High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDismissed
In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (Review Petitions) - RP Nos. 736/2019, 737/2019, 738/2019, 740/2019, 741/2019, 756/2019 and 1250/2019 in WA Nos. 33/2019, 42/2019, 35/2019, 2495/2018, 43/2019, 40/2019
Case / Petition Number:RP.No.736/2019 in WA. 33/2019; RP.No.737/2019 in WA. 42/2019; RP.No.738/2019 in WA. 35/2019; RP.No.740/2019 in WA. 2495/2018; RP.No.741/2019 in WA. 43/2019; RP.No.756/2019 in WA. 40/2019; RP.No.1250/2019 in WA. 35/2019
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.T. Ravikumar
- N. Nagareesh
- Judgment Date
- 2021-03-16
- Court Decision / Holding
- The review petitions are without merit and hence dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Aligarh Muslim University represented by its Registrar
- The Registrar, Aligarh Muslim University
- The Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University
- Joint Registrar, Aligarh Muslim University, Malappuram Centre
- The Director, Aligarh Muslim University, Malappuram Centre
- Lubna Ansari
- Syed Ahmed Saad
Respondents
- Dr. Hamza V.K.
- Lubna Ansari
- Mohammed Yashik P.
- Shafeequ Rehman K.V.
- Syed Ahmed Saad
- Rinoj P.K.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. SMT. SANJEETHA K.A., SC
- • Adv. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR
- • Adv. SRI P.C. GOPINATH
- • Adv. SMT. BINDU SREEDHAR
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI KALEESWARAM RAJ
- • SRI VARUN C.VIJAY
- • KUM.A.ARUNA
- • KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
- • SRI RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
- • SRI ARYA RAGHUNATH
- • SMT.ANJALY N.S.
- • SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
- • SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
- • SRI AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
- • SRI S.A.ANAND
- • SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
- • SRI.VISHNU V.K.
- • KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
- • SRI PETER JOSE CHRISTO
- • SRI S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
Case Synopsis & Summary
This batch of connected reviews arises from writ appeals challenging the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor in Management Studies and Research at the Aligarh Muslim University, Malappuram Centre. The common judgment in the related writ appeals (WA Nos. 33/2019, 42/2019, 35/2019, 2495/2018, 43/2019, 40/2019) had set aside the University’s selections for non-compliance with UGC Regulations, 2010, particularly in Appendix 3, Table-II(c), which prescribes 50% marks for academicRecords/research, 30% for domain knowledge/teaching, and 20% for interview. The University contends that it followed the Regulations, that Ext.P13 (a Department of Law criterion) was not applicable to Management Studies, and that the marks were distributed in a schema equivalent to the 100-point scale, albeit on a 10-point scale. The petitioners further argue that there is no explanation for the deviation and that the university must adopt the prescribed norms; the respondents maintain that the Regulations were not properly followed. The High Court, after considering the pleadings and Appendix materials, held that there was no discernible error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the review petitions in light of the principle that reviews are not re-hearings of appellate orders (Perry Kansagra).
Provisions of Law Cited
UGC Regulations, 2010Appendix 3, Table-II(c)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Error apparent on the face of the record as a ground for review
- A review court is not sitting in appeal over its own order; rehearing impermissible
- Compliance with UGC Regulations and norms of segregation of marks in selection process
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants contend that the selection process adhered to UGC Regulations, 2010, especially Appendix 3, Table-II(c), distributing marks as 50% for academic records/research, 30% for domain knowledge/teaching, and 20% for interview. They argue that reducing the scale from 100 to 10 did not violate norms and that Ext.P13 was a Department of Law criterion used historically only in 2011 and not applicable to Management Studies. They assert that the common judgment rightly emphasized compliance with UGC norms and that any deviation was not explained, warranting a fresh, compliant process. They urge the Court not to substitute its view for expert administrative decisions and rely on established norms to validate the process.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the UGC Regulations were not properly followed, pointing to the lack of evidence of the mandated segregation of marks per Appendix 3, Table-II(c). They argue that the Selection Committee’s use of a 10-point scale effectively collapsed the 100-point framework without valid justification, and Ext.P13 was either inapplicable to Management Studies or not followed as required. They maintain that non-compliance vitiates the selection and justifies setting aside the earlier judgments; the Court should not permit a rehearing or substitution of its own conclusions, but should respect the University’s established process under UGC norms.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius | 1954 KLT 385 SC | Mentioned Only | Cited in passing by the petitioners to argue error apparent on the face of records; court did not rely on it to overturn the common judgment. |
| Aby Abraham Mathew v. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. | 2002 (1) KLT 517 | Distinguished | Court noted Aby Abraham Mathew will be of no help to the review petitioners, not controlling the outcome. |
| Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra | 2019 3 SCALE 357 | Positive | Apex Court’s principle that a review court is not sitting in appeal over its own order is applied to dismiss the petitions. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (Review Petitions) - RP Nos. 736/2019, 737/2019, 738/2019, 740/2019, 741/2019, 756/2019 and 1250/2019 in WA Nos. 33/2019, 42/2019, 35/2019, 2495/2018, 43/2019, 40/2019 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 C.T.RAVIKUMAR**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/25TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
**RP.No.736 OF 2019 IN WA. 33/2019**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2019 IN**
**WA 33/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:**
- **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH 202 002.**
- **2 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH 202 002.**
- **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH 202 002.**
- **4 JOINT REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH 202 002.**
- **5 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALAMMANA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.**
**BY ADV. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 DR.HAMZA V.K., S/O. ABOOBACKER (LATE), VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA POST, PALAKKAD 679 337.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 2 :
- **2 MS. LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.**
- **3 MS. MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.**
- **4 MR.SHAFEEQU REHMAN K.V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.**
- **5 MR. SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ R1 BY ADV. SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY R1 BY ADV. KUM.A.ARUNA R1 BY ADV. KUM.THULASI K. RAJ R1 BY ADV. SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH R4 BY ADV. SMT.ANJALY N.S.**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH RP.737/2019 & OTHER CONNCECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 3 :
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/25TH PHALGUNA, 1942 RP.No.737 OF 2019 IN WA. 42/2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 0901.2019 IN WA 42/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:**
- **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **2 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **4 JOINT REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **5 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340. BY ADV. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 4 :
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1, 7 TO 9:**
- **1 MR.SHAFEEQU REHMAN.K.V.,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
- **2 DR.HAMZA V.K.,S/O.ABOOBACKER (LATE), VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA POST, PALAKKAD-679 337.**
- **3 MS.LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
- **4 MS.MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
- **5 MR.SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY R2 BY ADV. KUM.A.ARUNA R2 BY ADV. KUM.THULASI K. RAJ R2 BY ADV. SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH RP.736/2019 & OTHER CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 5 :
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR**
**& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/25TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
**RP.No.738 OF 2019 IN WA. 35/2019**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2019 IN WA 35/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:**
- **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **3 THE REGISTRAR,ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **4 THE DIRECTOR,ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
**BY ADV. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 MS. LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 6 :
- **2 MS.MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
- **3 MR. SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
- **4 RINOJ P.K., CHODATHIL HOUSE, PANNENPARA, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 014.**
- **5 MR. SHAFEEQU REHMAN K.V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
**R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R4 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R4 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA R4 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R4 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K. R4 BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN R5 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH R5 BY ADV. SMT.ANJALY N.S.**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH RP.736/2019& OTHER CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 7 :
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR**
**& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/25TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
**RP.No.740 OF 2019 IN WA. 2495/2018**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2019 IN WA 2495/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:**
- **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **3 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **4 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
**BY ADV. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 & 6 TO 8:**
- **1 MR.SHAFEEQUE REHMAN K.V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 8 :
- **2 RINOJ P.K., CHODATHIL HOUSE, PANNENPARA, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 014.**
- **3 MS.LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALAMMANA, MALAPPURAM-679 340**
- **4 MS. MOHAMMED YASIK P.O., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALAMMANA, MALAPPURAM-679 340**
- **5 MR.SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALAMMANA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH R1 BY ADV. SMT.ANJALY N.S. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R2 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R2 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA R2 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R2 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K. R2 BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH RP.736/2019& OTHER CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 9 :
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/25TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
**RP.No.741 OF 2019 IN WA. 43/2019**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2019 IN WA 43/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6:**
- **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH,UTTAR PRADESH - 202 002.**
- **2 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH - 202 002.**
- **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH - 202 002.**
- **4 JOINT REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH - 202 002.**
- **5 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM – 679 340.**
**BY ADV. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 7:**
- **1 MS.LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679340.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 10 :
- **2 MS.MOHAMMED YASHIK P.,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679340.**
- **3 MR.SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM – 679 340.**
- **4 DR. HAMZA V.K., S/O. ABOOBACKER (LATE), VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA POST, PALAKKAD – 679 337.**
- **5 MR. SHAFEEQU REHMAN K.V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM – 679 340.**
**R4 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ R4 BY ADV. SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY R4 BY ADV. KUM.A.ARUNA R4 BY ADV. KUM.THULASI K. RAJ R4 BY ADV. SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R5 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN R5 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH R5 BY ADV. SMT.ANJALY N.S.**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH RP.736/2019 & OTHER CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 11 :
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/25TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
**RP.No.756 OF 2019 IN WA. 40/2019**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2019 IN WA 40/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:**
- **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY,ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.**
- **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **3 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202 002.**
- **4 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA(VIA), MALAPPURAM-679 340. BY ADV. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
- **1 RINOJ P.K., CHODATHIL HOUSE, OABBEBOARA, CHELAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 014.**
- **2 MR.LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA(VIA), MALAPPURAM -679 340.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 12 :
- **3 MS.MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUJSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA(VIA), MALAPPURAM -679 340.**
- **4 MR.SHAFEEQU REHMAN K.V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA(VIA), MALAPPURAM -679 340.**
- **5 MR.SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUJSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA(VIA), MALAPPURAM -679 340.**
**R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA R1 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R1 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K. R1 BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.ANJALY N.S. R4 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH RP.736/2019 & OTHER CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 13 :
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/25TH PHALGUNA, 1942**
**RP.No.1250 OF 2019 IN WA. 35/2019**
**AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN**
**WA 35/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA**
## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 &3 IN WRIT APPEAL:**
- **1 MS.LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 340.**
- **2 MR.SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 340.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR**
## **RESPONDENTS/2ND PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS IN WRIT APPEAL:**
**1 MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 340.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 14 :
- **2 RINOJ P.K., CHODATHIL HOUSE, PANNENPARA, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR - 670 014.**
- **3 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP 202 002.**
- **4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP 202 025**
- **5 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP 202 002.**
- **6 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 340.**
- **7 SHAFEEQUE REHMAN K.V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 679 340.**
**THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2021, ALONG WITH RP.736/2019 & OTHER CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 15 :
## **C.T. RAVIKUMAR & N. NAGARESH, JJ.**
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
R.P. Nos.736/2019 in W.A. No.33/2019, 737/2019 in W.A. No.42/2019, 738/2019 in W.A. No.35/2019, 740/2019 in W.A. No.2495/2018, 741/2019 in W.A. No.43/2019, 756/2019 in W.A. No.40/2019 and 1250/2019 in W.A. No.35/2019
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
_Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2020_
## **O R D E R**
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
## _**Nagaresh, J.**_
These review petitions are filed against the common judgment in W.A. Nos.2495/2018, 33/2019, 35/2019, 40/2019, 42/2019 and 43/2019.
2. The writ petitions from which the afore writ appeals arise, were filed by candidates who had applied for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Management Studies and Research in the Aligarh Muslim University, Malapuram Centre, challenging the selection conducted by the University. The learned Single Judge, who heard the
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 16 :
writ petitions, set aside the selection and directed that a fresh selection be conducted within a period of two months. The Aligarh Muslim University and the selected candidates filed the writ appeals challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
3. In the writ appeals, this Court noted that the UGC Regulations, 2010, are applicable to the process of selection and the only question to be determined is whether there has been compliance with the stipulations contained in the UGC Regulations. Taking into consideration the relevant Regulations as well as the Appendix 3, Table-II(c), this Court found that in the selection process, for academic records and research performance 50% marks/points is contemplated, for assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills 30% is contemplated and for interview performance 20% is contemplated. This Court noted that in the selection process in question, the Selection Committee has granted marks on a scale of 10.
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 17 :
4. The learned Standing Counsel had argued that the Selection Committee had only reduced the marks from a scale of 100 to a scale of 10, for convenience. This Court noted that even accepting that the scale was reduced to 10, there was no difficulty in maintaining the segregation that has been stipulated by the UGC Regulations. There was no explanation from the University or its officials as to why the segregation has not been maintained.
5. This Court also noted that the learned Single Judge had called for the files, examined them and found that there was nothing on record to indicate whether the marks had been granted for the different components contemplated by the UGC Regulations. This Court found that since the selection has been set aside by the learned Single Judge for non-compliance of the procedure stipulated by the UGC Regulations, there is no infirmity in the judgment appealed against in the writ appeals. Accordingly, granting the University time up to 09.03.2019 to comply with
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 18 :
the directions of the learned Single Judge, the writ appeals were dismissed, as per judgment dated 09.01.2019.
6. In these review petitions, the University contends that they issued notice to all the shortlisted candidates for interview and selection was conducted on 05.03.2019. The University has followed the UGC Regulations, 2010, in Appendix 3, Table-II(c) and marks were awarded as per UGC criteria. Appointment orders were issued to the selected candidates. However, the Selection Committee did not adopt Ext.P13 criteria.
7. According to the review petitioners, Ext.P13 was an assessment criteria adopted by the Department of Law for the appointment of Assistant Professor in 2011. Ext.P13 criteria was followed only in the selection process of Assistant Professor in Law Department on temporary basis. It has no application in Management Studies. This aspect was not considered while deciding the writ appeals. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 19 :
record.
8. The learned counsel for the review petitioners in W.A. No.1250/2019 contended that Ext.P13 was not produced in the writ petition from which W.A. No.35/2019 arose. The review petitioners had urged nine grounds in their writ appeals and this Court did not consider three of the nine grounds. Decisions relied on by the review petitioners were not considered by the Single Judge. This Court should not substitute its view to the decision taken by academic bodies and expert committees. The common judgment in the writ appeals is therefore liable to be reviewed. The learned counsel for the review petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius** [1954 KLT 385 SC]_ and judgment of this Court in _**Aby Abraham Mathew v. Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.** [2002 (1) KLT 517]_ and contended that a decision rendered by the Court contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 20 :
constitutes an error apparent on the face of the records justifying review.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
10. The prime ground on which the judgment is sought to be reviewed, is that this Court had found fault with the University for not following a proforma like Ext.P13, while making selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Management Studies and Research. But, a reading of the judgment in writ appeals would show that this Court noted that the relevant Regulations of the UGC were not followed. This Court also noted that no explanation is forthcoming for reducing the marks from a scale of 100 to a scale of 10 or as to why the segregation of marks has not been maintained as required under UGC Regulations. This Court also observed in paragraph 12 that different norms would apply for selection of Assistant
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 21 :
Professors and a fresh proforma incorporating the norms applicable would be used by the University. It was observing so that this Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
11. This Court delivered the judgment in writ appeals on the basis of pleadings in the writ petitions and writ appeals, and the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side. The review petitioners did not put forth an argument that the earlier assessment criteria was adopted only by the Department of Law for the appointment of Assistant Professors in the year 2011. This Court, however, noted that the segregation of marks for academic records and research performance, domain knowledge and teaching skills and interview performance was not maintained and UGC Regulations in this regard were not followed. In the present review petitions, the review petitioners are trying to put forth defence which was not put forth during the arguments in the writ appeals.
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 22 :
12. As the common judgment in the writ appeals was passed taking into account the materials available on record and the arguments advanced in the writ appeals, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment, warranting review. If the judgment is sought to be reviewed on the basis of the arguments now raised by the review petitioners, it would amount to substitution of the findings already entered into by this Court.
13. As regards the argument that some of the grounds urged by the review petitioners were not considered by this Court, a perusal of the judgment would show that this Court had considered all the grounds urged by the writ appellants at the time of hearing. This Court has also elaborately considered the judgments of the Apex Court cited by the counsel.
14. In the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court has only insisted for compliance with the UGC Regulations and the norms of segregation of marks, laid down therein.
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 23 :
This Court has not substituted its views in the matter. Therefore, the judgment of this Court in _**Aby Abraham Mathew**_ (supra) will be of no help to the review petitioners. 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in _**Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra** [2019 3 SCALE 357]_ that a review court is not sitting in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. The grounds urged by the review petitioners do not disclose any such error apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
The review petitions are therefore without any merit and hence dismissed.
Sd/- **C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE**
Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE**
aks/16.03.2021
## **APPENDIX OF RP 736/2019**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 24 :
**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.12.2018. ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UGC DATED 17.01.2019.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 25 :
## **APPENDIX OF RP 737/2019**
**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.12.2018. ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UGC DATED 17.1.2019.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 26 :
## **APPENDIX OF RP 738/2019**
**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/12/2018. ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UGC DATED 17/01/2019.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 27 :
## **APPENDIX OF RP 740/2019**
**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE-A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.12.2018 ANNEXURE-A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UGC DATED 17.01.2019**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 28 :
## **APPENDIX OF RP 741/2019**
**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.12.2018. ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UGC DATED 17.01.2019.**
RP.736/2019 & connected cases
: 29 :
## **APPENDIX OF RP 756/2019**
**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 27.12.2018**
**ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE UGC DATED 17.01.2019**
ncd