IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1626 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32373/2010 Dated 11/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ DR.N.PRASANTHA KUMAR, READER AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.BASIL ATTIPETY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN: 673 635, 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: 673 635, KERALA. 3. DR.M.V.NARAYANAN, PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., PIN: 673 635. ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS FOR R1-2 SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN FOR R3 SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.A. No.1626 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the University and also learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. After hearing all counsel concerned and on going through the judgment, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal because the appellant admittedly did not have teaching experience to be considered for appointment as Professor. Even though learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant's application was not placed before the selection committee, we do not find any substance in it because selection committee needs to be involved only for selection of qualified candidate from among qualified persons. So long as experience certificate produced by the appellant does not establish the required teaching experience of 10 years in PG W.A.No.1626/2011 2 course, the appellant is found to be ineligible. Even though learned counsel for the appellant relied on the last clause where 15 years undergraduate teaching experience qualifies a person for selection, we feel the same applies only in exceptional cases when nobody is qualified. In this case, 4 persons were short listed as qualified persons and from among them 3rd respondent was selected and he has the required experience and qualification. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg