IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32970 of 2004(Y) PETITIONER: SALAHUDHEEN, S/O.ABOOBACKER, UROTHODY HOUSE, PO.VATTALLUR, 676 507, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, RECRUITMENT SECTION, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY (P.O.) - 673 635. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, CALICUT UTY SRI.E.S.ASHRAF, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN,SC,CALICUT UNIERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1240 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.32970 OF 2004 & W.P.(C)No.1240 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February 2008 JUDGMENT The primary challenge in these two writ petitions is directed against the selection process held by the Calicut University to the post of Professional Assistant Grade-II. Petitioners had applied for the post in response to the notification issued by the University on August 4, 2002. According to the petitioners, they have got the requisite qualifications as prescribed in the notification. 2. It is not in dispute that the selection board constituted by the University had conducted a written test on February 8, 2004 for the candidates whose applications were found to be in order. Thereafter, the eligible candidates who had secured the requisite minimum marks in the written test were invited for the interview held between 5th and 16th of April 2004. 3. It is alleged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1240/05, which is treated as the leading case, that the selection board which conducted the interview was not presided over by the Chairman as he was out of station. Only the W.P.(C)No.32970 OF 2004 & W.P.(C)No.1240 OF 2005 :: 2 :: Registrar and four Syndicate members were present in the board. Thus, there was no quorum for the meeting as prescribed by the relevant Statute. There was no subject expert either. Petitioners have further alleged that the marks obtained by some of the candidates in the written test had been leaked so that those candidates had got opportunity to influence certain members of the selection board. These petitioners further alleged that the tabulation sheets containing the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test were not signed by the valuers and they were signed only by two Deputy Registrars. In short, petitioners contend that the selection process is liable to be set at naught as it had been totally vitiated. 4. It is the admitted position that the selection process was completed as directed by this court in its interim order dated December 8, 2004 in Writ Petition No.13351/04 and connected cases. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1240/05 claim that they have been placed at Rank No.89, 105 and 134 in the provisional rank list published on January 1, 2005 whereas respondents 4 to W.P.(C)No.32970 OF 2004 & W.P.(C)No.1240 OF 2005 :: 3 :: 15 had been placed at rank Nos.7, 10, 2, 17, 4, 6, 53, 3, 41, 9, 1 and 14 respectively. Petitioners further admit that the University had issued appointment orders to respondent Nos.4 to 15 on January 7, 2005 and respondents 4 to 11 had joined duty on January 10, 2005. Petitioners pray that the respective orders of appointment issued to respondents 4 to 15 may be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari. 5. In Writ Petition No.32970/04, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the entire selection process was illegal, without authority, null and void and non est. They further pray for a direction to the University not to make any appointment to the post of Professional Assistant Grade-II based on the selection process referred to above. The other prayer is that a writ of mandamus be issued to the University to conduct fresh selection process. 6. In the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in Writ Petition No.1240/05, the entire allegations made by the petitioners against the validity and legality of the selection W.P.(C)No.32970 OF 2004 & W.P.(C)No.1240 OF 2005 :: 4 :: process have been refuted and denied. It is averred that the selection committee was constituted by the Vice Chancellor as provided under Statute 8 of Chapter 4 of Calicut University First Statute, 1977 comprising (1) The Vice-Chancellor (Chairman) (2) Sri.K.Balakrishnan Kidave, Convenor, Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Staff (3) Sri.V.P.Abdul Hameed, Convenor, Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Finance (4) Sri.K.V.Mani, Syndicate Member (5) Sri.C.H.Ashique, Syndicate Member and (6) The Registrar, (Secretary). The procedure followed by the Selection Committee for holding the written test, interview, etc. has been elaborately stated by respondents 1 to 3 in the statement. It is asserted by these respondents that the tabulation card containing the marks obtained by the candidates in the written test were was kept in a sealed cover in the custody of the Vice Chancellor. Similarly, on the days when the interview was held, the marks obtained by the candidates were tabulated and kept in a sealed cover in the custody of the Registrar. It is further asserted by these respondents that strict W.P.(C)No.32970 OF 2004 & W.P.(C)No.1240 OF 2005 :: 5 :: confidentiality was maintained throughout the conduct of the written examination and the interview particularly in the matter of preparation of question paper, valuation, tabulation of marks etc. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the party respondents, it is contended that the selection process was held by the selection committee in a proper and legal manner and in accordance with the provisions contained in Statute 8 Chapter 4 of the Calicut University First Statutes. It is further contended by these respondents that the allegation with regard to leakage of marks obtained by certain candidates in the written test, is totally vague and baseless. The names of those candidates whose marks had been leaked, had not been mentioned in the writ petition. Similarly, the allegation that some candidates had influenced certain Syndicate members in order to obtain selection and appointment is also vehemently denied and disputed by these respondents. It is pointed out that after joining duty pursuant to the selection and appointment, their W.P.(C)No.32970 OF 2004 & W.P.(C)No.1240 OF 2005 :: 6 :: probation had been declared already. It is also pointed out that all the appointees who had got appointment on the basis of their respective position in the rank list have not been impleaded in the writ petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by the University and the party respondents, the allegations made by the petitioners against the selection process are totally vague. It has to be noticed that petitioners had participated in the selection process. They had qualified in the written examination and they were invited for the interview. Petitioners had also been included in the rank list. It may be true that they were placed somewhere lower down in the rank list. That does not mean that the selection process has to be declared invalid or irregular for that sole reason. As regards the allegation that marks obtained by some candidates in the written test had been leaked, it has to be at once noticed that petitioners have not W.P.(C)No.32970 OF 2004 & W.P.(C)No.1240 OF 2005 :: 7 :: pointed out any such specific instance. The names of such candidates have not been mentioned anywhere. Even assuming that the Vice Chancellor, the Chairman of the selection committee, was not present at the time of interview, his absence in my view had not vitiated the selection process. Petitioners did not have a case that the other members, constituting majority, were not present for the interview. 9. I am satisfied that the University had conducted the selection process in a proper and legal manner. On going through the relevant file produced by the University, I have not been able to find any material irregularity. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. Writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes