IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 32373 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.N.PRASANTHA KUMAR, READER AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN: 673635, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN: 673635, KERALA. 3. DR.M.V.NARAYANAN, PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN: 673635. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY FOR R1-3 SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN FOR R3 SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN FOR R3 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UTY FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU W.P.C.NO.32373/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION NO.GAII/C1/2834/07 DATED 30/5/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 29/6/2009, WITH COPIES OF ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING NOC. P3: COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO NO.RT/2834/2009/13-PROF-ENGLISH PER (OPEN) (8) DATED 29/7/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3/8/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SCRUTINY SHEET OBTAINED FROM THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY UNDER RTI ACT. P6: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.GAII/C2/2594/2010 DATED 17/9/2010. RESPONDENTS'EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY DATED 29/4/2004. R1(B): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/11/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.32373 of 2010-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 communication issued by the University, whereby his application stands rejected for various reasons stated therein. 2. The petitioner is working as Reader and Head of the Department of English in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. The first respondent University, by Ext.P1 notification invited applications for appointment of various posts including the post of Professor in English. Since the controversy herein is in respect of the want of qualifications for appointment, it is profitable to refer to the essential qualifications required for the post of Professor in English. The notification shows that under the heading “Essential Qualifications” the following are stated: “Professor: (i) A first or second class Masters degree in the subject concerned of this University or an equivalent degree from an Indian/Foreign University recognised as equivalent thereto by the University. (ii) Good academic record with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research, wpc 32373/2010 2 (iii) 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching and / or experience in research at the University/National level institutions approved by the UGC. (iv) Experience of guiding research at doctoral level. Note: In exceptional cases, teachers with 15 years of UG teaching experience/research experience would also be considered.” The petitioner's qualifications have been detailed in Ext.P2 application. In Ext.P3 memo for rejecting his candidature, three reasons have been pointed out, viz. (i) Proof of P.G. teaching experience not produced; (ii) He has no research guidance experience at doctoral level; and (iii) NOC not produced. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation stating that he applied for the post through proper channel with all the required certificates and with No Objection Certificate from the Sanskrit University of Kalady. Ext.P6 is the proceedings of the University appointing the third respondent as Professor in English. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the University as well as the third respondent. 4. The controversy as of now is whether the petitioner is having 10 years experience in postgraduate teaching. Regarding that, the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the University, especially paragraphs 5 and 6 wpc 32373/2010 3 will throw much light. They are extracted below: “5. In terms of the above notification the petitioner was also an applicant to the post and in the application he has claimed that he was originally appointed to the post of lecturer in the S.N. College, Nattika on 6.12.1995 and continued in that post till 14.12.1999 and joined in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit on 15.12.1999 and continued upto 14.12.2004 and functioning as Reader in the same University from 15.12.2004 onwards. The petitioner also claimed that he is having a P.G. level teaching experience from June, 2000 onwards. 6. It is submitted that the claim in relation to the teaching experience is factually incorrect. It is submitted that in Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit the P.G. course in English was started only in the academic year 2004-2005, which is evident from the order issued by the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit itself. A true copy of the order issued by the Sree Sankaracharya University dated 29.4.2004 is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R1(a). It is submitted that in S.N. College, Nattika the subject of English is taught only at under graduate level.” Evidently, the experience certificate produced by the petitioner shows that he is having experience from June 2000 onwards. Going by the service particulars of the petitioner, he was originally appointed as Lecturer in S.N. College, Nattika on 6.12.1995 and continued there upto 14.12.1999. He wpc 32373/2010 4 jointed the Sree Sankaracharya University on 15.12.1999 and continued upto 14.12.2004 and from 15.12.2004 onwards he has been functioning as Reader in the same College. The first respondent University has relied upon Ext.R1(a) order of the Sree Sankaracharya University which shows that the P.G. Course in English was sanctioned and started during the academic year 2004-2005. It will disprove his claim for P.G. level teaching experience from 2000. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was having teaching experience in S.N. College, Nattika and a certificate to that effect has been produced as Ext.P2(9). Learned counsel for the University invited my attention to the last sentence in para 6 of the counter affidavit of the University which shows that in S.N. College, Nattika the subject of English is taught only at under graduate level. There cannot be any dispute that the said College is affiliated to the first respondent University itself. The assertion made by the University as above cannot be discarded. If that be so, it can be seen that the petitioner is not having 10 years of teaching experience at postgraduate level. Further, it is explained by the University in para 7 of the counter affidavit that even if his assertion wpc 32373/2010 5 that he is having teaching experience in postgraduate level from June, 2000 onwards is accepted, it will add up only to 9 years and 6 months, which will not enable him to apply for the post. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that if the petitioner was issued any notice in the matter, he could have adduced evidence in support of his case. But in a matter like this, it can be seen that the University can only go by the documents produced by the petitioner along with the application. It was found at the preliminary scrutiny level that he does not have 10 years teaching experience at P.G. level. The counter affidavit is elaborate, in that, all the legal and factual aspects have been pointed out therein. No other contra evidence is produced by the petitioner showing that he is having 10 years teaching experience at P.G. level. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to doubt the assertions made by the University in their counter affidavit which is supported by documents and by the averments made by the third respondent. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the lack of teaching experience at the postgraduate level has resulted in the rejection of the application and unless the petitioner is successful in wpc 32373/2010 6 substantiating the same, he cannot claim any relief in the matter. I find much force in the above submission. 7. It is a case where the University, at the initial stage of scrutiny, rejected the application. That the University has power to do so, cannot be disputed. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should have been provided a further opportunity for producing certificates, the facts revealed from the counter affidavit of the University clearly justifies the issuance of Ext.P3 memo. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that his client had produced the No Objection Certificate and other details and therefore the issuance of Ext.P3 was without any application of mind. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the averments of the University in para 8 of the counter affidavit shows that even after the receipt of Ext.P4 representation, the application of the petitioner was again reprocessed and it was found that the P.G. teaching experience claimed by the petitioner is not correct. In that view of the matter, since a reconsideration was also made by the University, I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the petitioner. wpc 32373/2010 7 8. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the attempt was malafide to defeat the rights of the petitioner and to favour the third respondent, I do not find any reason to accept the same, in the light of the fact that the petitioner was not successful at the first stage of the selection process, viz. regarding the acceptance of the application itself. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/