [2015 (5) KHC 850], The University of Mysore V C.D. Govinda Rao: AIR 1965 SC 491, etc. also, relied on by Sri. Ibrahim will not apply to the factual circumstances of the case, as pointed out above. The participation of the petitioner in the selection does not make him ineligible to challenge the selection as he is not challenging either the notification or the qualifications prescribed in the notification. The nonimpleadment of others in the rank list or the members of the selection committee cannot also stand in his way, as the respondents have made it clear that minimum qualification has less relevance than desirable qualification. W.P(c).No.5932/17 24 30. Therefore I am of the considered view that the selection and appointment of the 5[th] respondent giving predominance to desirable qualification to a person without having the minimum essential qualification requires interference. Hence Ext P13 appointment of 5[th] respondent is set aside. 31. There shall be a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to conduct the selection afresh from among the candidates who applied for the post on the basis of Exts.P1, P2 and P5 notifications and re-cast the select list including persons having the qualifications as prescribed in the notifications and make appointment accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. _Sd/-_ _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)**_ _rtr_ _**/**_ W.P(c).No.5932/17 25 ## **A P P E N D I X** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NUMBER 5/2016 DATED 29.8.2016 OF THE REGISTRAR, AMU** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM D NO. T560/SC DATED 27.9.2016 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (SELECTION COMMITTEE), AMU** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER D NO. 12646/SC DATED 28.10.2016 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (SELECTION COMMITTEE), AMU** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL MESSAGE DATED 3.11.2016** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO. 7/2016 DATED 7.11.2016 ISSUED BY AMU** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL MESSAGE SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2010 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF APPENDIX III OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2010 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. F1-2/2016 (PS/AMENDMENT) DATED 11.7.2016 EXHIBIT P11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF APPENDIX -III EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO NO. 13469/SC DATED 20.1.2017 ISSUED BY AMU TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ADMIN/LD/364/T DATED 14.2.2017 OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, AMU** W.P(c).No.5932/17 26 - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CARRICULUM VITAE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.1.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER D NO. 13545/RM/SC DATED 1.2.2017 OF THE REGISTRAR, SELECTION COMMITTEE SECTION, AMU.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER D NO.0301/RM/SC DATED 17/04/2017 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (SC)/APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 22/12/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR UNDER THE RTI ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR UNDER THE RTI ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 22/12/2016 SUBMITTED BY SMT. SHEENA SHUKKUR FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR UNDER THE RTI ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER D NO.14151/RM/SC DATED 28/03/2017 OF THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/SECTION OFFICER (SELECTION COMMITTEES) OF THE UNIVERSITY ALONG WITH THE FILE NOTINGS AND CONNECTED DOCUMENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF LARGE NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS (BOOKS AND CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS AND CHAPTERS IN EDITED BOOKS) WITH ISBN AND RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS IN JOURNAL WITH ISSN.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 97881-8111-249-1.** - **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 97881-8111-225-5.** - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 818160-024-X.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 8186480-33-1.** W.P(c).No.5932/17 27 **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 16942477.** **EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 97884-8448-534-6.** - **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISSN 05231418.** - **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISSN 04351460.** - **EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 97881-8111-321-4.** - **EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 97881-8111-249-1.** - **EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION IN ISBN 97881-7541-417-4.** - **EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.F.ICC/545/08/2005-06 DATED 20/02/2014 OF THE PROGRAMME DIRECTOR (CHAIRS) OF THE ICCR.** - **EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16/12/1995 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** - **EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PETITIONER'S SSLC BOOK.** - **EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE IN THE M. PHIL DEGREE EXAMINATION OF 1979 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** - **EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE P.G. DIPLOMA IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE FROM UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT IN 1987.** - **EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN SPANISH LANGUAGE FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P40 A TRUE COPY OF THE FREE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P40.** - **EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.ACAD E2/2486/99 DATED 01/01/2018 OF THE REGISTRAR OF KANNUR UNIVERSITY.** W.P(c).No.5932/17 28 **EXHIBIT P42** **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN HINDI ENTITLED 'KERAL DASHA EVAM DISHAYEN' BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** - **EXHIBIT P43 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22/09/2006 OF DR. P.K. RAJAN MEMORIAL EXCELLENCE AWARD FOR TEACHERS, 2005-06 BY THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P44 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDED RASHTRA BHASHA RATNA TITLE BY THE HINDI SAHITHYA SAMMELAN, PRAYAG.** - **EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/02/1995 ISSUED BY THE ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P46 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/02/1995 ISSUED BY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R3 (a)** TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE MARKS. - **EXHIBIT R3 (b)** TRUE COPY OF THE API SCORE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. - **EXHIBIT R3 (c)** PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 19/09/2017. - **EXHIBIT R3 (d)** PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE. - **EXHIBIT R3 (e)** - PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. - **EXHIBIT R3 (f)** PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED 30/11/2017. **EXHIBIT R3 (g)** PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.39013/2017 DATED 30/01/2018. - **EXHIBIT R5 (a)** TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, FAROOK COLLEGE DATED 17/02/2011. - **EXHIBIT R5 (b)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SCERT. W.P(c).No.5932/17 29 **EXHIBIT R5 (c)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2012 OF THE KERALA STATE BIODIVERISTY BOARD. **EXHIBIT R5 (d)** TRUE COPY OF THE TOTAL API SCORE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT R5 (e)** TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/09/2012 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT. **EXHIBIT R5 (f)** TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 08/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY. **EXHIBIT R5 (g)** TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/04/2005 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY. **EXHIBIT R5 (h)** TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER, NCC DATED 15/07/2005.