W.A.No.461/2021 (Dr. Jitha G. vs Cochin University of Science and Technology)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **W.A.NO.461 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.26542/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER** **DR.JITHA G. AGED 45 YEARS LAKSHMI NIVAS, MADATHIL PARAMBIL, KMRA-102, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., KOCHI - 683 501.** **BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SOUTH KALAMSSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **2 DR.C.S.RATHEESH KUMAR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SOUTH KALASSERY, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 022.** **3 DR.N.CHANDRAMOHANAKUMAR DIRECTOR, INTER UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE BIOTECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES, FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI - 682 016.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY** **SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)** **SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.ASADU AHMMED CHULLINTE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 2 ::** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Mohammed Nias C.P., J.** The petitioner, who unsuccessfully challenged the selection of the 2[nd] respondent by the first respondent University for the post of Assistant Professor in Environmental Chemistry, is the appellant. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows: By Ext.P1, the 1[st] respondent University invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, the qualifications of which are as follows: “i. Good academic record as defined by the concerned university with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in Analytical Chemistry/Chemistry/Environmental Chemistry from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. ii. Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SET. iii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above, candidates, who are, or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 3 ::** 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor. iv. NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted. v. As per G.O.(Ms) No.163/2014/.Edn dated 19.04.2014, implemented in the University vide U.O. No: Ad.D2/UGC/PR/2013 dated 14.05.2014, candidates who had obtained Ph.D. Degree on or before 10.07.2009 and all candidates who have registered for Ph.D on or before 10.07.2009 and were subsequently awarded Ph.D. Degree shall be exempted from the requirement of NET for the purpose of appointment as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Universities & Affiliated colleges in the State. vi. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) Based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in the UGC Regulation 2010 and published in the University website.” By Ext.P5 dated 12.8.2016, the Academic Council resolved that being a multidisciplinary subject, Environmental Studies be taught only by those who are qualified in that subject, namely, Master's Degree in Environmental Sciences/Studies/Technology/Management. The petitioner questioned the selection of the 2[nd] respondent primarily on the ground that the marks awarded to him under various heads is wrong, being excessive, and if those marks are deleted, petitioner would be placed the first rank holder in the selection process. The educational qualifications of the petitioner as well as the 2[nd] respondent were not disputed by the University, and as such, was not an issue in the writ petition. The petitioner with specific reference to **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 4 ::** the marks awarded in Ext.P14 under two heads, namely, Research Experience after Ph.D., for which the 2[nd] respondent was granted maximum points, and also against the grant of marks for participation in Training Programmes/Workshop/Refresher Courses, where the 2[nd] respondent was granted 4 points, submits that the 14 marks so granted to the 2[nd] respondent is wrong. The learned Single judge, who considered the writ petition, found that the 2[nd] respondent was qualified inasmuch as he had M.Sc in Hydrochemistry, and the awarding of marks for the Post doctoral fellowship was correct and the marks for the participation in the training program is also assessed properly. The learned Single Judge further held that in the absence of any challenge to the authenticity and validity of the certificates, and in the absence of any allegation of bias or _mala fide_ s against the selection committee, it was not necessary to examine the said contention or for the court to assume the role of an expert. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition was dismissed upholding the selection of the 2[nd] respondent. It is the said judgment that is appealed on three grounds. 2. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam, duly assisted by Adv.Sri.A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan for **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 5 ::** the appellant, Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Adv.Sri.Brijesh Mohan for the 2[nd] respondent as also Sri.S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent University. 3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant specifically refers to the marks awarded under the following heads: |2.2<br>(a)|Research Experience after Ph.D. (Maximum 10 points)<br>Every<br>six<br>months<br>of<br>Post<br>Doctoral<br>Research<br>(In the case of Teachers who are also doing research work, their<br>research experience alone will be counted and excess experience, if<br>any, will be counted under teaching experience – credit of both<br>teaching and research experience will not be awarded concurrently)|1 point|10.0| |---|---|---|---| |2.2<br>(b)|Participation<br>in<br>Training<br>Programmes/Workshop/Refresher<br>Courses/Summer Winter – Schools (organized/sponsored by reputed<br>international Organisations, Central/State Govt. Institutions)<br>(Maximum 05 points)<br>a. Duration of the course above 4 weeks<br>b. Duration of the Course above 2 weeks and upto 4 weeks<br>c. Duration of the Course from 5 days up to 2 weeks|2 points<br>1 point<br>0.5 point|2.0<br>1.0<br>1.0| |**Total of Score for 2.1 to 2.2 limited to a maximum of 15 points**|||14| 4. His first submission is that the award of marks for the Research Experience after Ph.D. is governed by Ext.P6, and the **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 6 ::** marks awarded contrary to it, cannot be accepted. When we look at Ext.P6, it shows the terms and conditions for the award of the University Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship Programmes. In the instant case, the 2[nd] respondent, in whose favour Ext.P9 certificate was issued, certified that he was a participant in the Field survey and sample collection from Kavarathi and Agathi – part of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Islands during the period from 02.07.2012 to 27.08.2012 and also during the period 22.02.2013 to 05.03.2013. This was disputed by the petitioner on the ground that participation in field studies above, cannot be treated as part of a research. The 2[nd] respondent has produced Ext.R2(g), which is a certificate issued by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research [CSIR] – National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources, which certified that the 2[nd] respondent as a part of the Collaborative Research between CSIR and National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources [CSIR-NISCAIR] and Inter-University Center for Development of Marine Biotechnology [IUCDMB] , had participated in the field visits, data collection and sample collection (water and sediments) from Lakshadweep Islands in relation to his project “Database for climate impact studies in India with special reference to Lakshadweep during the period 21.06.2012 **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 7 ::** to 05.03.2013. It also certified that the chemical analysis of the collected samples and its data generation was carried out by the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent has also produced Ext.R2(h), the copy of the entry permit given to him for undertaking the said field analysis at the Islands. No doubt, Exts.R2(g) and (h) are the work carried out by the 2[nd] respondent, and in the absence of any contention that these documents are not authentic, we do not intend to go further, and the marks awarded on this score is only to be upheld, and we do so. 5. The second contention of the petitioner is that the marks awarded to the 2[nd] respondent for the Research Experience after Ph.D., where he has been granted 10 marks is again wrong for the reason that the petitioner was employed as Junior Scientific Officer in the Chief Chemical Examiners Laboratory, the functions of which cannot be treated as research, more particularly, in view of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of Junior Scientific Officer. According to the petitioner, the analysis of the material objects cannot be treated as research and the marks awarded under that head also is wrong. On going through the functions of the Junior Scientific Officer, produced as Ext.P11, it is clear that the analysis **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 8 ::** contemplated are that of the material objects involved in sensational and complicated case in addition to the analysis therein of normal cases. Thus, we hold that the analysis has to be treated as part of research. The learned counsel also argues that there were some duties attached to the post of Junior Scientific Officer, which are administrative in character and in that view of the matter also, it cannot be considered as research. We repel the said contention also as we are of the view that the job includes research in the field of the 2[nd] respondent's study apart from the other duties. 6. The third argument for questioning the selection of the 2[nd] respondent is based on the marks awarded for participating in a Tropical Indian Ocean Cruise, which is part of the multi-disciplinary cruise onboard the national flagship ORV Sagar Kanya from 29[th] October 2011 to 21[st] November 2011, which also, according to the petitioner, cannot be counted as part of a Training Program or a Workshop or a Refresher Course. It is the submission of the petitioner that on account of these three grounds marked, if the same is excluded from consideration, the 2[nd] respondent would be short by 14 points, in which event, the petitioner would have been selected. We cannot, for any reason, accept the said contention. We notice that **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 9 ::** the certificates and the marking have been done by the University, who had fixed the qualification as well, and for whom the selection of the 2[nd] respondent was carried out. We feel that they are best equipped to decide on the eligibility of on the person they want. These decisions by the Academic bodies, who are experts in the field, cannot be lightly interfered with, more so in the absence of any conflicting material adduced or in the absence of any challenge to the genuineness or authenticity of the documents produced and considered by the University. The petitioner cites the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Ahmedabad Textile Industry's Research Association v. State of Bombay – [1961 KC 532 [SC]]** for the proposition that the activity undertaken at the job as Junior Scientific Officer cannot be treated as wrong. We find nothing in the said judgment in support of the petitioner/appellant. The said judgment only considered whether the activity undertaken therein was an industry or not and therefore is clearly distinguishable. 7. It is trite that this Court, in judicial review of matters where the expert bodies arrive at decisions with respect to the qualifications or the experience would ordinarily accept their wisdom and choice in the absence of specific challenge with **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 10 ::** materials to counter such decisions. We find nothing wrong in the decision of the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal fails, and is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** **prp/13/12/21** **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 11 ::** ## **APPENDIX OF W.A.NO.461/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:** ## **ANNEXURE I** **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** ## **ANNEXURE II** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.07.2021 ISSUED BY DR.P.V. PADMANABHAN TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** **ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT.** **ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 08.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY DR. P.V. PADMANABHAN.** **ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO ANNEXURE-IV APPLICATION DATED 27.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.** **ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC. B3/PDF/2017-18 DATED 21.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** **ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 12.07.2021 ISSUED BY ONE MR. M.K. SUDHI BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** **W.A.No.461/2021 :: 12 ::** ## **ANNEXURE VIII** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY/E-MAIL COMMUNICATION TO ANNEXURE-VII RTI APPLICATION, DATED 14.08.2021.** ## **RESPONDENTS ANNEXURE:** **ANNEXURE R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INTER UNIVERSITY CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MARINE BIOTECHNOLOGY ON 15.09.2015.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE**