IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25544 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.P.G.ROMEO, LECTURER'S QUARTERS, TYPE II A, NO.20, C.U.S.A.T, COCHIN-22. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TEHCNOLOGY, REP.BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O, KOCHI-22. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O, KOCHI-22. 3. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O, KOCHI-22. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY, FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 25544 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be a member of the Board of Studies of the Calicut University and is also a Senior Grade Lecturer at the Government Engineering College, Thrissur. By Ext.P2 the 1st respondent invited applications for various posts including that of Professor (Mathematics), reserving the same for candidates belonging to Ezhava community. Petitioner states that among the four applicants who had responded to the post of Professor (Mathematics), he was the only eligible one among them. 2. Subsequently, on the allegation that his application was erroneously rejected on the ground that he lacked the prescribed experience and that he had filed a representation to the 2nd respondent, he filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) 11167/2008 seeking an order to the 2nd respondent therein to pass orders on the WP(C) 25544/08 2 representation. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing that orders be passed on the representation referred to above. 3. Petitioner submits that subsequently on 4.8.2008 he was called for an interview. It is subsequent to that this writ petition has been filed on the allegation that the respondents herein were taking hasty steps to fill up the vacancy through back door by de-reserving the post in the general category. The prayers sought in this writ petition are to declare that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed in the vacancy of Professor (Mathematics) and also to direct the respondents to appoint him. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which they concede that the petitioner was interviewed on 4.8.2008 by a duly constituted Selection Committee. According to the respondents the petitioner could secure only 32.75 marks out of 100 and therefore he was not ranked by the Selection Committee. WP(C) 25544/08 3 5. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P3, contended that in terms of the UGC guidelines which govern the selection, once interview is completed, the Interview Board should give a report of its assessment to the Selection Committee and it is thereafter the Selection Committee should take a final decision in the matter. It is contended that in the selection, this rule has been violated. 6. I have considered the above submission and I am unable to accept this plea of the learned counsel. The relevant clause relied on by the petitioner is extracted below for reference:- “The process of selection should involve inviting the biodata and reprints of three major publications of which one could be a book or research report, before the interview, and getting them assessed by the same three external experts who are to be invited for the interview. The assessment report must be placed before the Selection Committee. The composition of WP(C) 25544/08 4 the Selection Committee for the post of a Professor will be the same as proposed for the post of a Reader.” 7. A reading of this clause shows that the process of a selection involves invitation of publications made by the candidates which includes a book or research report and such publications will have to be got assessed by external experts who are also invited for the interview. A reading of the rule shows that the assessment report mentioned therein is the report of the external experts who assessed the publication made by the candidate. It is not the assessment report of the candidates made by the Interview Board which is to be placed before the Selection Committee. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the rule contemplated an Interview Board and a Selection Committee. I am not in a position to make such an inference on going through Ext.P3. Ext.P3 only contemplates a Selection Committee which has interviewed WP(C) 25544/08 5 the petitioner in this case. Therefore the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the process of selection, the Interview Board has committed a procedural error is incorrect. 9. According to the Standing Counsel for the respondents, among the applicants petitioner was the only Ezhava candidate. It is also seen from the statement that as he secured only 32.75 marks, he was not ranked by the Selection Committee. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the procedure adopted by the respondents. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-