IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31656 of 2005(R) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ANTONY.P.W., POKKATH HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O., KADAMAKKUDY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELECTING THE CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT GR.II IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, (VICE CHANCELLOR,MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM). 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4. BENOY KURIAN, THOTTAPALLIL HOUSE, ROCK MOUND P.O., MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 2/02/2009 IN I.A.NO.1562/07) Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.31656/2005 R *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED: R5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 10/07/2009 IN I.A.NO.14786/2006) R1 BY ADV. MR. T.A.SHAJI, SC, MG.UTY R2 BY MR.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.V.A.MUHAMMED. R3&R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI ADDL.R4 BY ADVS.MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, MR.K.A.BALAN, MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, MR.S.A.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 26620 OF 2007 AND WPC NO. 28522 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 10/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31656/2005 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY DTD. 17/12/2004. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 4/04/2005. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 19/04/2005. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE PRINCIPALS/HEADMASTERS OF THE SCHOOLS DTD. 19/07/2005. P5: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 30/08/2005. P6: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 1/09/2005. P7: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 2/10/2005. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 12/09/2005. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY DTD. 14/06/2005. P11: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.31656/05, 26620 & 28522/07 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT These writ petitions concern recruitment to the post of Assistant Grade-II, in the first respondent University. Except the 2nd petitioner in WP(c).No.28552/07, all other petitioners are candidates, who had applied in response to the notification issued by the University. The 2nd petitioner in WP(c).No.28522/07 claims to be a prospective candidate. 2. In WP(c).No.31656/05 the prayer sought for is to direct the University to conduct selection, in terms of the statutory provisions, without entrusting the selection process to any outside agency. In WP(c).No.28522/07 also the main prayer sought for is to direct the University to initiate fresh steps for selection to the post notified. In so far as WP(c).No.26620/07 is concerned, the prayer made is WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 2 to direct the University to publish the result of the examination conducted and to make appointments from the ranked list to be prepared. 3. For convenience, I shall refer to the facts as pleaded in WP(c).No.26620/07. 4. By Ext.R6(a) resolution of the Syndicate, dated 31.5.2004, it was resolved to take steps to fill up the existing vacancies in teaching and non-teaching categories in the University. Subsequently, Ext.R6(b) resolution dated 30.11.2004 was passed and the Syndicate resolved to notify the vacant posts of Assistant Grade-II, for appointment. Accordingly, Ext.P1 notification dated 13.12.2004 was issued by the University, specifying degree from a recognized University and good and legible handwriting as the qualifications. It is also provided that the selection will be made on the basis of a written test of 3 hours duration conducted by the University and that the topics will be General Knowledge and General Awareness relating to better WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 3 management for office purpose and part II General English. It is stated that, in pursuance there of, about 45,000 applications were received by the University. Later, on 19.1.2005, the Syndicate resolved to constitute a special cell for processing the applications and to conduct the written test. Ext.R6(c) is the proceedings of the University, constituting a special cell, based on the sanction that was accorded by the Vice Chancellor. It is also stated that, subsequently on 19.4.2005, the special cell constituted was enlarged and by Ext.R6(d) dated 21.6.2005, the Vice Chancellor accorded sanction a provisional payment of Rs.2 lakh for meeting the expenditure, in connection with the arrangement of centres for the written test, subject to ratification by the Syndicate. Ext.R6(e) is the resolution of the Syndicate passed on 30.6.2005, to conduct written examination on 31.7.2005 and authorized the Vice Chancellor to take necessary steps in that regard. WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 4 5. It is stated that on the previous day, viz 29.6.2005, the Staff Selection Committee met and authorized the Vice Chancellor to entrust the conduct of examination with LBS, Thiruvananthapuram, a Government agency, for completing the recruitment process without any further delay. The minutes of the meeting of the selection committee held on 29th June, 2005 is Ext.R1(a). It stated that in pursuance there of negotiation was held with the LBS and finally Ext.R1(b) agreement was executed between the University and the LBS on 27.8.2005. It is also seen from the pleadings that on 27.9.2005, the Vice Chancellor sanctioned an advance payment of Rs.47,55,452/- to LBS and the payment was made. Pursuant to the aforesaid developments resulting in the entrustment of the recruitment process to the LBS, the University issued Ext.P2 corrigendum to Ext.P1 notification on 4.10.2005. In this notification, it was made clear that the mode of selection will be based on OMR method of 90 minutes duration and that topic of test will be General Knowledge, WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 5 General Awareness relating to Computer and General English. University also refers to Ext.R1(c) order dated 22.11.2005, which states that the Syndicate at its meeting held on 15.10.2005 and 24.10.2005 ratified the Vice Chancellor's action in according sanction for payment of Rs.47,55,450/-, being 75% of the estimated cost for the conduct of examinations. 6. Accordingly LBS took steps for conducting the written test adopting OMR method and scheduled the examination on 19.2.2006. It was at that stage, in November, 2005, WP(c). No.31656/05 was filed, contending that as per the statutes of the University, it is for the Selection Committee to conduct the recruitment process in terms of the qualification speficied in Ext.P1 and that this entrustment of selection process to LBS and the proposal to conduct the examination adopting the OMR method is contrary to the recruitment rules. 7. On 15.2.2006, after hearing the parties at length, this court passed an order permitting the conduct of the written WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 6 test, but however directing not to make appointments. Accordingly, the written test was held on 19.2.2006 but the results have not been announced. 8. Later, on 5.2.2007, the State Government issued orders increasing the number of members in the Syndicate from 20 to 25 and accordingly the new vacancies were filled up by nominating respondents 3 to 6 in this writ petition. The issue relating to the written test conducted by the LBS came up for deliberation in the Syndicate meetings held on 2.4.2007 and 16.4.2007. Finally, the Syndicate resolved to constitute a sub committee of 7 members to enquire and report on the conduct of the examinations. This committee consisted of respondents 3 to 9 herein. The terms of the reference of the enquiry committee were (1) mode of test, (ii) agency selected and (iii) expenses and (iv) transpiracy of the test. 9. The sub committee enquired into the matter. Ext.P5 is the report submitted by the respondents 3 to 6, recommending cancellation of the test and Ext.P6 is the report WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 7 submitted by respondents 7 to 9, taking the view that the test conducted was a proper one. It is also stated that subsequently on 25.8.2007 yet another report was submitted by respondents 7 to 9 reiterating their view in Ext.P6. Meantime, in view of the uncertainty, there was no progress in the matter and the petitioners in WP(c).No.26620/07 appear to have made representations to the Chancellor and also Vice Chancellor. It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed and the prayers sought are the following; “ I. to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to publish the result of the examination conducted on 19.2.2006 for the post of Assistant Grade-II in the Mahatma Gandhi University. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to publish the selection list as well as the WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 8 rank list of the successful candidate for the post of Assistant Grade II pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to appoint eligible candidates from the rank list by terminating the services of temporary employees. v. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or declaring that the selection test conducted by the 11th respondent is legal and valid.” 10. In so far as the petitioners in WP(c).No. 28522/07 are concerned, they want the findings in Ext.P5 report to be taken to its logical conclusions and fresh steps for recruitment to be initiated. 11. The University and the Vice Chancellor have filed counter affidavits justifying entrusting of selection process to WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 9 the LBS. According to them, it was not practical for the University to have dealt with about 45,000 applications and finalized the selection and it was therefore that they decided to entrust the selection process to LBS, a Government Organisation. Respondents 3 and 6 are filed their counter affidavit, where they are adopting the stand as reflected in Ext.P5 report submitted by them. 12. In my view, these writ petitions are premature. It is the admitted case that, on receipt of Ext.P5, P6 and the report dated 25.8.2007, the Syndicate has not so far considered the matter. It was the syndicate which appointed the sub committee with a direction to conduct enquiry and submit report. Once the reports have been received, irrespective of the views expressed therein, it is for the syndicate to consider the report and take a decision on the issue. Only if that decision is adverse to any of the parties can there be any cause of action to any one of them. Therefore, at this stage, the appropriate order to be passed is to direct the Syndicate to WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 10 take a decision in the matter, in the light of the reports which are submitted to it. 13. Although directions have been sought by the petitioners in WP(c).No.26620/07 to finalize the selection process pursuant to the examination held by the LBS and the petitioners in the other two writ petitions are seeking direction to initiate fresh selection process, it is not possible to pass any such order at this stage and the petitioner will have to await the final decision of the Syndicate and it is for the Syndicate to take steps in the matter in accordance with their decision. Therefore the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. The Syndicate shall consider the reports submitted by the sub committee appointed by it and take a final decision in the light of those reports. Once a decision is taken as above, the Syndicate will also decide as to whether the selection process already initiated should be continued or fresh selection process should be initiated. A decision as above WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 11 shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).Nos.31656/05 & conn. 12