IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36943 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.THAMPI, NANDANAM, KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR 680 007. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.KAVYA P.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT 673 635. 2. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF PROFESSORS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O CALICUT 673 635. 3. DR.C.CHANDRAN, DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., CALICUT 673 635. BY SC SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 36943 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Ext.P5 is a notification issued by the respondent University on 29.7.2008 for several posts including the post of Professor(Statistics), which is reserved for candidates belonging to the category of E/T/B. By Ext.P7, the application of the petitioner, an Ezhava candidate, rejected by the University. Reasons for rejection are that (1) he is not an approved research guide and (2) he has not produced Non-Creamy Layer Certificate. 2. The arguments raised were mainly on the first ground of rejection of the petitioner's candidature, viz. that he is not an approved research guide. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Professor and also Exts.P2, P3 and P4, the qualifications prescribed in the notifications issued by the Union Public Service Commission, Kerala University and M.G. University, contended that in none of those notifications, the experience of guiding research at doctoral level is prescribed. WP(c).No.36943/2008 2 3. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, who is an eligible candidate, was working in the department of Statistics of the respondent University and that not only the eligibility prescribed, but even the whole selection is later made to ensure his selection. It was contended that, Ext.P8 guidelines issued by the UGC required that the Scrutiny Committee should ensure that there should be viable number of candidates and that academically good candidates are not to be rejected on non-academic reasons. 4. It is argued that, in response to Ext.P5, for the post of Professor in Statistics, 4 applications were received and two were rejected on the ground that those candidates were not having approved experience of guiding research at doctoral level. It is also stated that,so far as the remaining two are concerned, one is 3rd respondent and the other one Dr. Ramkumar. It is stated that Dr. Ramkumar, he has been called for interview despite his ineligibility for the post. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the idea is to ignore the eligible candidates and to ensure that at the end of the selection, there is only one eligible candidate (3rd respondent) and give him appointment. WP(c).No.36943/2008 3 5. Yet another contention that is raised is that the Senate of the University has passed a resolution dated 28.6.2008 resolving to adopt qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Professor and that notification was issued on 29.7.2008 on that basis. 6. On the other hand, the standing counsel for the University submits that regulations were framed by the University and were published in gazette dated 3.8.2008. A copy of the gazette is made available for perusal. Going by the regulations thus framed by the University, the qualification prescribed by the University are those mentioned in Ext.P5 regulations. 7. If Ext.P5 reflects the qualifications prescribed by the University as per its regulations, even if there is any substance that the qualification prescribed by the UGC or other Universities in the State are in variation with Ext.P5, still appointment to the post of Professor in the respondent University is to be only as per the qualifications prescribed by the respondent University. 8. In so far as the resolution stated to have been passed by the Senate of the University on 28.6.2009 is concerned, going WP(c).No.36943/2008 4 by the University Act and the Statutes, it is for the Academic council to frame regulations and prescribe qualifications for various posts in the University. Ext.P5 reflects the qualification prescribed by the Academic Council. Such decision of the Academic Council is ordinarily based on the recommendations made by the syndicate of the University. Therefore even if there is a resolution passed on 28.6.2008, the same can have the force only when recommendations are translated into rules and it is for the Academic Council to pass regulations. Petitioner has no case that the University has amended the qualifications as mentioned in Ext.P5. If that be so, the resolution passed by the Senate on 28.6.2008 does not have an effect of having amended the qualifications and the said resolution cannot have any effect on Ext.P5 or the qualifications prescribed by the University. 9. Now what remains is the effect of Ext.P8. The stand of the University is that, it has not adopted the guidelines. Petitioner has no case that the University has made any regulations to the effect that there should be viable number of candidates in the selection. If that be so, even if at the end of the selection there is only one eligible candidate it is for the WP(c).No.36943/2008 5 University to decide on his suitability and take appropriate decision for even renotifying the post. It is stated that the Selection Committee consists of nominees of the UGC as well. I have no reason to think that such experts will ignore any binding regulations framed either by the University or by the UGC. Having considered all the averments made by the counsel for the petitioner, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made any case for interference. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.36943/2008 6