Suresh Kumar T.V. vs Cochin Devaswom Board and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—1. The petitioner, an applicant under Ext. P1 notification, is before this Court, challenging the selection process made to the specific category, in which the petitioner applied, being Assistant Professor in Political Science. The contention of the petitioner is that, going by Ext. P6 received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [for brevity, the Act of 2005], the petitioner had 48.80 marks, which is above the marks obtained by respondents 5, 6 & 7, who have been placed at rank numbers 3, 4 & 5 and the petitioner placed at rank 9.

On the filing of the Counter Affidavit, the petitioner also had raised a further ground referring to Ext. R1(a), where one Sri. E.A. Rajan, member of the respondent Board, is said to have interviewed the candidates, but another member by name Sri. K.D. Bahuleyan, had signed in Ext. P6. The petitioner contends that, the petitioner has to be ranked as rank No. 3, over and above the others. In this context, it is to be immediately noticed that the rank Nos. 5 to 8, even as per Ext. P6, have more marks than the petitioner.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, this Court, on the last hearing day entertained a genuine doubt as to the manner in which the selection was conducted and the learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the entire records. The Board and the Public Information Officer have then filed separate affidavits. The entire controversy was created only by reason of the callous indifference of the Public Information Officer in issuing the proceedings of the interview as per Ext. P6 and the typographic error committed by the Board in bringing out Ext. R1(a), showing the name of Sri. E.A. Rajan, Member, Cochin Devaswom Board as having interviewed the candidates, applying for the post of Assistant Professor. In fact, Ext. R1(a) on the second page indicates the same having been signed by Sri. K.D. Bahuleyan, another member.

As per the Circular issued by the University for carrying out selection to the post of Lecturers in the aided Colleges, a Selection Committee has to be constituted; with a Government nominee, two persons nominated by the educational agency, a subject expert and the Principal of the College, under Chapter II of the Calicut University First Statutes. As to the nomination of two representatives of the educational agency, the respondent Board had decided to nominate the President of the Board as the Chairman of the Interview Committee and also a Member; and nominated two such members to participate alternatively in the interviews. Sri. E.A. Rajan and K.D. Bahuleyan, who were members, were thus nominated by the Board.

The Affidavit dated 18.12.2015 filed by the Board indicates the various dates on which the interviews were carried on, especially since Ext. P1 notification called for appointments to faculty positions in various subjects. The interview with respect to Commerce was conducted on 22.04.2014 and 23.04.2014, in which Sri. E.A. Rajan participated. On 24.04.2014 and 25.04.2014, the interview with respect to Political Science was conducted and Sri. K.D. Bahuleyan participated in the same. The participation in the other subjects on the subsequent dates was also in that manner ensuring that the nominated member was the very same person in a particular subject. But the members being changed alternatively with respect to the subjects.

The Board has produced the files with respect to such nomination and the said decision is seen at Note No. 27 signed by the President and both the members on 11.04.2014, prior to the interview. Hence, the recital in Ext. R1(a) of the constitution of the Selection Board showing the name of Sri. E.A. Rajan, member, is only a bonafide mistake. As noticed above, Ext. R1(a) itself indicates Sri. K.D. Bahuleyan having affixed his signature after the rank-list. The contention with respect to the another person having signed the mark-list in the interview has hence to be negatived.

The further contention is with respect to Ext. P6 having been issued under the Right to Information Act. Here, the affidavit of the Public Information Officer assumes significance. The affidavit of the Public Information Officer dated 18.12.2015 has been placed on record and the learned Standing Counsel has also produced the files. The learned Standing Counsel produces before this Court the entire files of the selection process in sealed cover.

Having examined the records, it is seen that, at the interview each of the members had been given separate formats for assessing the candidates and marks were put in such separate sheets. The separate sheets were in the format as seen at Ext. P6. Marks were first assigned for the qualifications, publications, presentations, projects etc; as prescribed by the University. An assessment of pedagogical skills was also made by each of the members of the Interview Board and separate marks were awarded in the interview by each of the said members. With respect to the pedagogical skills, the marks awarded by all the five were taken together and the average arrived at. As for the interview, the marks assigned by the subject expert to each of the candidates were taken separately and the marks awarded by the other four members were averaged.

As an illustrative example, Jabir T.K., who figures second in Ext. P6 list, was awarded 5 marks for the interview by the Principal, 7 marks by the Government nominee, 5 marks by the President of the Board and 7 marks by the nominated Member of the Board. The total comes to 24 and the average being 6 marks was assigned to him in the final mark-list. The subject expert, was given more significance, rightly so, and the marks awarded by her, to Jabir T.K. being 5, was taken as such. Hence obviously the marks awarded by the subject expert was given more weightage and the method adopted cannot at all be faulted.

The final rank-list along with Ext. R1(a) in its original, has been produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board. The mark-list shows that the petitioner has been rightly assigned the position of rank No. 9 in the final list. The entire controversy arose, since Ext. P6, issued under the Act of 2005, was the sheet in which marks were awarded by the Government nominee, at the interview. The President and the nominated Member of the Board also had signed the said sheet since the Government nominee was a third party as far as the educational agency is concerned. The separate mark-lists, of each of the interview committee members, in the format available at Ext. P6, in which marks were awarded by each of the members are also produced in its original.

From the originals, it is clear that only the Government nominee''s mark-list was signed by the President and the nominated Member and all other separate mark sheets, in which marks were assigned by each of the committee members, were attested by that particular member. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any defect as pointed out by the petitioner in the selection process.

The learned counsel for the petitioner then raised a contention that, the stipulation of norms by the Selection Committee itself runs foul of the declaration of the Full Bench of this Court in Cyril Johnson (Dr.) v. State of Kerala and Others [, 2009 (4) KLT 573]. This Court has held that in the absence of statutory regulations or administrative guidelines of the norms to be followed in selections, the Selection Committee cannot frame its own norms and then conduct selection. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that, there are norms laid down by the University as to how marks are to be assigned for the qualifications, publications, projects etc. and the interview alone is to be conducted by the Selection Committee.

In such circumstance, the ground raised that the Selection Committee has prescribed norms for itself cannot be sustained. The University definitely while granting approval, would look into the issue and ensure that the selection has been conducted in accordance with the norms issued by the University. The University shall consider the same after placing it before the Syndicate at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, especially considering the fact that the respondents 5 to 7, who have been appointed almost two years back have been continuing without salary in their posts.

The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.