IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26765 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR. P.GEETHA, LECTURER SENIOR SCALE, SREE NEELAKANDA GOVERNMENT SANSKRIT COLLEGE, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELECTING CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF DIRECTOR IN WOMEN STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPALAM,MALAPPURAM). ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY FOR R1 & R2 ASOK M.CHERIAN,SC,CALICUT UNIERSITY FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 26765/2005. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT. 18-4-2005. EXT.P2 LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 DETAILS REGARDING THE SEMINARS ATTENDED BY PETITIONER. EXT.P4 INTERVIEW MEMO. EXT.P5 DO. DO. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26765 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The 1st respondent University invited applications for various posts including the post of Director, Reader, Lecturer etc. The petitioner applied for the post of Director and Reader. Interviews for both posts were scheduled to be held on 31-8-2005. The petitioner was first interviewed for the post of Reader. She thereafter waited for the interview for the post of Director. But, she was not called for the interview. On enquiry, she was told that since she was interviewed for the post of Reader, it was not necessary to interview her again for the post of Director also. The petitioner is challenging the action of the University in not interviewing the petitioner for the post of Director. She therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Call for the entire records relating to the constitution of the selection committee for selection to the post of Director of Women studies and quash the same by issue a writ of certiorari order or direction; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to constitute a selection committee in terms of the Statute and conduct a fresh interview to the post of Director of Women Studies; iii) declare that the non interviewing of the petitioner for the post of Director of Women Studies is highly unjust and illegal; iv) declare that having been interviewed the petitioner for the post of reader is not a reason for not interviewing the petitioner for the post of Director by a duly constituted selection committee; v) issue an interim stay of all further proceedings for selection to the post of Director of Women Studies pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification; vi) declare that the selection committee which interviewed the candidates for selection to the post of Director (Women Studies) is not a duly constituted selection committee and direct the Syndicate of the University not to approve the selection committee minutes.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which, in paragraph 3, it W.P.C. No. 26765/05 -: 2 :- has been stated thus: “It was the same Selection Committee that had interviewed the candidates for the Post of Director, Reader and Lecturer on the same day itself. Since the petitioner has already been interviewed for the Post of Reader, the Selection Committee, in order to avoid repetition, resolved not to interview her again for the post of Director. Personal interview of a candidate is generally to assess one's personal performance, other than the academic achievements. Here the petitioner was already interviewed by the same Selection Committee, on the same day itself. It was on the basis of her performance that she was also considered for the post of Director and that post of the Director was resolved to be re- notified as the Selection Committee found no one suitable for the post.” So, it is clear that the petitioner was the only candidate who applied for the post of Director. While she was interviewed for the post of Reader, the selection committee did not find her suitable. She being the only candidate for the post of Director and she was not suitable even for the post of Reader, the selection committee decided to re- notify the post of Director for selection. I do not find anything wrong with the procedure adopted by the University. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/