IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 31540 of 2007(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, LBS.INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR WOMEN, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.), ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 4. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. ADV.SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R1, ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R4, ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC FOR AICTE FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.31540/ 2007-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN M.TECH ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/07/07 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 13/08/07 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE FACULTY NORMS RELATING TO THE POST OF LECTURER AND ASST. PROFESSOR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18/10/07 SERVED ON 22/10/07 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/10/07 BEFORE THE R.1. BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 18/09/04. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD. 06/09/07 ISSUED BY THE R.1 - DIRECTOR. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 75TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE LBS CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM DTD. 21/08/07. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 26/09/07 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, KERALA UNIVERSITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/10/07 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/08/07 ISSUED TO ONE SMT. JYOTHISHA J. NAIR, APPOINTED AS ASST. PROFESSOR IN COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PERUMON. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26/05/06 ISSUED TO ONE SRI. SUBU SURENDRAN, APPOINTED AS ASST. PROFESSOR IN SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGG. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/06/06 ISSUED TO ONE SRI. SATHYA JOSE S.L. APPOINTED AS ASST. PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KARIAVATTOM. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE DOCUMENT OF N.I.T, THIRUCHIRAPPALLI. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD DTD. 20/05/05 FOR THE POST OF ASST. PROFESSOR UNDER GOVT. OF ENGINEERING COLLEGES IN THE STATE. W.P.(C). NO.31540/2007-D: EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/10/07 ISSUED BY LBS CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION LETTER DTD. 11/12/07 ISSUED FROM AICTE TO THE DIRECTOR OF LBS, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/10/2007 TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT DEPT. OF CSI, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DTD. 08/10/2007. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED BY LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE CHAIRMAN OF AICTE DTD. 07/01/2008. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED BY LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE ADVISER (RID) OF AICTE DTD. 07/01/2008. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED BY LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE CHAIRMAN OF AICTE DTD. 18/06/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 31540 OF 2007 D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Senior Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering at LBS Centre for Science and Technology for Women, Poojappura, Trivandrum. His claim in this writ petition is that he should be treated as a candidate eligible for the post of Asst. Professor in Computer Science and Engineering, the feeder category of which is Lecturer. Ext. P4 shows the qualifications that are prescribed and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, what he claims is that he has a first class Masters level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology with 5 years' experience. 2. Since the controversy in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner satisfies the prescribed qualification of first class at Masters level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology I need only examine that question. As far as the petitioner is concerned Ext. P1 is the certificate that is issued by faculty of applied science of the University of Kerala to the effect that he has been admitted to the Degree of Master of Technology, he having been certified by duly appointed examiners to be qualified to receive the same in the Branch Computer Science with W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -2- specialization in Digital Image Computing. 3. Ext.P8 is the circular that was issued by the 1st respondent requiring the Principals of the colleges to obtain applications from qualified Lecturers for selection to the post of Professors and Asst. Professors in the respective branches. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science and Engineering/Technology) and his application was forwarded by the Principal of his college. It would appear that the committee constituted for selection of suitable candidates found the petitioner ineligible and issued Ext. P5 rejecting his candidature. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is as follows: “Your Masters degree is from the faculty of Applied Sciences of Kerala University. As per the norms prescribed by AICTE, Masters Degree in Computer Science & Engineering/Technology is required to be qualified for the post of Asst. Prof. in CSE branches.” Petitioner submits that he having acquired M.Tech. in Computer Science as per Ext.P1, satisfies the qualification prescribed in Ext. P4. He is also relying on Ext. P10 certificate issued by the University of Kerala to the effect that the qualification he has acquired has been approved by the University of Kerala. Another document relied on is Ext. P18, a letter issued by the All India Council For Technical Education itself and addressed to the 1st respondent, which states as follows: W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -3- “In this regard, your kind attention is drawn to the fact that, AICTE has approved M.Tech programme in Computer Science in University of Kerala. Further, the nomenclature of degrees offered is a University matter. AICTE does not discriminate between the M.Tech degree offered by the faculty of Engineering/Technology or by the faculty of Applied Science. In the light of above clarification, you are requested to take further appropriate action in the matter at your end.” 4. The 1st respondent would dispute the qualification of the petitioner. According to the 1st respondent, Ext. P1 does not certify that the petitioner has a M-Tech degree in the concerned branch of Engineering/Technology. At the same time, the 1st respondent would submit that if the AICTE clarifies the eligibility of the petitioner they will abide by such clarification. It is in view of the stand so taken by the 1st respondent, this Court directed the 3rd respondent AICTE to file an affidavit in this case by order dated 14.7.2008. Accordingly an affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein they have reiterated what they have stated in Ext. P18. 5. Proceeding further, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit it has been stated by the 3rd respondent thus: “It is humbly submitted that this respondent has approved the M.Tech programme in Computer Science offered by the University of Kerala and this respondent does not discriminate whether the M.Tech Degree in Computer Science is offered by the faculty of Engineering/Technology or by the faculty of Applied Science. Minimum qualification and experience prescribed for teaching posts in Technical W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -4- Institutions has been made available in AICTE's Hand Book for Approval Process.” 6. Although several contentions have been raised by the petitioner asserting his eligibility, now that the 1st respondent has taken the stand that they will abide by the clarification furnished by AICTE, the only question that needs to be decided is whether a reading of Ext. P18 and the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent discloses that the petitioner is eligible. As already noticed in Ext. P18, it is stated by the 3rd respondent that they have approved M.Tech. programme in Computer Science in the University of Kerala and that the nomenclature of the degree offered is a University matter. It is also stated that AICTE does not discriminate between the M.Tech degree offered by the faculty of Engineering/ Technology or by the faculty of Applied Science which has issued Ext. P1 certificate. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent also reiterated this position and the claim of the petitioner that he satisfies the requirements of Ext. P4 qualification is, in my view, accepted. This position is also reiterated by the counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent as well. 7. In view of all these, I hold that the petitioner satisfies the qualification prescribed by the 1st respondent in Ext. P4 and therefore he is a candidate eligible to be considered for the post of Asst. Professor in W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -5- Computer Science and Engineering/Technology. In view of this, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature as per Ext. P5 has to be held illegal and I do so. 8. It is seen that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.10.2007 petitioner has been permitted to participate in the selection process on a provisional basis. Now that I have held the rejection of his candidature illegal his participation in the selection process also has to be treated as regular. Necessarily therefore on that basis the petitioner's claim for selection will be considered and consequential decision in this matter will be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-