University of Kerala, Syndicate and Vice Chancellor v Soumya T. Cyriac and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942** ## **WA.No.976 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.32498/2017(J) DATED 25.01.2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** - **1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.** - **2 THE SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN-VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.** - **3 VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.** - **BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** WA No.976/2019 -:2:- ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 8:** - **1 SOUMYA T.CYRIAC, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, ST. MICHAEL'S COLLEGE, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA -688539, RESIDING AT MURICKUM MOODU, KALAVOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 522.** - **2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, MCRV HOSTEL, OLD BUILDING, GENERAL HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-682 011.** - **5 MANAGER, ST.MICHAEL S COLLEGE, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA-688539.** - **6 PRINCIPAL, ST.MICHAEL'S COLLEGE, MAYITHARA P.O., CHERTHALA-688 539.** - **R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL R2-R4 BY SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR GP R5 BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN R5 BY ADV. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB R5 BY ADV. SHRI.VINAY M.E.** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-022020, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.976/2019 -:3:- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 20[th] day of May, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ This appeal is filed by the University of Kerala, its Syndicate and the Vice Chancellor challenging the judgment dated 25/1/2019 in WP(C) No. 32498 of 2017. By the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge, while arriving at a finding that the selection of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry at St Michael's College, Mayithara was proper, directed the University to consider her approval based on the admissibility of the post within a specified time. 2. The Writ petition was filed when there was delay on the part of the University in approving the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry. Petitioner was one among the candidates who applied for the said post as per Ext.P1 notification dated 18/12/2013. By Ext.P7 dated 31/5/2017, the University informed the college that the selection made by the Committee in various departments cannot be WA No.976/2019 ## -:4:- approved as there were certain defects, and they were directed to submit fresh proposals. As far as the Department of Chemistry was concerned, the objection raised was that Ph.D holders were not awarded 15 marks as per the recommendation made by the standing committee of the Syndicate. If such marks were awarded, the rank position would have been shuffled entirely. It was further observed that the score sheet was corrected in such a way that the original rank position of the candidates under different streams were retained by making changes in the interview marks. By yet another letter dated 30/8/2017, the Manager of the college was asked to resubmit the proposals as resolved by the Syndicate, as per directions issued in WP(C) No. 25225 of 2017. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it was mentioned that the score sheet should have been returned with the revised ranked list ensuring that there should not be any change in the marks awarded for the interview from the original score sheet submitted, whereas marks for Ph.D, M.Phil and B.Ed, and other publications should be given as per University guidelines. 3. Learned single Judge observed that, in so far as the WA No.976/2019 -:5:- selection committee has followed the procedure, as per the UGC Regulation wherein separate criteria had been adopted, the scope of enquiry to be conducted by the University is limited to the extent of finding out whether the selection was in accordance with the UGC Regulation with regard to the qualification and norms. The selection committee having followed all the 3 criterias specified by UGC, University cannot interfere with the selection process. Though the University had raised certain objections to the award of marks in regard to the academic qualification, the same is within the domain of the selection committee to award such marks on academic performance as preferable to selection criteria under the UGC norms and accordingly the objection raised by the Syndicate had been overruled and consequently the aforesaid directions had been issued. 4. Learned counsel for the University while impugning the aforesaid judgment would contend that the Syndicate of the University is the competent authority to approve the select list prepared by the selection committee. It’s function is not to act as a post office. It is well within the power of the Syndicate to ensure that the selection committee has followed the selection process WA No.976/2019 ## -:6:- in accordance with the procedure prescribed. As per the norms for selection as prescribed by the University, while conducting a selection, 15 marks is to be awarded to Ph.D holders. In the case on hand, the selection committee did not award any such marks for Ph.D holders. Therefore, it was well within the power of the University to direct the college to ensure that the selection list has to be modified after affording marks to PhD holders, as per the norms of the University and thereafter the selection list be sent to the University. But while sending it back after adding the marks for Ph.D holders, the selection committee tinkered with the mark awarded for interview by which the entire selection process had become a farce. It is pointed out that if the marks for the interview had not been changed, the ranked list prepared by the selection committee would undergo a change and the petitioner will not be eligible to be appointed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner however would submit that there is no rationale on the part of the University in directing award of 15 marks for Ph.D holders. It is pointed out that National Eligibility Test (NET) is an essential qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Professor. The WA No.976/2019 ## -:7:- petitioner has NET qualification, whereas some of the candidates do not have NET qualification, but only Ph.D. As per the UGC Regulations, Ph.D holders are exempted from NET qualification and therefore there is no reason for granting any additional weightage of marks for Ph.D holders. The contention of the counsel for contesting respondent is that though the Norms and Procedure for Selection of Teachers for Appointment in Private Affiliated Colleges was formulated in the year 1996, no amendments were made to the same after introduction of UGC Regulations, 2010. It is pointed out that the selection committee during the selection process had awarded marks taking into account the norms and procedure of the Kerala University as a guideline and marks were awarded following the UGC Regulations, 2010, in terms of qualification. It is pointed out that the candidates who possessed NET and Ph.D were awarded 15 marks, since Ph.D was considered as an additional qualification. Learned counsel therefore justified the stand of the selection committee to have denied 15 marks for Ph.D holders. 6. In fact, it is not disputed that the interview marks had been changed by the selection committee, but it is submitted by WA No.976/2019 -:8:- the counsel for writ petitioner that such changes were made after reassessment of the candidates by the same selection committee. 7. Apparently this is a case in which learned single Judge did not consider the merits of the contentions urged by either side. Facts available in the case would disclose that after the University having sent back the selection list stating that 15 marks were not awarded to Ph.D holders as per the norms, the selection committee had thereafter awarded 15 marks for Ph.D holders, but, in the process, they changed the marks awarded for interview. In fact, no fresh interview was conducted by the selection committee. Therefore, the very act of the selection committee manipulating the marks already awarded for interview is _per se_ arbitrary. When such a gross arbitrariness which goes to the root of the select list is brought to the notice of this court, the matter required adjudication. The Syndicate of the University, was therefore justified in pointing out such glaring infirmity in the selection process, and consequently the learned Single Judge was not justified in observing that the Syndicate of the University should not interfere with the selection process. WA No.976/2019 -:9:- 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Syndicate has no power to interfere with the select list prepared by the Committee is not sustainable. Under Statute 14 of the Kerala University First Statutes, the Syndicate is enjoined with the power to approve the appointments made consequent to a selection conducted by the statutory selection committee, provided, the appointment is made in accordance with the staff pattern fixed by the University and that the said person is qualified to the said post. The qualification of a person to the post depends upon various factors and it is always open for the University and the Syndicate to ensure that the selection committee had followed the procedure prescribed by the University. If such power is not read into Statute 14, it will become an empty formality and it will give unbridled power on the selection committee to select candidates without following the procedure and norms prescribed by the University. Even in this case, as per the prevalent norms of the University, Ph.D holders have to be given 15 marks. When such marks have not been awarded, it is well within the power of the Syndicate to reject the approval and direct the selection committee to rework WA No.976/2019 -:10:- the selection sheet accordingly. But, in this case, while undertaking such an exercise, the selection committee went further and tinkered with the marks given for interview, as a result of which the writ petitioner again became the first rank holder. If the marks of the interview was not tinkered with, the position would be different. 9. The right of the University/Syndicate to interfere with the select list has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 1680 of 2014 decided on 30/11/2015 ( _**University of Calicut and another v. Rajani R. and others**_ ). It is relevant to quote paragraphs 16 and 19, which reads as under:- _“16. The UGC Regulations as well as the regulations issued by the University are binding on the management as well as the selection committee. Under Section 57(1A) of the Calicut Universities Act, management has to make appointments by direct recruitment on the basis of merit. The most meritorious candidate can be found out only if the marks are awarded in accordance with the guidelines. Therefore, the selection committee was bound to award marks strictly in terms of the guidelines issued by the University. It is pertinent to note that, Syndicate's duties include maintenance of efficiency also. Under Section 23 (xx) of the University Act, the Syndicate_ WA No.976/2019 -:11:- _is duty bound to arrange for and direct the investigation into the affairs of private colleges, to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency, and in case of disregard of such instructions to modify the conditions of affiliation or recognition or take such other steps as it deems proper in that behalf. Statute 14, if read along with Section 23 (xviii) and (xx), Section 57A and Statute 10 (3) of the first statute, will show that the Syndicate was perfectly within its competence to verify the records leading to the selection and to ensure that the selection was made in accordance with the norms issued by the University. The proposal for approval is sent to the University along with the records of selection including the notification, minutes of selection committee, which contains the index marks awarded by it to each of the candidates. Exts.R4(a) to (c) norms issued by the University would show that the educational agencies are again cautioned in awarding marks for each head. The proposal for approval of appointment is to be sent to the Syndicate along with all the records leading to the select list, which includes the score sheet of the candidates. In order to verify the awarding of index marks, especially the awarding of marks based on the educational qualification, i.e whether the 15 marks awarded is for Ph.D and NET, is correct and whether the Ph.D is in the concerned subject, a rowing inquiry is not necessary, as a mere look at the qualifying certificates of candidates, which will be part of the records accompanying the proposal for approval sent by the educational agency, is sufficient. When the educational qualification required for the teaching post is P.G Degree in the concerned subject_ WA No.976/2019 -:12:- _and NET or Ph.D in the concerned subject, the selection committee, while considering the comparative merit of the candidates, ought to have awarded the 15 marks only to those who are having Ph.D also in the concerned subject. The Syndicate cannot be found fault with in ensuring that the marks awarded was in tune with the judgment of this Court”._ _“19. In this context, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 12.08.2014 in W.P(c) No.1744 of 2013, to which one of us was a party (Antony Dominic, J.), is relevant. There, the issue was with respect to the weightage marks awarded to the candidate for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Folklore in the University of Calicut. After referring to the guidelines for awarding index marks as approved by the Academic Council, for selection of Lecturers in the Private Arts and Science Colleges and in the University Teaching Departments, this Court found that the eligibility of awarding marks to a candidate should be understood in the light of the prescriptions contained in Ext.P8 order of the University issued on 11.11.1997 prescribing guidelines for awarding index marks also, apart from the notification and even though it is not prescribed in the notification that Ph.D shall be in concerned subject, the selection committee was bound to award 15 marks reckoning Ph.D, only if the Ph.D was in the concerned subject. Seeing that the appellant therein was not given marks for the Ph.D in the concerned subject and the selected candidate was given marks for Ph.D in other subject, this Court directed to recast the rank list_ WA No.976/2019 -:13:- _assigning first rank to the appellant, while setting aside the appointment of the 4[th] respondent therein as Lecturer in Folklore. The issue arising in this case also is the same and therefore in the light of the aforesaid judgment, we are unable to agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Hence we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.”_ In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that Exts.P7 and P9 do not require any interference and hence, this appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the Writ petition is dismissed. **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **JUDGE Sd/-** **MARY JOSEPH** Rp **JUDGE** WA No.976/2019 -:14:- ## **APPENDIX** ## **APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE 1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET FORWARDED BY THE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY EVIDENCING THE CORRECTIONS EFFECTED IN THE INTERVIEW MARKS. ANNEXURE 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.7.2019 IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.670 OF 2019 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS RELATING TO QUALIFICATION OF TEACHERS ANNEXURE II PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2016 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.**