High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2019-01-10Appeals dismissed; common judgment sustained. D...

Shafeeque Rehman K.V. v. Aligarh Muslim University & ors

Case / Petition Number:WA No. 42 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Honourable Mr. Justice K. Surendra Mohan
The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2019-01-10
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals dismissed; common judgment upheld. The court found non-compliance with Regulation 6.0.1 due to lack of transparency and absence of component-wise segregation in the selection process. It directed the University to conduct a fresh selection in accordance with the UGC Regulations, with time up to 09.03.2019 to comply, and ordered that the selected candidates shall continue in the interim until the fresh selection is completed.
Final Disposition: Appeals dismissed; common judgment sustained. Direction for fresh selection in line with UGC Regulations; time extended to 09.03.2019; interim continuance of selected candidates until fresh selection is completed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SHAFEEQUE REHMAN K.V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340

Respondents

Dr Hamza V.K., S/O Late ABOOBACKER, BVATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679337
ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, represented by its Registrar, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002
THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002
THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002
JOINT REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002
THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340
LUBNA NSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340
MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340
SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
• SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
• SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI
• SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
• SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY)
• SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.K.M.FIROZ
• SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA
• SRI.K.M. SATHYANANTHA MENON
• SRI.KALEESWARAN RAJ
• A.ARUNA

Case Synopsis & Summary

These appeals arise from a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.11.2018 in W.P.(C) Nos. 29113 of 2016 and 3949 of 2017, challenging the selection of Assistant Professors in Management Studies and Research at Aligarh Muslim University, Malappuram Centre. The petitioners contended that the selection breached the UGC Regulations, 2010 as amended in 2013, which prescribe a transparent, objective, and credible framework for merit analysis through specified weightages. Central to the dispute is Regulation 6.0.1 and Appendix III, Table II(c), which fix the components and their weightages: Academic Record and Research (50%), Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (30%), and Interview (20%), with the API-based evaluation to be applied through a system consistent with the Regulations. The Selection Committee awarded marks on a scale of 10 rather than 100 and did not clearly segregate marks across components, prompting the petitioners to seek a fresh selection. The Single Judge set aside the selection and directed a fresh process within two months. The University and selected candidates challenged, arguing lack of binding departmental procedure in absence of discipline-specific regulations and that consolidation of marks would suffice. The Division Bench ultimately held that the process violated Regulation 6.0.1 due to lack of transparency and segregation, while noting absence of malafide, and dismissed the appeals, extending time to 09.03.2019 for compliance, with ongoing appointments until completion of the fresh selection.

Provisions of Law Cited

UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of teachers and other Academic staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (as modified in 2013)Regulation No. 3.2.0Regulation No. 4.4.5Regulation 6.0.1Appendix III Table II(c)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the selection did not comply with the UGC Regulations 2010 (as amended 2013). They emphasize Regulation 6.0.1, which requires a transparent, objective, credible methodology of merit analysis based on weightages and the API-based scoring, with explicit segregation across components (50% for Academic Record & Research, 30% for Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills, 20% for Interview). They point out that the Selection Committee awarded marks on a ten-point scale without showing component-wise segregation, and argue that consolidation of marks cannot substitute proper tabulation. They rely on Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. (2000) 7 SCC 719 to argue that even where multiple heads exist, a consolidated score may be permissible but not under the present undisclosed segmentation. They contend absence of malafide and urge a remand or fresh selection with proper compliance within a specified period. respondents: The respondents defend the process, asserting compliance with UGC Regulations by applying the prescribed criteria, albeit on a 10-point scale for convenience. They argue that the regulations permit a consolidated approach when the Heads are interpreted, and emphasize that there is no malafide in conduct, nor illegality in formation of the Selection Committee. They request dismissal of the petitions and uphold the single-judge order; they cite that P13 (the prior proforma) is not binding and that discipline-specific norms may differ.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the Selection Committee adhered to the statutory framework; the adjustment from a 100-point scale to a 10-point scale was a cosmetic change, not a procedural violation; the three core criteria (Academic Record & Research, Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills, Interview) were factored in as per UGC guidelines, though the exact split may not be numerically explicit in the pro forma.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P.	(2000) 7 SCC 719	Distinguished	Cited by appellants to argue that consolidated marks may be permissible; however the Bench distinguished it as inapplicable to the present disciplinary- specific, API-based framework and noted the need for segregation per Regulation 6.0.1.
Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. DR B.S. Mahajan	(1991) SCC 305	Positive	Cited to support deference to expert selection committees in academic matters; used to emphasize that courts should not substitute expert judgments absent malafide.
Basavalah (DR) v. DR.H.L.Ramesh	(2010) SCC 372	Positive	Cited for the proposition that courts have limited role in academic decisions absent malafide; relied upon to bolster restraint in judicial interference.
Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa	(2008) 9 SCC 284	Positive	Used to support that norms may differ across disciplines; however, the judgment reiterates adherence to UGC-defined cross-disciplinary standards.
Chancellor v. DR Bijayananda Kar	(1994) 1 SCC 169	Positive	Cited to illustrate that disciplinary norms may vary, reinforcing the need for discipline-appropriate procedures in selection; treated as supportive of controlled judicial review rather than universal application.

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 Shafeeque Rehman K.V. v. Aligarh Muslim University & ors 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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 19TH POUSHA, 1940** **WA.No. 42 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29113/2016 of HIGH COURT** ## **APPELLANT/8TH RESPONDENT:** **SHAFEEQUE REHMAN K.V. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, AGED 45 YEARS, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & ESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 & 9:** **1 DR. HAMZA V.K. S/O.LATE ABOOBACKER, BVATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679337. 2 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002. 3 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002. 4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002. 5 JOINT REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002.** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 2 **6 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340. 7 LUBNA NSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** **8 MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** **9 SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTADV.SRI.K.M.FIROZ,ADV.SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA ADV.SRI.K.M. SATHYANANTHA MENON, ADV.SRI.KALEESWARAN RAJ,ADV.A.ARUNA.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2019, ALONG WITH WA.33/2019, WA.35/2019, WA.40/2019, WA.43/2019, WA.2495/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 3 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 19TH POUSHA, 1940 WA.No. 33 of 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29113/2016 of HIGH COURT** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:** - **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202002.** - **2 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202002.** - **3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202002.** - **4 JOINT REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202002.** - **5 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** **BY ADV. SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9:** **1 DR.HAMZA V K.,** - **S/O.ABOOBACKER (LATE), VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA POST, PALAKKAD-679337.** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 4 **2 MS.LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** **3 MS.MOHAMMED YASHIK P., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** **4 MR.SHAFEEQU REHMAN K V., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** - **5 MR.SYED AHMED SAAD,** **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679340.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **ADV.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ,ADV.K.M.FIROZ** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2019, ALONG WITH WA.40/2019, WA.43/2019, WA.35/2019, WA.2495/2018, WA.42/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 5 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 19TH POUSHA, 1940 WA.No. 35 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3949/2017 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS/5TH, 6TH & 8TH RESPONDENTS:** **1 MS. LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340.** **2 MS. MOHAMMED YASHIK P ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH UNIVERSITY, MALAPPRUAM 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.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA SRI.P.C.GOPINATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 RINOJ.P.K., AGED 5 YEARS CHODATHIL HOUSE, PANNENPARA, CHALAD P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 014.** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 6 **2 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002. 3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002. 4 THE REGISTRAR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP-202002. 5 THE DIRECTOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 340. 6 SHAFEEQU REHMAN K.V. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 340.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA. SRI BABU KARUKAPADATH. SRI.S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2019, ALONG WITH WA.40/2019, WA.43/2019, WA.33/2019, WA.2495/2018, WA.42/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 7 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 19TH POUSHA, 1940 WA.No. 40 of 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3949/2017 of HIGH COURT** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:** - **1 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-2022002 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.** - **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202002.** - **3 THE REGISTRAR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH-202002.** - **4 THE DIRECTOR ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA(VIA), MALAPPURAM-679340. BY ADV. SMT.SANJEETHA K.A., SC, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER /RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8:** - **1 RINOJ P.K AGED 2 YEARS CHODATHIL HOUSE, OABBEBOARA, CHALAD.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670014.** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 8 **2 MS.LUBNA ANSARI ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA(VIA), MALAPPURAM -679340. 3 MS.MOHAMMED YASHIK.P ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA (VIA), MALAPPURAM -679340. 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-679340. 5 MR.SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA (VIA), MALAPPURAM-679340.** **COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTADV.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, ADV.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, ADV.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU,** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2019, ALONG WITH WA.43/2019, WA.35/2019, WA.33/2019, WA.2495/2018, WA.42/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 9 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 19TH POUSHA, 1940 WA.No. 43 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29113/2016 of HIGHCOURT** ## **APPELLANTS/6TH, 7TH & 9TH RESPONDENTS:** **1 MS.LUBNA ANSARI LUBNA ANSARI,ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340** **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** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA SRI.P.C.GOPINATH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 DR.HAMZA V.K S/O. ABOOBACKER (LATE), VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, CHUNDAMBATTA POST, PALAKKAD 679 337.** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 10 **2 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP 202002.** - **3 THE REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH , UP 202002** - **4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP 202 002** - **5 JOINT REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH, UP 202 002** - **6 THE DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340** **7 MR. SHAFEEQUE REHMAN K.V, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA POST, CHELAMALA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 340** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI BABU KARUKAPADATH, S RI KALEESHWARAM RAJ, SMT. SANJEETHA.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2019, ALONG WITH WA.40/2019, WA.35/2019, WA.33/2019, WA.2495/2018, WA.42/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 11 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 20TH POUSHA, 1940 WA.No. 2495 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3949/2017 of HIGH COURT** ## **APPELLANT/7TH RESPONDENT:** **SHAFEEQUE REHMAN K.V. AGED 45 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679340.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.J.VISHNU DEVARAJ SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 & 8:** **1 RINOJ P.K. CHODATHIL HOUSE, PANNENPARA, CHALAD P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670014.** **2 ALIGARH MUSLIM UNVERSITY, ALIGARH(UP), PIN-202002,** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 12 ## **REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,** - **3 VICE CHANCELLOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH(UP), PIN-202002.** - **4 REGISTRAR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH(UP),PIN-202002.** **5 DIRECTOR, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679340.** **6 LUBNA ANSARI, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA VIA, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679340.** - **7 MOHAMMED YASHIK P, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679340.** - **8 SYED AHMED SAAD, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND RESEARCH, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, MALAPPURAM CENTRE, CHERUKARA P.O, PERINTHALMANNA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679340.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.01.2019, ALONG WITH WA.40/2019, WA.43/2019, WA.35/2019, WA.33/2019, WA.42/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 13 ## **JUDGMENT** **[ WA. 42/2019, WA.33/2019, WA.35/2019, WA.40/2019, WA.43/2019, WA.2495/2018 ]** ## **Surendra Mohan, J.** These appeals are all directed against the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 07.11.2018 finally disposing of the W.P.(C) Nos. 29113 of 2016 and 3949 of 2017. In both the Writ Petitions, the candidates who had applied for selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Management Studies and Research in the Aligarh Muslim University, Malappuram Centre had challenged the selection that was conducted by the University. The allegation was that, the selection was in violation of the UGC Regulations. The learned Single Judge has set aside the selection and has directed a fresh selection to be conducted, within a period of two months. The candidates who had been selected as well as the University have filed these appeals challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Since the issues that arise for consideration are identical, all the appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 14 2. W.A.No.42 of 2019 is treated as the leading case and reference to the parties as well as to the documents produced are made, in the manner they are arrayed and referred to in the said appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that, the selected candidates as well as the Writ Petitioners are all persons who possess all the academic qualifications that are necessary for being considered for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professors. As already noticed above, the allegation is that, the selection was not conducted in compliance with the UGC Regulations. The parties are all agreed that the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of teachers and other Academic staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulations for short) as modified in 2013, governs the appointments. A copy of the relevant portions of the regulations is produced as exhibit R1(i). Regulation No.3.2.0 stipulates that the minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professors shall be those prescribed by the UGC in the Regulations. Regulation No.4.4.5(as evident from exhibit P2 in W.P.(C)No.3949 of 2017) stipulates the minimum qualifications for appointment of the teaching faculty of W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 15 Universities and Colleges for Management/Business Administration. The regulation has been extracted by the learned Single Judge in the judgment appealed against and prescribes the academic qualifications necessary to be possessed, for being considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. Since all parties possess the said qualifications, we do not venture to reproduce the clause here. 4. The dispute in these appeals is with respect to the selection procedure adopted by the University. The selection procedure is laid by the Regulation 6.0.1, which is extracted hereunder:- 6.0.1 The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in Tables I to IX of Appendix III. As per 6.0.1 extracted above, the analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma based on the academic performance indicators (API) as provided in W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 16 this Regulations in table I to IX of appendix III shall be incorporated in the selection procedure. Going by the above provision, it is clear that the selection procedure has to incorporate a transparent, objective and credible methodology that complies with the tables in Appendix III. The table applicable to the present selection is II(c). The same is extracted hereunder:- ## APPENDIX -III TABLE -II(c) Minimum Scores for APIs for direct recruitment of teachers in university departments/Colleges, Librarian/Physcial Education cadres in Universities/Colleges, and weightages in Selection Committees to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the Regulation. ||Assistant Professor/ equivalent cadres (Stage 1)|Associate Professor/equivalent cadres (Stage 4)|Professor/equivalent cadres (Stage 5)| |---|---|---|---| |Minimum API Scores|Minimum Qualification as stipulated in these regulations|Consolidated API score requirement of 300 points from category III of APIs|Consolidated API score requirement of 400 points from category III or APIs| |Selection Committee criteria/ weightages (Total Weightages =100)|a)Academic Record and Research Performance(50%) b)Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (30%) c)Interview Performance (20%)|a)Academic Background(20%) b)Research performance based on API score and quality of publications (40%) c)Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (20%) d)Interview performance (20%)|e)Academic Background (20%) f)Research Performance based on API score and quality of publications (40%) g)Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (20%) Interview Performance (20%)| W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 17 5. An examination of the above provisions leaves no doubt in our minds that, the selection procedure would have to follow the criteria stipulated by Table II(c) above. Three criteria referred to as a,b and c in the table are to govern the selection to the post of Assistant Professor. The marks to be awarded for each component has also been specifically stipulated. Thus, for academic record and research performance 50% is stipulated, for assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills 30% is stipulated and for interview performance, the marks stipulated is 20%. However, in the present selection, admittedly the Selection Committee has followed a totally different system and awarded marks to each candidate out of a scale of 10. In view of the above, it was contended by the Writ Petitioners that the selection was made only on the basis of the marks awarded at the interview and the other criteria stipulated by the UGC had not been taken into consideration. It was further contended that, the marks awarded by the Selection Committee out of ten should be considered as the marks for the interview alone and taking into account the other criteria also, the consolidated marks of each candidate should be worked out. The learned Single Judge has declined the said prayer and no appeal has been filed by any of the Writ Petitioners against the said judgment. W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 18 Therefore, we do not propose to go into the said aspect of the matter. However, the fact remains that, instead of awarding marks out of a scale of 100 in accordance with the UGC Regulations, the procedure followed by the Selection Committee was to award marks out of a scale of 10. 6. It is contended by Advocate M.A. Vaheeda Babu who appears for the appellants in two appeals that, the marks awarded by the Selection Committee represents the consolidated marks to which each candidate was entitled on the basis of all the three criteria stipulated by the UGC Regulations. The fact that no segregation of marks was made by the Selection Committee cannot vitiate the selection process. Therefore, it is contended that, the Single Judge erred in setting aside the entire selection. Reliance is placed on the decision of **Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P.** [(2000) 7 SCC 719] particularly paragraphs 28 to 30 to contend that, even in situations where awarding of marks under different heads are contemplated by the selection process, awarding of consolidated marks without any segregation by the Selection Committee, taking into account all the parameters that are required to be considered, would be sufficient compliance with the procedure. It is further pointed out that, the learned Single Judge has wrongly placed reliance upon exhibit P13, W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 19 which is a document produced by one of the Writ Petitioners along with the reply affidavit in W.P.(C) No.29113 of 2016, from which W.A.No.42 of 2019 arises. Exhibit P13 only shows the manner in which another Selection Committee had awarded marks while undertaking selection of Assistant Professors to the Law Department. The proforma that was adopted for awarding marks applied only to the said discipline and was not binding on the subsequent Selection Committee that conducted the present selection. The counsel therefore seeks interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. Advocate M.P.Ashok Kumar who appears for the appellants in two appeals, while adopting the contentions already referred to above, points out that no separate regulations have been made by the University for the conduct of selection to the Department of Management Studies and Research. In the absence of any such regulations, the Selection Committee was at liberty to formulate its own procedure and to conduct the selection. There are no allegations of malafides against the Selection Committee. There are no allegations against the manner in which the Selection Committee was constituted. In the absence of any such allegations, the learned Single Judge went wrong in W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 20 setting aside the entire selection. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision in **Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. DR B.S. Mahajan** [(1991) SCC 305] and **Basavalah (DR) v. DR.H.L.Ramesh** [2010(8) SCC 372] to contend that the Court should not sit in judgment over the decision of Selection Committees who are experts in the academic fields. It is contended that, the reliance placed by the learned Single on exhibit P13 is wrong for the reason that different norms apply to different disciplines and the norms in one department cannot be made applicable to another. The learned counsel also places reliance on decision in **Rajbir Singh Dalal (DR) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, SIRSA** [(2008) 9 SCC 284 and **The Chancellor v. DR Bijayananda Kar** [(1994) 1 SCC 169 ]. 8. Advocate Sanjeetha KA, Standing Counsel for the University contends that, the University has not violated the UGC Regulations. The Selection Committee has awarded marks taking into account all the criteria stipulated by the UGC Regulations. Instead of awarding marks out of a scale of 100, the Selection Committee has awarded marks out of ten. The said procedure, according to the counsel, may not be held to be illegal as done by the learned Single Judge. On the above grounds, the respective counsel seek interference with W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 21 the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 9. We have also heard Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj who appears the first respondent as well as Advocate Aravindakshan Pillai who appears for the contesting respondents. 10. Heard. As already noticed above, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that all the parties possess the qualifications that are stipulated for the post of Assistant Professor. It is also not in dispute that the UGC Regulations 2010 are applicable to the process of selection. The only question to be determined is whether there has been compliance with the stipulations contained in the UGC Regulations. We have already extracted the relevant regulations as well as the Appendix III table -II(c). Going by the said provisions, a selection procedure would have to take into account the different components that are contemplated by the UGC Regulations. The different components as well as the scores to be awarded to the different components have been specifically stipulated in the UGC Regulations. Thus, for academic record and research performance 50% is contemplated, for assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills 30% is contemplated and for interview performance what is contemplated is 20%. In the present W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 22 selection process, the Selection Committee has admittedly granted marks on a scale of 10. There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate what are the different components on the basis of which the marks were awarded. The learned Standing Counsel has put forward an explanation that the Selection Committee had only reduced the marks from a scale of 100 to a scale of 10 for the sake of convenience. 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. Absolutely no explanation is put forward before us as to why the segregation has not been maintained. Secondly, the explanation that the scale was reduced to 10 for the sake of convenience does not stand to reason. It is always easier to award marks out of a scale of 100 than out of a scale of 10, especially when there are different components for which separate scores are contemplated. The learned Single Judge has called for the files and 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. There is also nothing on record to indicate the marks awarded for each of the components. The procedure for selection in these cases therefore militates against the stipulations in regulation 6.0.1 W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 23 of the UGC Regulations that “the overall selection procedure shall incorporate a transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidates to the different relevant dimensions. In the present case, the procedure has not been transparent. The procedure adopted cannot be catagorized as one that complies with the UGC Regulations. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the selection. 11. As already noticed above, reliance has been placed by the counsel on the decision in **2000(7) SCC 719** (Supra) to contend that, instead of segregating the marks, the Selection Committee was well within its powers to grant consolidated marks. However, we find from the facts of the said case that, that was a case in which the guidelines stipulated the taking into account of various aspects like administrative ability regarding school management, self expressive and impressive views etc, which the Apex Court found were aspects on which separate segregated marks could not have been awarded. No such confusion exists in the present case, for the UGC has stipulated the different aspects to be considered as academic record and research performance, assessment of domain knowledge etc which are matters that would be borne out by W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 24 ## the records. 12. With respect to the other decisions on which reliance is placed, **Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. DR B.S. Mahajan** [(1991) SCC 305] and **Basavalah (DR) v. DR.H.L.Ramesh** [2010(8) SCC 372], what requires to be noted is that, in the 1991 decision the High Court had set aside the Selection Committee's decision and had considered the relative merits of the candidates to make a fresh selection, which is held to be unjustified. In the 2010 decision, the Apex Court has held that in academic matters, Courts have only limited roles particularly when no malafides have been pointed out. No such situation exists in the present case since the selection has been set aside solely for the reason that, the UGC Regulations applicable have not been complied with. **Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari Devilal University, Sirsa** [(2008) 9 SCC 284], paragraph 331 is relied upon in particular to contend that, each discipline and each department follow different norms for selection and that the procedure of one discipline cannot be incorporated into the other. It is true that in the present case the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on exhibit P13, which is a proforma that was used for selection of Assistant Professors to the Department of Law during the previous year. But that has been relied upon only for the purpose of W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 25 concluding that the University was initially following such a proforma where the marks in respect of the different components were specifically segregated. The observation of the learned Single Judge can only be construed as directing such a procedure or selection to be followed for the fresh selection that has been ordered. It is true that different norms would apply insofar as selection of Associate Professors is concerned, and a fresh proforma incorporating the norms applicable would be used by the University. Though we tried to ascertain from the Standing Counsel for the University as to why the use of a proforma like exhibit P13 was not considered necessary while undertaking the disputed selection in these cases, we have not been able to elicit any answer. In order to ensure that the selection conducted is transparent and above board, it is necessary that such a procedure is followed. Since the selection has been set aside for non compliance with the procedure stipulated by the UGC Regulations, we find no infirmity in the judgment appealed against. For the foregoing reasons these appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. The standing counsel for the University submits that the time stipulated by the learned Single Judge for conducting the fresh selection has expired and therefore seeks two months further time to comply with the direction issued by the learned W.A.42/2019 & con. Cases 26 Single Judge. The request is accepted. The University is granted time up to 09.03.2019 to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge. All other terms stipulated by the learned Single Judge shall continue to be in force including the direction that the selected candidates shall continue until a fresh selection is completed. **Sd/K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE Sd/N.NAGARESH JUDGE** kkj