Sheena Shukkur v Kannur University and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933** **WP(C).No. 3402 of 2007(E)** **-------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-----------------** **SHEENA SHUKKUR, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. ADVOCATE C.SHUKKUR, KAONGOD, THURUTHI P.O., CHERUVATHUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR.** **2. THE SYNDICATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, KANNUR.** **3. DINKAR V.R., S/O.V.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT ARUNODAYAM, KOOTHALI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **4. DR.N.K.JAYAKUMAR, MEMBER, SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF READER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW,K KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, MANGATTUPARAMBA, IKANNUR** - **THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER S PER ORDER DATED 17.2.2011 IN IA 2473/11.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADVS. SRI. KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE** **SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI. SAIJO HASSAN SRI. A.S.SABU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.10.2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** ## **WP(C).No. 3402 of 2007(E)** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **---------------** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS** ## **---------------------------------** **EXTP1. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ACAD/B3/CTP/UGC.X/04 DATED 1.4.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXTP2. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ACAD/B3/CTP/UGC.X/04 DATED 4.10.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXT.P3. COPY OF THE GENERAL INSTRUCTION PROVIDED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED NIL** **EXT.P4. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.10.06 SUBMITTED BY MR.DINKAR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P5. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.10.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P6. COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.10.2006.** ## **EXT.P7. COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION DATED 30.10.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXT.P8. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ACAD/C2/309/2001 DATED 5.12.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXT.P9. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PLD/A2(RS)/2000 DATED 15.12.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P10. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.8.06 FROM THE COORDINATOR, FLY WELL AIR INDIA TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P11. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.3/HRE-RC/2006 DATD 29.3.06 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, UGC - ACADEMIC STAFF COLLEGE, UNIVRSITY OF CALICUT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P12. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30.10.06 ISSUD BY THE MEMBER SECRETRY, KELSA TO THE PEITIONER.** **EXT.P13. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.B1/0041/2003 DATED 1.1.07 ISSUED BY TH 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P14. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.10.06 ISSUED BY JUS. K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR.** ## **VK** ## **WP(C).No. 3402 of 2007(E)** ## **------------------------------------** ## **EXT.P15.COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ACAD-A1/1523/2006/LLB (HONS) DATED 5.8.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P16. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.2.06 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INITIATIONS AND ENACTMENTS ON HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA AND CANADA.** **EXT.P17. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.2.05 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF LAW BUSINESS ADMIISTRATION & TECHNOLOGY.** **EXT.P18. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATD 7.2.04 AWRDED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** **EXT.P19. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR THE PARTICIPATION AND PRESENTATION OF PAPER IN THE INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR ON FOLLOW IN GLOBAL CONTEST ORGANIZED BY THE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND HOSPITALITY MARIAN COLLEGE, KUTTIKANAM.** ## **EXT.P20. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.3.03 ISSUED BY JUSTICE K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, KELSA.** ## **EXT.P21. COPY OF THE TESTIMONIAL DATED 27.10.06 BY EMINENT JUSTICE K.T. THOMAS AND REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P22. COPY OF THE TESTIMONIAL DATED 12.10.06 ISSUED BY S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.** ## **EXT.P23. CPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE DATED 2.1.07.** **EXT.P24. COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE SYNDICATE MEETING HELD ON 17.1.07.** **EXT.P25. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.B/SO/2006 DATED 16.01.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P25(A). COPY OF THE RE-NOTIFICATION NO.ACAD/B3/CTP/UGC-X/05(RN) DATED 31.1.07 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **EXT.P25(B). COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.3.07 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **EXT.P25(C). COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO NO.AD B1/0056/2005 DATED 193.07 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P25(D). COPY OF THE MINUTES OF SCRRENING COMMITTEE FOR THE SCREENING OF APPLICATIONS FOR THE POST OF READER DATED 2.1.07.** ## **WP(C).No. 3402 of 2007(E)** **----------------------------------** **EXT.P25(E) COPY OF THE LIST OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY DATED NIL.** **EXT.P25(F). COPY OF THE LIST OF GUEST LECTURERS OF THE KERALA LAW ACADEMY DATED NIL** **EXT.P25(G). COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.10.06 PRODUCED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P25(H). COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PRO/P10/RT/98/2007 DATED 30.4.07 FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** **EXT.P25(I). COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.ACAD/B3/CTP/UGC-X/04(RN) DATED 30.3.07 ISSUED BY 1ST RSPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P25(J). COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE AWARDING Ph.D TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.06.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL** **-------------------------------------** **/ TRUE COPY /** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **VK** ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, J.** ------------------------------------------- ## W.P.(C) No.3402 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** The 1[st] respondent Kannur University published Ext.P1 notification inviting applications from Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas for selection to the post of Reader in Law in the reserved category. No application from qualified Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas was received. They re-notified the vacancy with the condition that if qualified hands from among Ezhavas, Thiyyas and Billavas are not available, others would also be considered for selection. Three applications were received one that of the petitioner, one that of the 3[rd] respondent who belonged to the reserved category and a third from another candidate belonging to the reserved category. The third one was received late and was rejected at the threshold itself. The Screening Committee who scrutinised the applications did not find the other two qualified for the post. The age qualification was prescribed as between 35 and 45 years. The Syndicate decided to relax the W.P.(C)No.3402/07 2 age qualifications in appropriate cases, by Ext.P24 resolution. With the provision for age relaxation, the post was re-notified. The persons, who had applied pursuant to the previous notification were not required to apply separately pursuant to the new notification. The petitioner challenged the renotification by filing this writ petition as originally constituted on the ground that her candidature should have been considered as valid. But by an interim order dated 29.3.2007, this Court permitted the University to continue the selection and appointment provisionally subject to result of this writ petition. A Selection Committee and a Screening Committee were constituted. Accordingly, the University proceeded with the selection. They selected and appointed the 3[rd] respondent subject to the result of this writ petition. Under the above circumstances, the petitioner got the writ petition including amended a challenge against the constitution of the Selection Committee and the Screening Committee as also the selection and appointment of the 3[rd] respondent. As per the amended writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(C)No.3402/07 3 “i) Call for the records leading to Exts.P23 o 25 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ; ii)(a) call for the records leading to Exts-P25(c) and 25(i) and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ; i)(b) declare that the section and appointment of the 3[rd] Respondent is illegal and in violation of the Provisions of the Kannur University Act and Statute; i)(c) issue writ of mandamus commanding Respondents 1 and 2 to re-notify the post of Reader in Law and direct to make appointment strictly in terms of the provisions of the Kannur University Act and Statute; (ii) declare that Exhibits-P23 to 25 are arbitrary and the decision to re-notify the post of reader relaxing the age limit is illegal and not in accordance with the Kannur University Act and regulations made there under. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the application and appoint the petitioner in accordance with law after finding that her application is entitled to be considered in terms of Exhibit-P2 notification in the absence of qualified hands from E.T.B. (iv) stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P24 and P25 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.” 2. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the 3[rd] respondent on several grounds. First is that the 3[rd] respondent is not qualified for the post, insofar as he does not have the five years teaching experience, which is an essential qualification, prescribed for the post of Reader. The second is that the constitution of the Selection Committee and the 4 W.P.(C)No.3402/07 Screening Committee is not in accordance with the University Statutes. The third is that one of the members of the Selection Committee was interested in 3[rd] respondent and the relevant University Statute specifically prohibits a person who is interested in any of the candidate participating in the Selection Committee. The fourth is that the 3[rd] respondent was given age relaxation without jurisdiction, insofar as the age relaxation can be granted only in the regulation to be framed by the Academic Council. The Academic Council has not framed any regulations regarding age relaxation. Therefore, the Syndicate or the Selection Committee could not have validly granted age relaxation. 3. The University and the 3[rd] respondent have filed counter affidavits seeking to controvert the contentions of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the selection of the 3[rd] respondent has to be set aside accepting one of the contentions of the petitioner, I am not going into the other contentions raised by the petitioner in detail. The petitioner has specifically contended that the 3[rd] respondent does not W.P.(C)No.3402/07 5 have the essential experience qualification of 5 years' teaching prescribed for the post. She points out that the 3[rd] respondent does not have any experience as a Lecturer in any College affiliated to any University, that too after acquiring the Ph.D. qualification. According to the petitioner, as is clear from the documents produced by him, the 3[rd] respondent has experience only as a Guest Lecturer in the Kerala Law Academy Law College and he obtained Ph.D degree only in 2006. The selection was in 2007. Experience as a Guest Lecturer cannot be counted as experience prescribed for the post. So, the 3[rd] respondent did not have five years' teaching experience, after acquiring Ph.D. degree is the contention raised. It is not disputed before me by the respondents that the 3[rd] respondent's teaching experience is only as a Guest Lecturer in Law Academy most of which was prior to his acquiring Ph.D degree in 2006. The question as to whether the experience as a Guest Lecturer can be considered for appointment to the post of Reader, that too before acquiring Ph.D. Degree has been considered by this Court in two W.P.(C)No.3402/07 6 decisions namely, _**Vijayachandran Pillai**_ v. _**University of Calicut**_ [2009(3) KLT 176] and _**Vasundhara**_ v. _**Sallas Benjamin**_ [2010(3) KLT 533]. In those decisions, two Division Benches of this Court have held that the teaching experience gained should be one after acquiring Ph.D degree and experience gained as a Guest Lecturer cannot be counted as experience for appointment to the post of Reader. In view of the said decision, clearly, the 3[rd] respondent did not have the experience qualification prescribed for the post. That being so, the selection and appointment of the 3[rd] respondent to the post of Reader in the 1[st] respondent University, pursuant to Ext.P25 (a) notification is clearly unsustainable. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P25(i) order appointing the 3[rd] respondent as Reader, pursuant to Ext.P25(a) notification, is hereby quashed. But it cannot be disputed by the petitioner that she also does not possess the qualifications prescribed for the post as on the last date fixed for submitting applications as per Ext.P25(a) notification inviting applications. In fact one of the prayers in the amended writ petition is to re-notify the 7 W.P.(C)No.3402/07 post of Reader in law for fresh selection and make appointment strictly in terms of the provisions of the Kannur University Act and Statutes. In the said circumstances, it would be open to the University to conduct fresh selection in accordance with law, after issuing fresh notification, insofar as both the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent, who were considered for selection, were not qualified as on the last date for submitting applications, in accordance with law. I make it clear that I have not considered the other contentions raised by the parties on merits and it is left open to be considered, if necessity arises again. The writ petition is allowed as above. ## **S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE** acd W.P.(C)No.3402/07 8 W.P.(C)No.3402/07 9