High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2010-05-31Writ petition allowed; CAT order quashed; petit...

HAJAROMMABI P. vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP; UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP; SRI SAYED MOHAMMED IRFAN P.P.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.13595 of 2010 (S)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
S. S. Sathheesachandran
Judgment Date: 2010-05-31
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; quashing of the CAT order (OA.341/2009) and sustaining the petitioner’s selection for the Botany post.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; CAT order quashed; petitioner’s selection sustained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

HAJAROMMABI P., D/O.NALLAKOYA, AGED 32 YEARS, PATTAKKAL HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.

Respondents

THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, (DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION), KAVARATHI-682 555.
THE UNION TERROTORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REP. BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI.
SRI.SAYED MOHAMMED IRFAN P.P., S/O.CHERIYA KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYA VEED, ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
• SRI.K.E.HAMZA

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC
• SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court hears WP(C) No.13595/2010 (S) challenging CAT OA No.341/2009 from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. The petitioner, Hajarmmabi P., ranked first for the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Botany) under the UT Lakshadweep appointment notice (31.1.2009). The 3rd respondent had challenged the selection arguing that her qualification—M.Sc. Plant Science (Semester course)—is not the same as M.Sc. Botany. Calicut University had earlier issued an order (12.11.1999) recognizing M.Sc. Plant Science as equivalent to M.Sc. Botany for employment and higher studies, after scrutiny of syllabi and recommendations of the university bodies. The CAT had concluded that Plant Science and Botany are distinct and that the notification did not include any equivalent qualification, thus setting aside the petitioner’s selection (in 2010). The High Court, in a Division Bench, held that the notice requires a Masters’ degree in the concerned subject (Botany) without a required nomenclature of “M.Sc Botany”; given the university’s equivalence and the content similarity of both courses, Plant Science falls within Botany for recruitment purposes. It emphasized that it is not for the judiciary to micromanage educational equivalence when a university has declared it so, and rejected the CAT’s approach. The petition is allowed, CAT’s order quashed, and the petitioner’s selection sustained, reinforcing the principle that eligibility intent governs recruitment over nomenclature.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Intention of the framers of the eligibility criteria is the matter to be considered, rather than a logistic and technical view.
It is not within the domain of judicial review to interfere with the question as to whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognised as equivalent to the prescribed qualification.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant argued that the University’s 1999 order recognizing M.Sc Plant Science as equivalent to M.Sc Botany for employment and higher studies, and the content parity between Plant Science (semester) and Botany (regular) should render the Plant Science degree eligible for the Botany post. The notice inviting application did not specify the exact nomenclature of the degree; hence Plant Science qualifies as Botany, and excluding the applicant would be unjust given the academic equivalence recognized by the University and supported by UGC considerations. The court should not substitute its ventilation on equivalence where an official University decision exists; the intention of eligibility criteria should guide recruitment rather than mere nomenclature.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Botany is the subject and Plant Science is a distinct degree with semester pattern, and that the recruitment notice requires a Masters’ Degree in Botany, not necessarily the nomenclature. CAT’s view that Plant Science is distinct from Botany should be respected, as the notification does not explicitly include equivalence. The respondents relied on the university’s assertive position that Botany and Plant Science are distinct courses notwithstanding content similarity, and argued that the University’s equivalence should not override the recruitment criteria.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Rajasthan v. Latha Arun	[(2002) 6 SCC 252]	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that the court should not interfere with whether a qualification is equivalent to the prescribed qualification; emphasis on the intention of eligibility criteria.
G.N. Naik v. Goa University	[(2002) 2 SCC 712]	Positive	Cited for the principle that the intention of the eligibility criteria should guide assessment rather than a purely technical view.

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 HAJAROMMABI P. vs DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP; UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP; SRI SAYED MOHAMMED IRFAN P.P. 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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13595 of 2010(S) -------------------------OA.341/2009 of CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------- HAJAROMMABI P., D/O.NALLAKOYA, AGED 32 YEARS, PATTAKKAL HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, (DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION), KAVARATHI-682 555. 2. THE UNION TERROTORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REP. BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. 3. SRI.SAYED MOHAMMED IRFAN P.P., S/O.CHERIYA KOYA THANGAL, PUTHIYA VEED, ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. R1, R2 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC. - R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX IN WPC.13595/10** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** : - EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.341/09 FILED BEFORE THE CAT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES 1 TO 4. - EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY R3 (PETITIONER HEREIN). - EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT (R3 HEREIN). - EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN. - EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. - EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. - EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE O.A. - EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.341/09 OF THE CAT DATED 5.3.2010. ## RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: - EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 21.4.2010 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.4.2010 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ ## **THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.** ------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.13595 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st ] day of May, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The Director of Education of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep issued an employment notice on 31.1.2009 inviting applications from qualified local candidates for appointment against posts shown in Annexure A thereto, which details the posts, pay band, qualifications required etc. Thirteen categories of posts of Post Graduate Teachers, on the basis of subjects, are enumerated in it. Qualifications for the posts in each category are Masters Degree in the subject concerned and qualification in Education as prescribed therein. WPC.13595/10 2 2. The writ petitioner stood first in the selection to the category of Post Graduate Teacher (Botany). The third respondent was ranked eighth. - 3.The third respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal contending that the first rank holder, the petitioner herein, possesses only M.Sc. (Plant Science) which is not the same as M.Sc. (Botany). 4. The petitioner and the third respondent are Post Graduates from the University of Calicut. The order of the Registrar of the University of Calicut dated 12.11.1999 (Annexure R3(c) before CAT) is issued recognising M.Sc. Plant Science (Semester Course) of the Calicut University as equivalent to M.Sc. Botany course of that University. That document shows that the Board of Studies in Botany (PG), at its meetings held on 28.1.1993 and 18.2.1994, following the UGC suggestions, prepared and approved the course content, time schedule pattern and syllabus of an alternate M.Sc. WPC.13595/10 3 Course in Plant Science (Semester course) with effect from 1997 admission onwards. That was approved by the Faculty of Science and Academic Council on 25.4.1997. The Registrar of the University records that the Dean in the Faculty of Science, after thorough examination of the syllabus of M.Sc. Plant Science (Semester pattern) and M.Sc. Botany (Regular pattern) of the Calicut University, recommended that since all the subjects covered are of the same level in both courses, M.Sc. Plant Science course be declared as equivalent to M.Sc. Botany course of that University for the purpose of employment and higher studies. Sanction was accordingly granted by the Vice Chancellor, subject to ratification of the Academic Council, to recognise M.Sc. Plant Science (Semester course) of the Calicut University as equivalent to M.Sc. Botany degree of that University for employment and higher studies. It was accordingly that the Registrar of the University issued the order dated 12.11.1999. WPC.13595/10 4 - 5.The Tribunal, with the aforesaid and other materials on record, concluded that Calicut University is conducting M.Sc. Botany and M.Sc. Plant Science as “distinctly and differently” and held that since the notification do not provide inclusion of any equivalent qualification, it would be improper to equalise the Masters Degree in Botany with that of Masters Degree in Plant Science for the purpose of appointment in terms of the notification issued by the UT of Lakshadweep. The selection of the first rank holder stands set aside at the instance of the eighth rank holder. This is under challenge. - 6.At the outset, we find a formidable hurdle for the third respondent herein, the applicant before the Tribunal. The select list includes many other candidates. The third respondent who challenged the selection had secured only the 8[th] rank. Therefore, the candidates who held ranks from 2 to 7 were not impleaded in the original application. On this short ground, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the application. WPC.13595/10 5 7.In the notice inviting applications, the qualification prescribed is Masters' Degree in the concerned subject. The name of the post involved in this case is given as Post Graduate Teacher (Botany). The concerned subject for the post is, therefore, Botany. The prescription of the qualification is not by nomenclature as “M.Sc. Botany”. Therefore, what a candidate has to possess is Masters' Degree in the concerned subject which is Botany. The Tribunal noted that the New Shorter Oxford Dictionary says that Botany is the 'science of the Structure, physiology, classification and distribution of plants'. Chambers 20[th] Century Dictionary states that Botany is the 'science of plants' and a 'Botanist is one who is skilled in Botany'. Therefore, Botany is that branch of science which deals with plants and Botanist is one who is skilled in the science of plants. It is not in dispute that on a comparative evaluation, the syllabus prescribed by the Calicut University for both the courses under it is same in content. The only distinction is WPC.13595/10 6 that M.Sc. Botany is a regular course meaning thereby that its term is divided into years, while M.Sc. Plant Science is a semester course. This is what has been certified by the academicians of the University as evidenced by Registrar's order noted above. It has to be clearly remembered that it is not within the domain of judicial review to interfere with the question as to whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognised as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. -See **State of Rajasthan** v. **Latha Arun** [(2002) 6 SCC 252]. The intention of the framers of the eligibility criteria is the matter to be considered, rather than a logistic and technical view. See **G.N.Naik** v. **Goa University** [(2002) 2 SCC 712]. - 8.As already noted, the notice does not make a nomenclatural prescription as to qualification. It is not specified that the qualification should be “M.Sc. Botany”. What is prescribed is that the candidate should have a Post Graduate qualification in Botany, which is nothing but Plant Science. The petitioner WPC.13595/10 7 and the third respondent were students of the same University. They underwent courses of study in terms of syllabi framed by that University. The academicians of that University had categorically declared that the courses are same in content. The only difference is that one is a semester system while the other is not. Therefore, the mere nomenclature of M.Sc. Plant Science for the degree granted by the University of Calicut to candidates who undergo the semester system cannot exclude them from the zone of consideration for appointment as Post Graduate Teachers in Botany. Any such exclusion would result in grave injustice, particularly because M.Sc. Plant science course has been brought in by the University in terms of recommendations of the UGC. In this view of the matter, we find it impossible to sustain the view of the Tribunal that the writ petitioner, who was the first rank holder, has to be excluded from the zone of selection merely because she possesses M.Sc. Plant Science. WPC.13595/10 8 For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned order and sustaining the selection made. Sd/THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.28/05.