V. Sasidharan v. Union of India and Others

W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.27697 OF 2017(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **V. SASIDHARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PRIYADARSINI, PALAPPURAM P.O., OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679103.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.V.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,**| ||**MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, CENTRAL**| ||**SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-110001.**| |**2**|**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**| ||**THEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE, KASARGOD-671316,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.**| |**3**|**THE VICE CHANCELLOR**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THEJASWINI HILLS,**| ||**PERIYE, KASARGOD-671316.**| |**4**|**A.RAHDAKRISHNAN NAIR**| ||**REGISTRAR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THEJASWINI**| ||**HILLS, PERIYE, KASARGOD-671316.**| |**5**|**DR.T.RAGHUNADHAN**| ||**DEPUTY REGISTRAR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,**| ||**CALICUT-673601.**| |**6**|**SRI SUNIL BHASKARAN**| ||**INDIAN MILITARY ACADEMY, DEHRADUN,**| ||**UTTARAKHAND-248007.**| W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 2 **7 DR.SHRISHAIL MATH C/O.CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE, KASARGOD-671316. R1 BY SRI P.VIJAYAKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.C.M.ANDREWS BY ADV. SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SC SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 3 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ ## **--------------------------** W.P(C).No.27697 of 2017-J ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 24[th] day of June, 2020_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ The appointment of the 4[th] respondent as Registrar in the Central University of Kerala is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P1 notification dated 15.01.2015 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Registrar, in the scale of pay of Rs.37400-67000 with grade pay (GP) of 10000. The qualifications prescribed were the following: _“Essential Qualifications:_ _1. A Master's degree with at least 55% of the marks or its equivalent grade of `B' in the UGC seven point scale in any discipline from a recognized University/Institute._ _2. At least 15 years of experience as Assistant Professor in the AGP of Rs.7000/- and above or with eight years' service in the AGP of Rs.8,000/- and above including as Associate Professor along with experience in educational administration._ **==> picture [41 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _Comparable experience in research establishment and/or other institutions of higher education._ **==> picture [41 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post.”_ W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 4 Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application. Respondents 4 to 7 were also applicants to this post. The petitioner submits that he is a graduate in Physics with 85.3% marks with first class in M.Sc (Physics) and also having B.Ed and M.Ed. At the time of submitting application, he was undergoing Ph.D in the M.G University and he was working as Controller of Examinations of the University from 03.02.2012 with additional charge of the Finance Officer from 01.09.2013 to 01.09.2014 and of Registrar from 20.05.2013 to 30.06.2014. The petitioner appeared in the selection; but was not included in the rank list or wait list. The 4[th] respondent, who was ranked 1[st] , was appointed as Registrar as per Ext.P6 order dated 15.11.2016. 3. Referring to Exts.P4 and P5, it is stated that the 4[th] respondent was awarded 67 marks. Respondents 5 to 7 were included in the waiting list at sl.nos.1 to 3, with marks 60, 58 and 66 respectively. It is stated that the petitioner was given only 53 marks. He alleges that he was awarded only 16 marks for experience; whereas respondents 4 to 7 were given 20 marks. The petitioner collected the copies of Ext.P3 application of the 4[th] respondent along with the documents produced by him, on application under Right to Information Act. According to the petitioner, there is no justification in limiting his marks towards experience at 16 and that he was entitled to 20 marks out of 20; according to him the 4[th] respondent was not entitled to 20 marks as he was having only 7 years and 8 months' experience. He alleged that respondents 5 to 7 also did not have the requisite experience as prescribed in Ext.P1 notification and therefore the marks W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 5 assigned to respondents 4 to 7 towards experience is erroneous. Pointing out the experience certificate dated 14.10.2016, which was given to him along with Ext.P3 application of the 4[th] respondent, he pointed out that the 4[th] respondent produced his experience certificate only after 14.10.2016; whereas the interview was on 29.08.2016 and 30.8.2016. Pointing out these illegalities in the selection, the petitioner submitted representations before the University as well as the President of India, who is the visitor of the University. However, his representation was rejected by the University as per Ext.P8 letter. In this Writ Petition the main allegation of the petitioner is that the 4[th] respondent has got only 7 years and 8 months of experience in the cadre with a grade pay of Rs.7,600/- and above as evident from Ext.P9 details he collected under the RTI Act. It is his further contention that 4 marks per year is awarded towards experience and therefore the petitioner, who was having the requisite experience, was entitled to full marks; whereas others who were ineligible for full marks were given the same. Relying on Exts.P9 to P11 answers given to him under the Right to Information Act from the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, the petitioner alleged that the 4[th] respondent was drawing the grade pay of Rs.6,600/- only as a Deputy Director and he has got only 7 years and 8 months' experience in the grade pay of Rs.7,600/- and above and therefore he was not having the requisite experience and hence he was not qualified. It is also his contention that the production of experience certificate after the selection was over, has also vitiated the selection. 4. The allegation against the 5[th] respondent is that he was included in the W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 6 wait list though he did not have the requisite experience in the grade pay of Rs. 7600/-. Relying on Ext.P12 certificate dated 24.03.2017 obtained from NIT Calicut under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner alleged that he was having only 5 years and 4 months' experience in a cadre with grade pay of Rs.7,600/- and not w.e.f 31.12.2003, as claimed by him. 5. In the case of the 6[th] respondent, the petitioner relied on Ext.P13 proceedings of the Central Information Commission and stated that he was only an adhoc Assistant Professor in the Indian Military Academy Dehradun till 2016 and hence he was not at all eligible for appointment or even consideration. 6. Pointing out the service details of the 4[th] respondent, the petitioner claimed that his application itself was liable to be rejected for non-production of experience certificate. 7. The University as well as respondents 4 and 5 have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit of the University it is stated that the 4[th] respondent was having 15 years of administrative experience, of which 8 years are in a post equivalent to that of Deputy Registrar. It is stated that the petitioner was having only limited administrative experience. According to them, marks were awarded to the experience of candidates in accordance with rules. It is also stated that even in the event of awarding 4 more marks towards experience, the petitioner would not have been ranked above the 4[th] respondent who got 60 marks when the petitioner got only 53 marks. It is also stated that respondents 4 to 7 are having the W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 7 requisite experience. It is stated that the 4[th] respondent had produced an experience certificate on the date of interview itself and he had produced another certificate at the time of joining, in accordance with the terms of the offer of appointment. It is stated that as per Ext.R2(b) order issued by the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan the 4[th] respondent was enjoying the grade pay of Rs.7,600/from 1.9.08 by virtue of financial upgradation. It is stated that as per Ext.R2(a) experience certificate dated 29.08.2016 produced by the 4[th] respondent, he was drawing a grade pay of Rs.8,700/- when he was on deputation at Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development as quality head of the Department. It is also stated that he was an officer on special duty in the Ministry of Labour and Employment. It is stated that the entire service of the 4[th] respondent was under the Central Government in Class I cadre and that the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, where he was working, has adopted the terms and conditions of the Central Government Employees. In the case of the 5[th] respondent it is stated that he was working as Registrar in the National Institute of Foundry and Forge Technology, Ranchi; as Deputy Registrar in NIT, Calicut in the grade pay of Rs.7600/- from 31.12.2003 and hence he is having more than 11 years of experience in the grade pay of Rs.7600/-. 8. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing Ext.R4(a) which would show that he was working in the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan as District Youth Co-ordinator from March, 1988 to July, 2000; as Deputy Director for a period of 6 years and 2 months from July, 2000 to September, 2006; as W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 8 Faculty Head and Head of the Department on deputation in Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development for a period of 6 years and 4 months from September, 2006 to January, 2013 during which period he was drawing grade pay of 8700. He thereafter worked as Officer on special duty on deputation in Ministry of Labour and Employment in a pay band with grade pay of 7600 from January, 2013 to May, 2014. From May, 2014 onwards he was working as Deputy Director with grade pay of 7600. Referring to Annex.R4(a) service details the 4[th] respondent claimed that he was having all the qualifications required and he is having more than 27 years of administrative experience in the Central Government institution in an administrative cadre with a grade pay above that of 7600, out of which 15 years were in the cadre of Deputy Director which is an equivalent post of Deputy Registrar with same scale of pay and grade pay. It is stated that he produced Ext.R4(a) experience certificate dt.29.8.2016 before the selection committee and that there is nothing wrong in his selection. 9. The 5[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is more qualified and meritorious than the petitioner and even the 4[th] respondent. While stating that he is having 15 years of administrative experience and more than 8 years with grade pay of 7600, he points out that Ext.P1 notification does not insist experience in a particular grade pay as far as the third alternate qualification namely, administrative experience is concerned. He has also stated that consequent to the 6[th] pay revision implemented in NIT Calicut w.e.f 1.1.2006 pursuant to O.M dated 18.9.2008, the 5[th] respondent has been drawing the requisite W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 9 grade pay for more than the requisite period. According to the 5[th] respondent, the petitioner was only a teacher in an aided college upto 2.2.2012 and he was appointed in an academic position only on 03.02.2012, that too, in a newly started University with less than 800 students for conducting examination. On the other hand, in NIT there are 5500 students and it offers 25 Post Graduate programmes and 9 undergraduate programmes and it is an institution among the top 50 in India. According to the 5[th] respondent, the qualification of the 4[th] respondent is not the one which is required or prescribed. He has raised other contentions also regarding this comparative merit over other candidates. 10. Heard Sri Varghese - the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Sajith Kumar - the learned Standing counsel for the University, Sri Nandakumar - the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent and Sri Shyam Padman - the learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent. 11. The main contention of the petitioner is that the marks awarded to the 4[th] respondent towards experience is excessive and the marks awarded to the petitioner is insufficient. The qualification which is relevant for the purpose of this case is the third alternative essential qualification prescribed for the post in Ext.P1, which is _“15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post”._ 12. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the experience gained by the 4[th] respondent is not as Deputy Registrar or in an W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 10 equivalent post and that the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan is not an institution like University and not even an institution under the Central Government, no such contention is seen raised in this Writ Petition or even in Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner. The contention raised in his representation as well as in this Writ Petition is that he was awarded only 16 out of 20 marks; whereas respondents 4 to 7 were awarded 20 marks out of 20. His further contention was that the 4[th] respondent has got only 7 years and 8 months experience in the cadre with the grade pay of 7600 and above, but the University as well as the 4[th] respondent have produced the service details of the 4[th] respondent Ext.R4(a) certificate issued by the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan which would show that the 4[th] respondent had been drawing grade pay of 8700 from September, 2006 onwards. 13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent it is pertinent to note that the requirement in third alternative qualification is _“15 years of administrative experience of which 8 years shall be as Deputy Registrar or an equivalent post”._ It does not provide that the said experience shall be in a post with any particular AGP or grade pay as provided in the second alternative qualification for the post notified in Ext P1. Therefore, the allegations regarding shortage in requisite experience in a particular grade pay and regarding the awarding of marks for the same are baseless. 14. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that the experience W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 11 certificate was not produced along with the application. On the basis of the details obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act as per Ext.P3, the petitioner pointed out that the certificate produced by the 4[th] respondent was one dated 14.10.2016; whereas the interview was on 29.8.2016. The case of the 4[th] respondent and that of the University, is that he had produced Ext.R4(a) certificate on the date of interview itself and another certificate dated 14.10.2016 was furnished prior to his appointment in compliance with the terms of appointment in the offer letter. 15. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the documents in proof of the qualification had to be furnished along with the application, it is seen that the proforma of application as seen from Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner and Ext.P3 application submitted by the 4[th] respondent does not provide for production of experience certificate; whereas as against academic/professional qualifications it is specified: “please attach copies of certificates”. Similarly, as against column No.13 with respect to the caste status, i.e. whether belongs to (a) Scheduled Caste; (b) Scheduled Tribe; (c) Other Backward Class also it is specified as “please attach a copy of the certificate in the prescribed format appended”. At the same time, as against column No.12 for work experience, there is no such specification provided in the format. 16. Moreover, the petitioner has not raised any allegation of malafides as against the selection committee or any of its members. Therefore, the mere fact W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 12 that the experience certificate was not produced along with the application and that it was produced only at the time of interview and thereafter at the time of appointment would not vitiate the selection. It is an academic body which has conducted the selection leading to the appointment. 17. As held in the judgments in _**Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan & Ors, M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors, UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya: (2018) 15 SCC 796**_ **,** when the Selection Committee consisting of experts in the field have assessed the candidates for direct recruitment, it is not open to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates, like an appellate authority to the selection committee. The petitioner has not also impleaded all or any of the members of the selection committee eo-nominee. In the above circumstances of the case, the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. _Sd/-_ _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/**_ W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 13 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION NO.NT-1/2014 DATED 15-01-2015 ALONG WITH THE UGC REGULATIONS.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27-022015 WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 26-07-2017.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST AND CONSOLIDATED SCORE CARD FOR THE POST OF REGISTRAR (UR-1).** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE CANDIDATES IN THE ORDER OF MERIT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.CUK/NT/PF84/ARK/2016 DATED 15-11-2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2104-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA & THE VISITOR OF CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.CUK/ADM/NTG/2019(PT)/D813 DATED 17-05-2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION VIDE NO.NYKSHQ-DEL/RTI-REPLY/2016-17 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 02/03-01-2017.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION VIDE NO.NYKSHQ-DEL/RTI-REPLY/2016-17/736 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 20-03-2017.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06-06-2016 ALONG WITH THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 14-10-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 14 **AND THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RULES OF THE NEHRU YUVA SANGETHAN 1986.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION VIDE NO.DO/DR/RTI/1054 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ON 24-03-2017.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM THE WEBSITE AS PER THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ON 05-042017.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.77091/2017/VIGILANCE-7/347887 DATED 1606-2017 OF THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 22.6.2016 OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONVOCATION APEX COMMITTEE, DATED 5.6.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.12.2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE JOINT SECRETARY, MHRD., GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE ACTION STATUS OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY INDIAN MILITARY ACADEMY.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION NO.CUK/APPT/NT-1/2014 DATED 15.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR-IN-CHARGE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 8.3.2017 FILED BY SRI ABHILASHKUMAR N. AND THE REPLY THERETO DATED 24.3.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 20.4.2017 FILED BY SRI ABHILASHKUMAR N. AND THE REPLY THERETO DATED 3.5.2017.** W.P(C).No.27697/2017-J 15 ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN DATED 29.08.2016. EXHIBIT R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN DATED 11.3.2014. EXHIBIT R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN DATED 29.8.2016. EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER F NO.23-1/2008-TS.II DATED 18.8.2009 ISSUED BY MHRD. EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LLM DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 2.6.2008 ALONG WITH FINAL MARK LIST DATED 1.12.2007. EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF MASTER OF ARTS DATED 16.8.2007 ALONG WITH ITS FINAL MARK LIST DATED NIL. EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 6.5.2014 DECLARING THE RESULT OF PH.D DEGREE ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA SURATHKAL, MANGALORE. EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE GRADE CARD DATED 24.6.2010 ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE. EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 6.5.2014 ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA, SURATHKAL, MANGALORE.**