IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16488 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR. YAMUNA GEORGE, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. GEORGE VETTATH, LECTURER J.D.T. ISLAM COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, VELLIMADUKUNNU, CAICUT. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 16488 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for selection to the post of Lecturer (Biotechnology) initiated by the respondent University as per Ext.P6 notification. Ext.P3 is the M.Sc. (Biotechnology) certificate issued to the petitioner by the Periyar University. As per Ext.P8 memo dated 24.5.2010, she was informed that the M.Sc. Biotechnology (Regular) Degree awarded by the Periyar University was not recognised as equivalent to the corresponding degree of the University of Calicut for employment purpose. It is challenging Ext.P8 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent has recognised the degree held by her equivalent to the corresponding degree of the University of Calicut for educational purpose. It is submitted that by virtue of Ext.P3 degree certificate, the petitioner has been working as Lecturer in J.D.T Islam College of Arts & Science in Calicut from 15.6.2007 onwards and that the said institution is affiliated to the University of Calicut. W.P.(C) NO.16488/2010 2 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this Writ Petition by the respondent-University. It is specifically stated thereunder that M.Sc. Biotechnology degree awarded by the Periyar University to the petitioner has not been recognised as equivalent to the corresponding degree of Calicut University for employment purpose. Such a decision was taken by the Academic Council. Since the Academic Council is the authority to decide such matters, the decision in Ext.P8 rejecting the application of the petitioner for selection to the post of Lecturer (Biotechnology) was taken in tune with their decision. Be that as it may, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 7 of the said counter affidavit that runs hereunder: “For considering the question of equivalency of the above course an authenticated copy of the scheme, syllabus, rules and regulations of the M.Sc Biotechnology degree of Periyar University has to be submitted by the candidate for placing in the meeting of the Board of Studies concerned for evaluation and granting recognition to the courses as per the decision of Academic Council.” It is evident from the above extracted portion of the counter affidavit that the University is inclined to reconsider the issue regarding the decision relating the question of equivalency of the M.Sc Biotechnology Course of the Periyar University in case the petitioner produces the authenticated copy of the scheme, syllabus, rules and regulations of the M.Sc. W.P.(C) NO.16488/2010 3 Biotechnology degree of the Periyar University. The learned counsel for the University submitted that in case the petitioner produces such required documents, the same could be placed before the Board of Studies concerned for evaluation and granting recognition of the said course and based on a decision of the Academic Council, a final decision could be taken. But the question is, whether in the light of the decision of the Academic Council not to recognize the degree in question held by the petitioner as equivalent to the corresponding degree of the University of Calicut for employment purpose, the action on the part of the University in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6 can be held as illegal and warranting interference. Obviously, as of now, the position is that Ext.P3 degree of the petitioner is not recognised as equivalent to the corresponding degree of the University of Calicut for employment purpose. Ext.P6 is in fact, issued for selection to the post of Lecturer in Biotechnology, ie., the notification is intended for employment purpose. In view of the facts thus obtained in this case, this Court cannot hold the action on the part of the University in rejecting the application based on the decision of the Academic Council as illegal and consequently, the same calls for no judicial review. Therefore, this Writ W.P.(C) NO.16488/2010 4 Petition is liable to be dismissed. I do so. At the same time, it will be open to the petitioner to make available all the required documents in the light of paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit before the University and to work out his remedies based on such decision. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.16488/2010 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO. /2010 JUDGMENT June, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.16488/2010 6