AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The Petitioner''s grievance mainly is in respect of Ext. P4(a) whereby the second Respondent has been placed as rank No. 2 and the Petitioner as rank No. 3 and, as well as Ext. P7 denying 3 marks for Consistent Academic Excellence to the Petitioner under the pretext of compliance of Ext. P3 judgment.
The issue relates to the appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Department of Hindi. The post is reserved for Ezhava community. Earlier, the selection was made and the Petitioner stood first in the ranking and this was challenged by Dr. C.S. Suchit who was the second rank holder and the judgment is produced as Ext. P3. The writ petition was allowed and the Petitioner''s appointment was quashed. This Court directed exclusion of marks in respect of the three components which were acquired by the Petitioner subsequent to the last date of submitting applications.
Thereafter, the marks were deleted and a fresh list was prepared wherein the Petitioner in Ext. P3 judgment stands as the first rank holder, the second Respondent herein as the second one and the Petitioner as the third one.
The only question is whether the exercises done by the Respondents are in tune with the directions issued in Ext. P3 judgment.
Incidentally, what has resulted in the Petitioner obtaining rank No. 3 is the deletion of the marks acquired for Consistent Academic Excellence.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri P.K. Ibrahim submitted that it is not an objected item in the earlier writ petition and, further, the same could not have been disturbed by re-assigning marks under the guise of the judgment as detailed in ground ''D'' of the writ petition.
The qualifications of the Petitioner show that at the time of submission of the applications, apart from the academic qualification, she was having M. Phil also. The objected items, going by the judgment Ext. P3 are the following:
i) additional qualifications
ii) publications in approved journals and participation,
iii) presentation of papers in National/International conference.
A reading of the judgment Ext. P3 shows that the contention raised by the Petitioner therein was that the Petitioner herein who was the third Respondent therein acquired the qualification of Ph.D subsequent to the last date of submitting the applications. The dates of the publications and attendance in the seminars also were subsequent to that date. Accordingly, it was contended that the Petitioner could not have been awarded marks for these three components.
These aspects were examined in paragraphs (4) and (5) of Ext. P3 judgment [W.P.(C). No. 15330/2005]. In paragraph (5) this Court held thus:
As is clear from Ext. P9 all the papers published by the 3rd Respondent were subsequent to the last date fixed for submitting applications. She attended seminars only a few months prior to the date of selection and more than = years after the last date for submitting applications. In this connection it also may be noted that there was two years'' difference between the last date fixed for submitting applications and the date of interview... Therefore I am of the opinion that as laid down by the Supreme Court, the qualifications and extra qualifications considered by the selection committee for assessing comparative merits also should be as on the last date for submitting applications. Clearly, since the difference in marks between the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent was only 0.29, if the marks given to the 3rd Respondent for the three components acquired by her subsequent to the last date for submitting applications are excluded, the Petitioner is entitled to get the first rank in the selection. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Consequently Ext. P6 minutes of the meeting of the syndicate on 12.05.2005, by which the selection of the 3rd Respondent was approved is here by quashed, and her appointment is also quashed. The Respondents 1, 2 and 4 are directed to reassign marks of the candidates as per the above findings and appoint the 1st rank holder. [emphasis supplied by me]
Therefore, the directions as above will result in deletion of marks awarded to the Petitioner for the three components alone.
Ext. P4(a) contains the details of the revised assessment thus made by the Vice Chancellor. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that comparison of Ext. P4(a) to that of Ext. P2(a) which was the original assessment shows that the Petitioner was awarded 3 marks for the "Consistent Academic Excellence" as evident from Column (6) of Ext. P2(a) whereas those marks have been deleted going by Column No. 6 in Ext. P4(a). It is evident from Ext. P4(a) that she is now granted 5 marks for additional qualifications as she is having M. Phil, and as Ph.D was obtained after the last date of submitting applications, the 5 marks which was granted earlier for the said item was deleted. Then with regard to the publications in approved journals and participation and presentation of papers in National and International Conference also the marks were deleted as directed in the judgment.
Therefore, the question emerges as to how three marks granted for "Consistent Academic Excellence" in Ext. P2(a) could have been deleted. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the Petitioner had first class in both graduation and post graduation and M. Phil degree was with ''A'' grade and this justified the award of 3 marks for Consistent Academic Excellence.
In the counter affidavit, what is pointed out is that the overall reduction of marks in 3 components which were reduced in terms of the directions in judgment "also reflected in the reduction of 3 marks for Consistent Academic Excellence". Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel for the University submitted that the award of 3 marks for Consistent Academic Excellence truly depended upon the 3 objected components.
I fail to understand as to how the same could have been deleted. Ext. P2(b) provides for the norms for award of marks. There are 7 items including the crucial item, namely, Consistent Academic Excellence. The three marks for the same have to be independently awarded and as now pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the University, if the same entirely depended upon the three other items, namely, additional qualifications, publications in approved journals and participation and presentation of papers in National and International Conference, then the separate component given for Consistent Academic Excellence does not have any meaning at all. Evidently, the marks are sought to be awarded for academic excellence that means, considering the academic background of the person concerned. When qualifications like NET, M. Phil., M. Phil+NET, Ph.D, NET+M. Phil+Ph.D are to be awarded separate marks under item (2), namely, additional qualifications, it cannot be said that those are again being considered for award of marks under Consistent Academic Excellence. Similar is the case with publications in approved journals and participation and presentation of papers in National and International Conference.
When the judgment Ext. P3 only directed the deletion of marks in respect of 3 items alone, the same alone could have been done by the University. There was no quarrel therein with the award of marks for academic excellence, and there is no finding on this component also.
In that view of the matter, the Petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext. P4(a) to that extent cannot survive, and is quashed. There will be a re-computation of the marks of the Petitioner by adding the 3 marks awarded for "Consistent Academic Excellence". The Petitioner''s place in the ranked list will be accordingly recast.
It is clear from the pleadings that the first rank holder has been appointed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that with regard to the appointment made also, the Petitioner has got certain grievances. I am not considering anything on the same, since the appointee is not a party to the present writ petition.
Appropriate modifications will be made by the Respondents to the ranked list within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.