IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 32446 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.B. KUMARI VALSALA, (RETIRED READER IN MUSIC, MAHARAJA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM), "SWAPNA", PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN-688 531. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, SRI.S.A.ANAND. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 034. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2011,THE COURT ON 10/03/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 32446/2010-E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A1.H.1/406/2003 DATED 22/04/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/05/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 13396/2006 DATED 16/06/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.507/07 (S) OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MRS.ANU UNNIKRISHNAN. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PRO/PIO/RTI/2244/2010 DATED 22/06/2010 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 32446 of 2010-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is seeking for a direction to appoint her as Professor of Music pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The facts in a nutshell, are the following: 2. The petitioner belongs to Ezhava community. She had responded to the notification, Ext.P1 issued by the University inviting applications for appointment as Professor (Ezhava turn) in the Music Department, as per Ext.P2. Initially, there was some delay in the continuance of the selection proceedings and the same compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13396/2006 which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment, recording the submission of the University that they will proceed with the selection process. Ext.P4 is the order passed in the Contempt of Court Case filed thereafter. 3. An interview was conducted on 10.5.2010 and the petitioner, even though was expecting appointment, she came to know from Ext.P5 that the selection committee of the University did not recommend any of the candidates for appointment. wpc 32446/2010 2 4. It is contended that there was no other candidate belonging to Ezhava community and therefore, the action of the selection committee in not recommending the petitioner, cannot be supported. It is submitted that there was no dispute regarding her qualifications and suitability also. 5. On behalf of the University, a statement was filed initially on 22.10.2010. Therein, the minutes of the selection committee is produced as Annexure R1(a). It is stated that the selection committee, after assessing the relative merits and performance in the interview, did not recommend any of the candidates for appointment as Professor. The same was approved by the Vice Chancellor subject to ratification by the Syndicate. 6. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the selection committee did not recommend any candidate due to the reason that the performance in the interview, quality of the published work and research work are not up to the standard of qualification prescribed for the post of Professor, in the notification. 7. While attacking the proceedings Annexure R1(a) of the selection committee, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific reason has been pointed out by them. Merely it is stated that there was no eligible candidate in the Ezhava community for selection. The files of the wpc 32446/2010 3 selection committee were made available by the learned Standing Counsel for the University and apart from Annexure R1(a), no other observations have been noted in the files also. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that it is the satisfaction of the selection committee that is material and the authorities of the University found no reason to reject the same. It is therefore submitted that this Court cannot interfere with the action of the University. 9. It is true that it is upto the selection committee to assess the qualification and the eligibility in the interview. Herein, the question is whether the petitioner was excluded from consideration on the basis of any relevant materials. As already noticed, Ext.R1(a) does not contain any details as to the assessment of the selection committee. Of course, the selection committee observed that there were no eligible candidate for selection to the post of Professor. Even though in para 5 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the selection committee did not recommend any candidates due to the reason that the candidates did not meet the standard of qualification prescribed for the post of Professor, the same also is not an observation made by the selection committee in Annexure R1(a). wpc 32446/2010 4 10. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner alone was the candidate from Ezhava community and there was no question of any comparative assessment of merit also. The petitioner satisfies all the eligibility criteria and has got the qualification for appointment also. It is therefore submitted that the selection of the petitioner was automatic and there is a total failure on the part of the selection committee in not recommending her name. 11. Evidently, the proceedings of the selection committee, Annexure R1(a), did not contain any details. The other bodies of the University have straight away accepted the same. Of course, what was the reason for the observations of the selection committee that no eligible candidate is there, is not discernible from the files also. Even though no reasons are forthcoming in the proceedings, Annexure R1(a), if the files had disclosed the same, it could have been considered. But that is not the case here. In that view of the matter, the proceedings of the selection committee and the acceptance of the same by the other authorities of the University, cannot be held to be valid. 12. The further question is whether the petitioner is entitled for a direction to appoint her as Professor in Music. Evidently, it depends upon wpc 32446/2010 5 the result of the deliberations of the selection committee. Therefore, the proceedings will have to be initiated afresh. It is well settled that it is for the expert academic bodies to evaluate the qualifications of candidates and eligibility, and herein, especially since the selection committee was formed, it is upto them to evaluate the qualifications and assess the eligibility of the candidates in the interview. This Court will not, therefore, be justified in directing her to be appointed straightaway as this Court obviously cannot assess the qualification and eligibility. 13. Normally, in academic matters this Court will be loathe to interfere with the matter, but when the decisions of the academic bodies are irrational and unreasonable and are not supported by any valid reason, this Court will be justified in interfering with the same. Of course, this Court will not be entitled to substitute the decisions of the academic bodies, as this Court will not be sitting in appeal over the decisions of the said bodies. The judicial review is concerned with the decision making process. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the action of the selection committee resulting in Annexure R1 (a), is illegal. There will be a direction to the University to constitute a selection committee for conducting an interview afresh in terms of the wpc 32446/2010 6 findings rendered above and take appropriate decision in the matter thereafter. The same shall be finalised within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/