M.V. Sudhakaran vs University of Calicut

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.—The petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Reader (Temporary) in the Academic Staff College of the 1st respondent University. Exhibit P1 is the notification dated 27.12.2002 to which he responded. In the writ petition, the petitioner essentially aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the said post pursuant to the selection procedure conducted by the University. Although the petitioner would impugn the selection of the 4th respondent on the grounds inter alia that (i) the 4th respondent did not have the essential qualification of 5 years subsequent to the obtaining of his PhD Degree, (ii) the 4th respondent did not have such teaching experience as was approved by the University and (iii) the 4th respondent was erroneously awarded marks at the selection process for papers submitted to research journals, in so far as those journals were not approved journals, he would primarily rely upon the first ground with regard to the non-possession by the 4th respondent of the necessary 5 years experience after attaining PhD Degree. It is pointed out that as per Exhibit P1 notification, the qualifications to be possessed by a person aspiring for the post of Reader are as follows:

"(i) Good academic record with a Doctoral degree or equivalent published work in the concerned subject of this University or an equivalent degree from an Indian/Foreign University recognized as equivalent thereto with a doctoral degree or an equivalent published work. In addition to these, candidates who join from outside the University system shall also possess at least 55 % of the marks (without grace or rounding off) or an equivalent grade of B in 7 point scale with letter grades of O, A, B, C, D, E and F at the Master''s degree level.

(ii) Five years of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula."

It is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent had obtained his PhD from Calicut University only with effect from 15.09.2007 vide Exhibit P18 notification. The last date for receipt of applications as notified in Exhibit P1 was 28.01.2011. Thus, as on that date, the 4th respondent had only a post PhD teaching experience of 3 years 4 months and 13 days. As this fell short of the necessary 5 years teaching experience, the 4th respondent was not eligible to be considered for the post of Reader.

The 1st respondent University has filed a statement on behalf of both the 1st and 2nd respondent. In the said statement the averments with regard to the qualifications of the 4th respondent are dealt with at paragraphs 5, 7 and 8 of the statement. The said paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

"5. It is submitted that the 4th respondent, Dr.M.N.Moharnmedunni Alias Musthafa, who was appointed as Reader in the Academic Staff College, University of Calicut, has satisfied all the mandatory qualifications and experience stipulated in the notification. He has worked as Lecturer in the University Teacher Education Centre of MG University at Paippad for a period of 5 years, One month and twelve days from 16.08.2000 to 28.09.2005 in the scale of pay 8000-13500, From 29.09.2005 to 22.03.2006 he had worked as Lecturer in Education in Farook Training College, Calicut University as Lecturer in the scale of pay 8000- 13500, which comes to 5 months and 2 days. Later, he worked as Lecturer in Eduction in Farook Training College, a Govt. aided college, affiliated to University of Calicut from 23.03.2006 to 05.02.2009 in the same scale of pay, which means that he worked there for 2 years, 10 months and 10 days. At the time of notification, he was working as Lecturer in the Dept. of Education in the University of Calicut, where he joined on 06.02.2009, i.e., he worked there for 1 year, 11 months and 22 days. This clearly shows that he has put in a total regular-and approved service for a period of 10 years, 4 months and 12 days. The selection has been made on the basis of notification which doesn''t state anywhere that the mandatory experience of five years should be after qualifying the Ph.D.

It is submitted that the 4th respondent, who was appointed as Reader in Academic Staff College had more than 10 years of regular and approved teaching experience as on 28.01.2011. It is submitted that the marks for his experience, publication and performance in the interview were given by a selection committee duly constituted as per statute No. 4 under Chapter 3 of Calicut University First Statute 1977. Accordingly a selection committee was constituted strictly in accordance with these norms stipulated in the statute. The experts included in the selection committee were Dr.D.S. Rathore, Ex-Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University, Dr.Michael Tharakak the then Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University, Dr.C.Balan, Director, Academic Staff College, Kannur University, Dr.Meena.R. Chanda Warker, Director, Academic Staff College, Karnataka University, Dharward and Dr.K.X.Joseph, Director, Academic Staff College, Calicut University. The Minutes of the Selection Committee is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a). The petitioner has not raised any allegations regarding the qualification and competency of the selection committee members thus constituted nor allege any malafides against the selection committee. It is submitted that the selection committee, which consist of eminent academicians and experts in educational field, evaluated the qualifications, research papers, etc.

It is submitted that regarding the experience required for applying to the post of Reader, it is clearly given in the notification that the candidate should have a minimum of "five years of teaching and/or research experience excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by the quality of publications, Contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula". The interpretation made by the petitioner to this clause that the experience for eligibility (to apply the post) should be one obtained after obtaining PhD Degree is erroneous. The reference made in this clause is that if research experience of a candidate is to be reckoned, the same should be considered after excluding the period of study for doctoral degree. If a candidate had regular and approved teaching experience before obtaining PhD, the same also could be considered as eligible experience and if he had five years of such experience before or after obtaining research degree, he is eligible to apply to the post. Hence, the argument of the petitioner that in the case of the 4th respondent, his experience could be reckoned only after 15.09.2007 i.e., the date of his obtaining PhD, is not sustainable. For the post of Reader, the teaching experience is considered irrespective of the period that it is before or after Ph.D as per University norms."

Although the writ petition was admitted on 10.01.2013 and notice was sent to the 4th respondent on 08.03.2013 and the said notice is seen to have been received by him on 11.06.2013, the response of the 4th respondent in these proceedings has been far from satisfactory. Although there was appearance for the 4th respondent through counsel, he has not chosen to file a counter affidavit despite specific directions to that effect from this Court on 03.10.2013 and 04.02.2014. A request was made for further time on 03.07.2014 and 2 weeks time was granted to the 4th respondent for filing the counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has however been filed till date. When the matter was posted for disposal on 23.07.2014, it was submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent that they were unable to get any instructions from the 4th respondent to represent him in the matter. The conduct of the 4th respondent, in not responding to a writ petition preferred by a rival candidate after being appointed to the post in respect of which the challenge is mounted, is far from satisfactory and at any rate cannot be countenanced by this Court. The 4th respondent cannot by his inaction thwart the attempts of the petitioner to establish his legal rights.

I have heard Adv. Sri. Nagaraj Narayanan for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the University, Sri. Santhosh Mathew, who represents respondents 1 to 3.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I note that the qualifications required for the appointment to the post of Reader, as notified in Exhibit P1, include the requirement of having "Five years of teaching and/or research excluding the period spent for obtaining the research degree.

It is apparent therefore that the 5 years of teaching experience contemplated under Exhibit P1 notification is one that is acquired after the acquisition of the essential educational qualification which, in the instant case and as apparent from Exhibit P1 notification itself, is a Doctoral degree. In the case of the 4th respondent, he acquired the Doctoral degree only on 15.09.2007 and hence, as on the last date for receipt of applications namely 28.01.2011, he had only 3 years 4 months and 13 days of teaching experience. This is well below the 5 years of mandatory experience that is contemplated under the notification. It is also relevant to note that the interpretation of the very same qualification requirements, and with regard to the very same post of Reader, came up for consideration before this Court on a couple of occasions and this Court, in the cases reported in Dr. B. Vijayachandran Pillai and Dr. Raju G., Kannamkulath Thekkathil Vs. University of Calicut and Santhosh P. Thampi, and G. Vasudhara, Reader Vs. Dr. Sallas Benjamin, Lecturer, The University of Calicut and The Vice Chancellor, has consistently held that the teaching experience that is contemplated under the notification is one that has to be acquired after obtaining the essential qualification of PhD Degree.

It is therefore clear that the 4th respondent was a candidate who was not qualified to be considered for the post of Reader and hence his selection and consequent appointment were illegal. Accordingly, I hold that the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Reader (Temporary) in the Academic Staff College of the 1st respondent University pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification is bad. Consequently, Exhibits P7 memo of appointment and Exhibit P9 minutes of the meeting of the Syndicate of the 1st respondent University, that approves the said appointments, are quashed.

Considering the fact that at the selection, there were only two candidates to be considered, namely, the petitioner and the 4th respondent and I have found the appointment of the 4th respondent to be illegal, the 1st respondent University shall appoint the petitioner to the post of Reader (Temporary) Academic Staff College of the 1st respondent University forthwith and at any rate 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.