IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31739 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.SALLAS BENJAMIN, LECTURER(SENIOR SCALE), DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. G.VASUNDHARA, READER, DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCE, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY FOR R1 & R2 SRI.MAURICE VINCENT FOR R3 SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31739 of 2005 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF M.SC. OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER OF M.PHIL (SCIENCE) ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER OF PH.D. ISSUED BY THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY. EXT.P4: COPY OF LETTER NO.2-18/91-E U.II/JUNE 91 DATED 15.10.1991 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GROUP, NEW DELHI. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF P.G. DIPLOMA IN JOURNALISM OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY NO.GA/ II/F1/3972/2000 DTD 27.6.2005 ORDER OF PLACEMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS LECTURER SENIOR SCALE. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GA/II/C1/2149/04 DATED 11.1.2005 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF READER, DEPT. OF LIFE SCIENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.R5/2149/RDR-LR/LIFE SCIENCE DATED 21.10.2005 ISSUED THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE BIO-DATA PREPARED BY THE RECRUITMENT SECTION OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT IN RESPECT OF THE POST OF READER IN LIFE SCIENCE. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE SYNDICATE DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE SELECTION OF 3RD RESPONDENT AS READER IN THE DEPT. OF LIFE SCIENCE. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE MEMO NO.GA.II/F1/2637/05 DTD 31.10.2005 APPOINTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE UNIVERSITY. WP(C).No. 31739 of 2005 EXT.P13: COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD FOR STA FELLOWSHIP ISSUED BY THE JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER DTD 21.8.2000. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY DR. WALTER STORKEBAUM. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE CHART REGARDING RESEARCH DEGREE AND RESEARCH DOMAINS OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DR. FRIEDRICH SPENER, TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE GENETIC ENGINEERING LABORATORY. EXT.P18: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY ASHOK.PANDEY PH.D. DATED 5.10.1999. EXT.P19: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIUT DATED 11.1.2000 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P20: COPY OF THE CHART REGARDING THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER. R1'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE CANDIDATES. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SUB COMMITTEE DATED 19.7.2007. R3'S EXHIBITS EXT.R3(1): COPY OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTIFICATION OF EVEN NUMBER DATED 31/1/2005. EXT.R3(2): COPY OF THE R3'S M.SC. DEGREE IN BIO- CHEMISTRY OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DT. 18.8.94. WP(C).No. 31739 of 2005 EXT.R3(3): COPY OF THE R3'S PH.D DEGREE FROM M.G. UNIVERSITY DTD 30.10.01. EXT.R3(4): COPY OF RESEARCH PAPER PUBLISHED IN BULLETIN OF PURE AND APPLIED SCIENCES VOL.21 © NO.(1) PAGES 37-51. EXT.R3(5): COPY OF THE RESEARCH PAPER PUBLISED IN INDIAN JOURNAL OF MICRO-BIOLOGY VOL (42) MARCH 2002 PAGES 15-17. EXT.R3(6): COPY OF THE RESEARCH PAPER PUBLISHED IN BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY NO.72, PAGES 1122-1127. EXT.R3(7): COPY OF RESEARCH PAPER PUBLISHED IN INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, JAN-FEB 2004, PAGES 117-120. EXT.R3(8): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO R3 BY THE AUTHORITIES OF SREE NARAYANA GURU INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. EXT.R3(9): COPY OF RECEIPT DTD 1.9.99 EBV/PHD.99 ISSUED BY THE M.G. UNIVERSITY. EXT.R3(10): COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDINANCE IN CHAPTER XI. EXT.R3(11): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF MATHRUBHUMI DAILY KOCHI EDITION DTD 5TH FEBRUARY 2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.31739 OF 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are contesting for the post of Reader in Life Science in the University of Calicut, which is the first respondent herein. Pursuant to notifications inviting applications published by the University, both of them applied along with others. Both were found to be qualified. The selection committee, on the basis of marks awarded to each candidate found that the 3rd respondent scored the maximum marks and therefore selected the 3rd respondent for appointment and she was so appointed by the University. That appointment is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent does not have the experience qualification prescribed for the post and that appropriate marks have not been awarded to the petitioner for research publications as per the guidelines issued for the purpose. The contention is that going by the guidelines, the petitioner is entitled to 25 marks and he W.P.(c)No.31739/05 2 was awarded only 15 marks whereas for far less publications than the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was given the maximum 25 marks for research publications. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for Exts.P11 and P12 and quash the same; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Reader in the Dept. of Life Science pursuant to Exts.P7 and P9, forthwith” 3. Originally a counter affidavit was filed by the then Registrar of the University supporting the selection of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has also filed counter affidavits in this matter supporting the same. However, now an additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 disclaiming the counter affidavit earlier filed by the then Registrar on the ground that, that Registrar was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, which are in progress, for serious misconducts including the conduct in the matter of selection to various teaching posts in the service of the University actively conniving with the candidates by not properly placing the real factual situation in relation to the W.P.(c)No.31739/05 3 qualifications and eligibility of the candidates got them selected and appointed in the service of the University. Thereafter in that counter affidavit, it is specifically stated as follows, in paragraphs 7 to 10: “7. It is submitted that one of the essential qualification notified for selection is 5 years teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula. It is submitted that the experience should be one obtained by the candidates after regular appointment, which is approved by the University is concerned. 8. It is submitted that the experience as a guest lecturer on contract basis cannot be accepted as an experience qualification enabling a candidate to apply to the post as experience should be as a lecturer on full time basis after being appointed in accordance with law. Even the guest lecturer qualification claimed does not make the 3 rd respondent apply to the post as she lacks the 5 years teaching experience. It is submitted that a Bio-Data has been prepared by the University at the time of interview based on the documents produced by the candidates and verified by the officers. A true copy of the Bio-Data is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(a). 9. From the Bio-Data it can be seen that the 3 rd respondent is having only 4 ½ years teaching experience and hence the teaching experience is not in accordance with notification. It is submitted that the selection committee was convened on 28/10/2005 and formulated certain guide lines for awarding marks. A true copy of the minutes of the selection committee is W.P.(c)No.31739/05 4 produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R1(b). 10. It can be seen from Exhibit-R1(b) that the 3 rd respondent has awarded with 20 marks for experience. It is further submitted that the 3 rd respondent claims only 3 months post doctoral research in her application and for that she had not produced any proof. It is submitted that the awarding of marks for experience does not seeks to be correct. The petitioner in the writ petition has got in his credit 13 International and 11 national (totaling to 24) research publications, whereas only 5 research papers at the credit of the 3 rd respondent. Though the petitioner had 24 papers to his credit he was awarded with only 15 marks whereas the 3 rd respondent was awarded with 20 marks. As per the score sheet 5 marks is to be awarded for each paper with a maximum of 25 marks”. In that counter affidavit, it is also stated that in view of very serious allegations regarding the validity of the selection, the University had appointed a sub committee of the Syndicate to conduct a detailed enquiry as autorised by the Syndicate, in which serious irregularities were noticed in the various selection. They also produced a copy of the report of the selection committee as Ext.R1(c), wherein in respect of the selection which is under challenge in this writ petition also, the sub committee has found very serious irregularities. The same reads thus: W.P.(c)No.31739/05 5 “ LIFE SCIENCE READER Reader (Biochemistry) (Open Competition) Seven candidates applied for the post and 4 attended the interview. Of these, two were not qualified as per University notification, and the other 2 were awarded with index marks. Dr. Sailas Benjamin and Dr. G. Vasundhara were awarded 25 marks each for experience. Dr. Sailas Benjamin has 8 years approved teaching and 3 years equivalent research experience and so he is eligible for 25 marks under experience. But Dr. Vasundhara, who worked only a guest lecturer for 3 ½ years after receiving Ph.D on 20.1.2001, was also seen awarded with 25 marks for experience. In the biodata it was noted that “teaching experience not in accordance with notification”. Overlooking this the selection committee awarded 25 marks. The 25 marks for experience is exclusively for regular and approved teaching/research experience over and above 5 years. Dr. Sailas Benjamin was awarded only 15 marks for his 24 research papers whereas Dr. Vasundhara was given 20 marks for her 4 paper (This favouratism is reflected in the interview marks also). After passing M.Sc. in July 1993, Vasundhara worked for Ph.D under Dr. Muraleedhara Kurup (who was one of the subject experts for this interview) and got Ph.D on 20.1.2001. From 10.7.2001 she worked for 3 ½ years as guest lecturer at various institutions. The Registrar in a counter affidavit tried to hoodwink the Hon. High Court by submitting that she has produced document to support that the submission of her Ph.D thesis was on 1.1.1999. “So, after submission of the Ph.D thesis, the post doctoral (1) research experience has been taken into account for awarding index marks in the field of experience”. We would like to see the documentary evidence to this claim. Smt. Vasundhara never claimed post doctoral research experience. It is clear from the W.P.(c)No.31739/05 6 counter affidavit filed by her and from the application. From the selection file it is evident that she is not even qualified to apply for the post of Reader as she had no regular and approved teaching experience equivalent research experience. In response to a W.P.(C) No.33919/05 filed by one K. Sudheer the Registrar submitted a counter affidavit in which he stated that “merely having teaching experience do not qualify one for index marks because teaching service has to be approved and should be regular service”. Needless to say that this statement is based on University rules. All these facts depict the malafide intention of the selection committee to favour Dr. Vasundhara by violating the set norms and procedures. As secretary to the selection committee, the Registrar cannot shirk away from the responsibility of appointing an unqualified person to the post of Reader. Therefore, the misdeeds underlying the impugned selection and appointment of Dr. Vasundhara should be brought to light. In the mean time, her appointment should be reviewed”. Although the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would take pains to convince this Court that the conclusions arrived at by the sub committee are not correct, I am not persuaded to accept the same. When the University itself has with appropriate reasoning submits before me that the selection is vitiated by serious irregularities, I have no other option but to accept the same. Since the University itself has submitted that the 3rd respondent does not have the experience qualification prescribed and the petitioner was denied marks legally due to W.P.(c)No.31739/05 7 him in the interview, the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent is quashed. It would be open to the University to take further action in the matter in accordance with the decision of the Syndicate based on the sub committee report, which is stated to have been accepted by the Syndicate. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.31739/05 8