IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 23019 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DEEPA S. KUMAR, LECTURER, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR. BY ADVS.MR.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, IV FLOOR, REMA PLAZA, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION, IV FLOOR, REMA PLAZA, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR, IDUKKI. 4. DR. M.P. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, DEAN CUM DIRECTOR, AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM, ETTIMADAL PO COIMBATORE 641 105. 5. KRISHNAKUMAR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, AMRITA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ETTIMADAL, COIMBATORE 641 105. R1 BY ADVS.MR.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC.,CCEK, MR.K.ANAND (A.201), SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. R4 BY MR.K.V.PAVITHRAN, MR.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23019/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.12.07. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HONOURABLE MINISTER DTD. 4.2.08. P3:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST WITH COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 23.4.08. P4:- COPY OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.23019 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is now working as Lecturer in Computer Science under the first respondent. In October, 2007, applications are invited for the post of Assistant Professor. Petitioner and another candidate had submitted their applications. In terms of the Special Rules, Senior Staff Section Committee should consist of 7 members including the Principal Secretary, Higher Education as Chairman, Director as the Member Secretary and nominees of AICTE and CUSAT, expert members and Principal of the College. According to the petitioner in the Selection Committee there was no nominee of AICTE and CUSAT and the Principal was also absent, besides an expert member. 2. Be that as it may, candidates including the petitioner were interviewed on 3.11.2007 but however WP(c).No.23019/08 2 none was selection. The list was published on 24.12.2007. When the petitioner applied for copy of the proceedings, she was issued Ext.P3 mark list indicating that out of the 100 marks she secured only 15. It was thereafter on 22.7.2008 this writ petition was filed seeking to quash selection proceedings and to direct that a fresh Senior Staff Selection Committee shall be constituted in terms of the Special Rules and conduct selection to the post notified. Subsequent to the filing of this writ petition and pursuant to the orders, petitioner was issued Ext.P4 showing the marks that she secured and also the marks that the other candidate had secured. 3. The respondents also have filed counter affidavit. The first respondent justifies the selection procedure by it. In so far as the 4th respondent, a member of the selection committee is concerned, personal allegations of mala fides have been levelled on the basis that when he was the Principal of the college, while granting maternity leave, the petitioner was denied salary. It is also alleged that when the WP(c).No.23019/08 3 petitioner availed leave under Qualification Improvement Programme, she was denied study leave with salary. This allegation has been denied in the counter affidavit filed. 4. As already stated, the prayer made in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to initiate fresh process of selection. In the counter affidavit filed, the first respondent has no case that the post has been filled up. The first respondent also has no case that the post of Assistant Professors in Computer Science need not be filled. In such circumstances the Selection Committee should be constituted in terms of the provisions contained in the Special Rules and steps shall be taken for filling up the post. 5. Petitioner submits that certain other posts were filled pursuant to the interview that was held in November, 2007 and that the process as directed above should be concluded with effect from that date and promotions given with retrospective effect, as otherwise, even if selected, the petitioner will be junior to the persons who got promoted WP(c).No.23019/08 4 earlier. 6. First of all, the petitioner has no claim of seniority over those persons selected in the interview. None of those persons have been impleaded in the writ petition also. Therefore no relief affecting the seniority or other rights of those persons can be granted in this writ petition. In the circumstances the only order that can be passed in this writ petition is to direct the the first respondent to initiate a fresh process of selection to the post of Assistant Professor, which post is lying vacant even as of now. 7. The petitioner has raised several allegations of mala fides against the 4th respondent. Those allegations are relating to the grant of maternity leave and leave under the Qualification Improvement Programme. According to the petitioner admissible benefits available during that period were denied by the 4th respondent. Therefore she filed complaints and because of that the 4th respondent was inimical towards her. For that reason, according to the WP(c).No.23019/08 5 petitioner the 4th respondent shall not be a member of the selection committee to be constituted. These allegations have been answered by the 4th respondent by filing a counter affidavit. Therefore the allegation made by the petitioner is refuted by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit filed. In the light of the allegations and counter allegations contained in the writ petition and the counter affidavit and in the absence of any further reliable materials, I am not in a position to accept the plea of mala fides on the part of the 4th respondent. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to initiate selection to the post of Assistant Professor, to which post the petitioner was also an applicant, constituting Senior Staff Selection Committee in accordance with the special rules which is applicable. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.23019/08 6