IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1653 of 2006() -------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10210/2006 Dated 08/06/2006) .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- DR.A. SUDHARMA (READER, DIRECTOR-IN- CHARGE, SCHOOL OF PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCE & DEAN, FACULTY OF EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O. ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. SELECTION COMMITTEE (PROFESSOR IN EDUCATION) CHAIRED BY VICE CHANCELLOR, M.G. UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. 4. SYNDICATE COMMITTEE, M.G. UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 5. DR. P.J. JACOB (READER) SCHOOL OF PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCE, M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN-R5 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY-R1 to 4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1653 OF 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed by her challenging the selection made to the post of Professor in Education in the School of Pedagogical Sciences in the Mahatma Gandhi University. Ext.P1 was the notification issued by the University inviting applications to the post of Professor in four subjects, along with other posts. The appellant was an applicant for the post of Professor in Education. In the selection, the 5th respondent who was a Reader in Education, School of Pedagogical Sciences was selected and appointed as Professor. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. The petitioner contended that the Selection Committee was not constituted as per the relevant statute of the University, in as much as the Dean of the Faculty concerned was not included as a member of the W.A. NO. 1653/2006 2 Committee. Secondly, it was contended that the post was notified as open competition vacancy, but it should have been notified as reserved for Ezhava community. The University filed a statement and also a counter affidavit. The University explained that since the appellant was the Dean of the Faculty concerned, she could not be included in the Selection Committee as she was also a candidate. Secondly, it is submitted that Professors in the various departments of the University are taken as one unit for the application of communal rotation. While applying the rules of reservation, the post of Professor in Education came under the open competition turn and, therefore, the notification itself provided that the post will be an open competition vacancy. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the University and dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the constitution of the Selection Committee should have been made as provided under the statute. The provisions of the statute are mandatory and any deviation therefrom will vitiate the constitution of the Committee and also the selection made by that Committee. When the statute says that the Dean of the Faculty should be a member of the Selection Committee, the Vice Chancellor could have made some alternative arrangements, in W.A. NO. 1653/2006 3 view of the disability of the appellant to be a member of that Committee, it is submitted. 4. No one else can be substituted for the Dean of the Faculty unless the statute authorises such substitution. The Vice Chancellor cannot act on his own in the absence of any enabling provision. If he does that, the same will be taken as a ground to attack the constitution of the Committee. Obviously, the appellant could not be included in the Selection Committee as she was a candidate. So, we find nothing wrong with the formation of the Selection Committee without nominating the Dean as a member of that Committee. It is not proper to nominate a Dean of some other Faculty as a member of the Selection Committee for selection to the post of Professor in Education. 5. The contention of the appellant that the post of Professor in Education should have been reserved for Ezhava community is also plainly untenable in view of the facts disclosed in the statement filed by the University. The University has explained that as per the communal rotation, the first turn was for Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the post of Professor in the School of Pure and Applied Physics was reserved for Scheduled Caste. The next vacancy in the School of Gandhian Thought W.A. NO. 1653/2006 4 and Development Studies was open competition, the third vacancy in the School of Letters was for Muslim community and the fourth vacancy, that is, Professor in Education in the School of Pedagogical Sciences was open competition vacancy. So, we find nothing wrong with the application of the principles of reservation to the selection concerned. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1653/2006 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO. 1653/2006 JUDGMENT 11th June, 2009 W.A. NO. 1653/2006 6