IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 2499 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31540/2007 Dated 25/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.ABDUL RHIMAN, SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, LBS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR WOMEN, POOJAPPURA, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 4. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R4 SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R3 SRI.T.V.GEORGE FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.A. No. 2499 OF 2008 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant, the Director of LBS Centre for Science and Technology, was the 1st respondent in the writ petition. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following:- The 1st respondent applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science and Technology, when applications were invited for the same by the appellant. He was a graduate in Computer Science and Technology. But, his M.Tech degree was only in Computer Science. A screening committee, appointed by the appellant, found that the 1st respondent was not qualified for the post. According to the committee, he obtained the P.G. Degree awarded by the faculty of Applied Sciences of Kerala University and not the faculty of Engineering. Therefore, he was held to be ineligible. The dispute was referred to the AICTE because it was for the said body to say whether the candidate WA.2499/08 : 2 : satisfies the norms prescribed by it. On being treated as not qualified for the said post, the writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, clarification sought from AICTE was obtained. According to the appellant, the clarification issued by the AICTE does not clarify anything and it was vague as it did not properly answer the query i.e., whether the 1st respondent was qualified for the post or not. The learned single Judge considered the point whether the 1st respondent/petitioner was qualified. Learned Judge took the view that in view of the stand taken by the AICTE, the 3rd respondent, in its affidavit as also in the clarification, it should be taken that the 1st respondent was qualified. Based on that finding, direction was issued to the appellant to consider the candidature of the 1st respondent treating him as qualified. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ appeal is filed. The appellant raised the very same contentions before us, which it unsuccessfully canvassed before the learned single Judge. As per the direction of this court, at the appellate stage, the AICTE filed a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:- WA.2499/08 : 3 : “ It is humbly submitted that this respondent still affirms to the stand and clarification already made before this court that the 1 st respondent is a qualified candidate for the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science and Engineering/Technology.” 2. We notice that the AICTE has unambiguously stated that the 1st respondent/ writ petitioner was qualified. The dispute raised in this writ petition is whether the 1st respondent/ petitioner was qualified in terms of the AICTE norms. The very same authority says he is qualified. Therefore, we feel nothing survives to be considered in this appeal. The appellant is mainly worried about the stand of the AICTE, if an unqualified hand is appointed as a member of the teaching faculty. In view of the affidavit filed by the said authority, we feel that the appellant need not bother about it any more. It can legitimately treat the 1st respondent as a qualified hand. 3. In view of the above position, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge. It is WA.2499/08 : 4 : declared that the selection and appointment, if any made, of the 1st respondent, pursuant to the direction of the learned single Judge, shall be treated as legal and valid. The writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge