Muneer M. v. Mahatma Gandhi University

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 11295 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MUNEER M.,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUSTAFA,NASEEMA MANZIL, ARUKANJIRAM,PULIYOORKONAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 604. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CHANCELLOR,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, RAJ BHVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SYNDICATE,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R1 & 3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.11295/10** ## **PETITIONER'S EXTS:** EXT.P1: COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT.18.8.09 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENTUNIVERSITY. EXTS.P2 TO P5: COPY OF M.A., M.PHIL, B.A.DEGREE CERTIFICATES AND M.A.RESULT SHEET. EXT.P6: COPY OF NET CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION. EXT.P7: COPY OF TESTIMONIAL OF DR.G.GOPAKUMAR, PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KARYAVATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P8: COPY OF TELEGRAM. EXT.P9: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DT.18.1.10 WHICH IS OBTAINED AS PER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P10: COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 19.1.10. EXT.P11: COPY OF NEWS REPORTS PUBLISHED IN VARIOUS NEWS PAPERS. EXT.P12: COPY OF INFORMATION DT.5.3.10 AND THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P13: COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.18.2.10 SEND TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY FAX. - EXT.P14: COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.AD.AII(I)/550/2010 DT.28.7.10. ## **RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL** TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE dsn ## **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.** **-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.11295 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 19[th] DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011** ## **JUDGMENT** The sole question herein is, whether the Selection Committee appointed for the purpose of selecting candidates for appointment to the post of Lecturer in International Political Economy/Human Rights/West Asian Studies, is competent to fix the cut off mark for the candidates. The post is reserved for Muslim Community. 2. We are not concerned with the academic qualifications and other criteria. The petitioner has produced Exhibits P2 to P5 to show that he is fully qualified. It is also an admitted fact that after screening, the petitioner was issued a call letter to attend the interview. Exhibit P8 is the call letter. The interview was held on 18.11.2010. 3. The Selection Committee consisted of Vice Chancellor as Chairman, one Syndicate Member selected by the Vice Chancellor, two subject experts and Head of the Department. According to the petitioner, he had performed well in the W.P.(C)No.11295/10 -2- interview. There was another interview for selecting candidates from Ezhava quota also on the same day. 4. Even though the petitioner expected himself to be selected, he came to know that the Selection Committee was of opinion that none of the candidates are found to be suitable, for want of cut off mark. Exhibit P9 is the copy of the said proceedings. The same is under attack in this Writ Petition. 5. The main contention raised is that the cut off mark fixed as 55% is by the Selection Committee, which is evident from Exhibit P9 itself. In Exhibit P9, which is the proceedings of the Selection Committee, it is mentioned in the top portion as follows: “ Unanimously resolved to fix 55% as the cut off mark of suitability.” After entering the marks obtained by the candidates, it is recorded as follows: “ None of the candidates are suitable, for want of cut off marks”. 6. Therefore, the question is whether the resolution by the Selection Committee to fix the cut off mark is valid in the absence of any prescription in the Statute by any other resolution W.P.(C)No.11295/10 -3- by the appointing authority, namely, the Syndicate. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the University,in paragraph No.8, it is averred that the Selection Committee unanimously resolved to fix 55% as the cut off marks. After the interview, the Selection Committee found none of the candidates suitable for want of cut off marks. The Syndicate at its meeting held on 19.1.2010 considered the proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting held on 18.1.2010 for selection of Lecturer (Muslim) in the school of International Relations and Politics and resolved to accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee and resolved not to rank the candidates, as no one was found suitable for the post. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of a Full Bench of this court in **Keshav Mohan** _v._ **University of Kerala ( 2009(4) KLT 573)** wherein after interpreting the provisions of the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 the Full Bench took the view that the Selection Committee, in the absence of any prescription in the Act or Statute and any decision by the appointing authority, cannot on its own fix the norms. Therefore, the learned counsel for the W.P.(C)No.11295/10 -4- petitioner contends that the action of the Selection Committee is without jurisdiction. The Full Bench elaborately considered the various decisions of the Apex Court and laid down the relevant principles thus in paragraph No.39: 39. Since we have undertaken an elaborate discussion, we consider it appropriate to encapsulate our conclusions: (1) The selection committee, which has been statutorily constituted, should follow the norms for assessing the merit of rival candidates, if such norms are laid down in the statute. The Selection Committee has no jurisdiction or authority to either relax any of the norms or vary the same. (2) If the statute which provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee does not provide for the norms for the selection committee, then it is open to the appointing authority to lay down instructions and guidelines providing for such norms. In such a case, the Selection Committee is bound to follow such administrative instructions in conducting selection. (3) In cases where the norms governing the selection are not laid down either in the statutory provisions or in administrative instructions, the Selection Committee constituted to conduct selection would not have any inherent jurisdiction or authority to evolve its own norms for conducting the selection. If it evolves its own norms, then its action will be without authority and jurisdiction and selection would be vitiated. (4) The dictum laid in _Antony P.A. V. Krishnadas M.N_ . (ILR 2007(1) Ker. 244), which upholds the contrary position does not lay down the correct law and it is hereby overruled. From sub-paragraph (3) therein, it is clear that in cases where the norms governing the selection are not laid down either in the W.P.(C)No.11295/10 -5- statutory provisions or in administrative instructions, the Selection Committee constituted to conduct selection would not have any inherent jurisdiction or authority to evolve its own norms for conducting the selection. 9. Herein the Selection Committee has fixed 55% as the cut off mark out of 100 for the interview. Going by the proceedings Exhibit P9 and the counter affidavit filed, it can be seen that the Selection Committee has unanimously resolved to fix 55% as the cut off mark. It is not disputed that the University Act or the First Statute do not prescribe any cut off mark. There is no decision or administrative instruction by the University or by the appointing authority, namely the Syndicate in that regard. Therefore, both the conditions necessary for the Selection Committee to adopt 55% as the cut off mark are absent here. Evidently, the action by the Selection Committee itself going by the decision of the Full Bench in **Keshav Mohan's** case(supra) is without jurisdiction. 10. Even though the Syndicate by subsequent resolution accepted the decision of the Selection Committee, since the action of the Selection Committee itself is without jurisdiction, a W.P.(C)No.11295/10 -6- further ratification by the Syndicate will not save the said decision also. 11. For all these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is allowed. Exhibit P9 is quashed. 12. The selection will have to be held afresh after the competent authority, namely the Syndicate herein prescribes a cut off mark. Thereafter the Syndicate will issue appropriate directions to the Selection Committee to complete the selection process. Appropriate action will be finalised within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the marks of the candidates while rendering this judgment. No costs. ## SD/-( **T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR** , **JUDGE)** dsn