IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2170 of 2008() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25544/2008 Dated 19/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETTIIONER ----------------------- DR.P .G.ROMOEO, LECTURER'S UARTERS, TYPE IIA. NO.20, CUSAT, KOCHI 22. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------- 1. COCHI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, REP.BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI 22. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI 22. 3. THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O. KOCHI 22. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,SC,COCHIN U FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.2170 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . First respondent University invited applications for various posts including that of Professor (Mathematics), reserving the same for candidates belonging to Ezhava Community. According to the appellant, he was the only applicant eligible to be appointed to that post. He was interviewed by a selection committee. The selection committee as per the rules is the same as the selection committee to the post of Reader which includes Vice Chancellor, Head of the Department, experts and academic professors. The selection committee considered the appellant and his merit was assessed. For academic qualifications he got 100% marks. For research experience also he obtained 100% marks, but, he did not produce any publications, books, monographs etc. He got 50% marks for performance in the interview. Following are the marks awarded to the appellant by the selection committee: “Sl. Norms for awarding Index marks Max. Marks No. Marks Awarded 1. Academic Qualifications M.Phil: 3 Marks: Ph.D: 10 Marks 10 10 2. Teaching/Research Experience above the minimum 1 mark per year subject to a maximum of 10 marks (Experience certificates to be produced by the candidate) 10 10 W.A.2170/2008 2 3. Publications in standard referred journals @1/2 marks per paper and publications in proceedings of National/International conferences/Symposium etc. @ ¼ marks per paper. Maximum 15 marks (Candidates to produce reprints) 15 2.75 4. Publications Books/Monographs: 2 marks per publications subject to a maximum of 10 marks (Candidates to produce the publication) 10 --- 5. Best paper award at the National level 1 mark per paper subject to a maximum of 5 marks. Centrificates to be produced 5 --- 6. National/International awards for Research: 5 marks per award subject to a maximum of 10 marks (Candidates to produce proof) 10 --- 7. Research Projects implemented as Principal Investigator : 1 mark : as Co-investigator ½ mark per project subject to a maximum of 5 marks 5 --- 8. Marks for producing Ph.D 2 marks per Ph.D guided and produced subject to maximum of 10 marks (Candidates to produce proof) 10 ---- 9. Seminar/Symposia/Workshop etc. organized as office bearer. 1 mark per event subject to a maximum of 5 marks 5 ---- 10. Performance at the Interview (Others special distinctions attained by the candidate also be given due weightage) 20 10 Total 100 32.75” There is no contention that selection committee failed to award marks to him in any of the items. But, it is contended that his reasearch paper was not scrutinised by experts as mentioned in the rules, but, for research experience he could not have any grievance as he was granted 100% marks, i.e., 10/10. In the aggregate he got only 32.75 marks out of 100. No cut off mark was fixed, but, the selection committee found that he is not fit to be appointed to the post of W.A.2170/2008 3 Professor (Mathematics). Selection committee did not select him. In the absence of any malafides, we are of the view that no interference is required in the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of any cut off marks, appellant ought to have been selected as cut-off marks cannot be given subsequently after the process of selection started and he relied on the decisions in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi (2008 (2) KLT SN 56 (C.No.69) SC), K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another ((2008) 3 SCC 512 and Ajayan v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 854). There is no dispute for that proposition. Here, no cut off marks were fixed. Consideration of the well qualified selection committee was whether he can be selected as Professor (Mathematics). The selection committee found that he is not fit enough to be appointed as Professor (Mathematics) and decided to re-notify the post. This is a selection post and not a promotion post. Merely because a person is academically qualified, that candidate cannot compel that he should be appointed. Even if no other candidates are available, it is the duty of the selection committee to ensure that only fit persons are appointed as Professors. We have gone through the files given to us for perusal by the University containing the selection process and we are satisfied that the selection committee had considered the matter in detail and found W.A.2170/2008 4 that the appellant was not eligible to be appointed as Professor (Mathematics). We see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment as there is no illegality in the process of selection. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks