Joshin Joseph v State of Kerala, Mahatma Gandhi University, Baselius Paulose II Catholic College and Jeethy Sukumaran

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** ## **TUESDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** JOSHIN JOSEPH AGED 30 YEARS S/O. P. C. JOSEPH, PARIYATH HOUSE, KURIANAD P. O., MONIPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686636. BY ADVS. DENU JOSEPH SAJI MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADERSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3 BASELIOS PAULSOE II CATHOLICOS COLLEGE, MULAMKULAM (N) P. O., PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM - 686 664, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 4 JEETHY SUKUMARAN THOZHUTHINKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, ARAKUNNAM P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682 313. BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW GEORGE ABRAHAM JOBY D JOSEPH ARUN THOMAS JENNIS STEPHEN VEENA RAVEENDRAN KARTHIKA MARIA ABI BENNY AREECKAL LEAH RACHEL NINAN GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** This Court on the last of hearing after noticing the submissions of the learned counsel passed the following order: _“Inter alia_ alleges that the criteria for shortlisting and selection of the candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges was as per the UGC regulations whereby 100 marks were assigned under the academic record (A) and 24 in the interview (B). The total score is A+B. The result of the selection committee Ext.P8 reveals that the 4[th] respondent Jeethy Sukumaran obtained 14.85 marks in the interview viz. petitioner 12.5. Her marks in the interview is highest amongst all the ten candidates. _Prima facie,_ it appears that the selection has been made only on the basis of the interview marks in bypassing the marks obtained under the column A as per the criteria, whereas the total of all the marks petitioner stands more chance than that of the 4[th] respondent as he had secured 99.50 viz. the 4[th] respondent 85.85. Issue notice before admission. Sri.Jimmy George accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Sri.Surin George Iype accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4 through special messenger.” 2. Learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that this Court was made to believe that Ext.P4 notification of the UGC regulations prescribing the criteria for consideration of the marks is not only the interview viz-à-viz the weightage under various heads. The aforementioned notification has been accepted by the Vice-Chancellor but the assent of the Chancellor is still awaited. In support of the aforementioned submission he relies upon an **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** **3** order of this Court dated 13.09.2021 W.P.(C).No.18071/2021; the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order of the Chancellor as and when the amendment is implemented by the University. 3. At this stage learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this is not the only ground for challenging the selection of the 4[th] respondent. Petitioner belongs to a physically handicapped category but has not been given a weightage under 2016 Act. The aforementioned argument was seriously countered by the respondent on the premise that the notification inviting the applications did not envisage any reservation for physically disabled or handicapped persons. Candidature of the petitioner was considered as general category. As per the Clause 6.1 of the UGC regulations 2018, Ext.P10, the overall selection procedure would incorporate transparency, objectivity, credible mythology of analysis of merits and credentials of the applicants based upon the weightage given to the performance of the candidate in relevant parameters and in order to make the system more credible, the research aptitude through a seminar lecturer in a class room situation or discussion **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** **4** on the capacity to use the latest technology in teaching is to be followed. 4. Learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submitted that the provisions of the regulations of the University Ext.P10 have to be looked in entirety but not in piecemeal/isolation. Clause 6.2 also gives the liberty to the University to devise their own selfassessment-cum-performance appraisal forms for the teachers in strict adherence to the Appendix II, Table 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 specified in the regulations. Thus the College applied the Note under regulation 4.1 dated 18.07.2018 the same reads as under: 4.1 For the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Sciences, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education and Journalism and Mass Communication. Xxxx Note: The Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for Universities and Appendix II (Table 3B) for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only, and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview. 5. In the first blush, when this Court has called upon the other side the argument of petitioner looked attractive as from the perusal of the marks sheet, it appears that only the marks given in the interview were considered and there was no adherence to the revised criteria in the final score card of **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** **5** selection dated 30.06.2021, Ext.P4 which caused a proposed amendment for shortlisting and selection of the candidates to the post of Assistant Professor in colleges by awarding 120 marks ie., 100 for academic record and 20 for the interview. Aforementioned regulation has so far not received the assent of the Chancellor. In the absence of the same the UGC regulations dated 18.07.2018 would be applicable nor the Appendix-A of the UGC regulations dated 30.06.2021. Notification Ext.P1 placed on record did not provide any reservation for the physical handicapped as two posts were advertised; one of commerce and another for computer application and both under general category whereas against the commerce there was reservation viz-à-viz the community. In other words, there was no vacancy available for the reservation under 2016 Act. Thus the contention of the petitioner claiming the reservation despite having submitted the application under the general category is wholly irrelevant, not acceptable and hereby rejected. There is a tendency among the candidates after having participated in the selection process and on being unsuccessful, to assail the findings. The aforementioned prayer, in the absence of any **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** **6** malafides or any involvement of biasness, impartiality or other conditions have been rejected. This view of mine is derived from the ratio culled out in the judgment in _**Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi [2018 KHC 2874]**_ Writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** nak **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27738/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT INVITING CANDIDATES TO THE| ||POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DATED| ||10.03.2021.| |Exhibit P2|THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||05.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P1.| |Exhibit P3|THE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM| ||DATED 07.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P4|THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER| ||NO.2999/ACL/2021/M.G.U., DATED| ||30.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER| ||THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT SUBMITTED| ||BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.2021.| |Exhibit P6|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED| ||15.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT| ||IN RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P5.| |Exhibit P7|THE TRUE COPY OF THE SHORTLIST OF| ||CANDIDATES PREPARED BY THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P8|THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED SCORE| ||SHEET FOR INTERVIEW TO THE POST OF| ||ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN COMMERCE GIVEN BY| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P9|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST GIVEN BY| ||THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBIT| ||P6.| |Exhibit P10|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF| ||UGC NOTIFICATION NO.F1-2/2017EC/PS)| ||DATED 18.07.2018.| |Exhibit P11|THE TABULATED FINAL SCORE SHEET| ||COMPILING EXHIBIT P7 AND P8 IN TERMS| ||WITH EXHIBIT P4 AND P10 AS PREPARED BY| ||THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P12|THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY| ||CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER| ||FROM GOVERNMENT GENERAL HOSPITAL,| ||KOTTAYAM.| **WP(C) NO. 27738 OF 2021** **8** Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DATED 18.11.2018. Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.96/2021/HEDN DATED 15.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERMANENT FACULTIES IN OPEN MERIT AND COMMUNITY QUOTA GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P6.