T.V. Bindu vs University of Kerala

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The petitioner, who had undergone the process of selection of lecturers in the Department of Education under the Respondent University by virtue of a notification dated 3.2.2003, has come up with this writ petition to get Ext. P7 evaluation records prepared by the selection committee quashed alleging that the selection committee has violated the norms stipulated for award of marks in column Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 and for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to do the needful to correct the apparent errors on the face of record. There is yet another prayer to set aside the selection of respondents 4 to 7 and to command respondents 1 and 2 to convene the selection committee which prepared Ext. P7 and to award the marks correcting the patent errors. There is a consequential prayer to command respondents 1 and 2 to grant appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer in the Department of Education as she is entitled to be placed as the highest rank holder among the participants.

The respondent University notified four vacancies for selection to the post of Lecturers in the Education Department of University of Kerala as per Ext. P1. The petitioner submitted Ext. P2 application. Out of the four vacancies notified, the second and fourth were open vacancies whereas the first and third were demarcated for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and OBC respectively. The petitioner contested for the open vacancy.

The petitioner alleges that the interview for the post, which commenced on 25.6.2007, ended only on 27.6.2007. Seventy Six candidates appeared for the interview. According to the petitioner, the University statutes make it mandatory that the recommendations of the selection committee should be placed before the Syndicate and the appointments can be made only thereafter. The petitioner alleges that in this case, though the interview ended only in the evening of 27.6.2007, all the four candidates who were selected viz. respondents 4 to 7, strangely, obtained relieving orders from their respective institutions in the forenoon of 28.6.2007 and joined duty in the afternoon of the same day. The syndicate held it''s meeting on the forenoon of 28.6.2007 itself for granting appointments to the above said four candidates and appointment orders also seem to have been issued by the Registrar of the University of Kerala in the forenoon itself. The petitioner alleges mala fides and heinous conspiracy behind the appointments. Repeated representations filed by the petitioner were ignored by the respondents. However, the petitioner obtained a copy of Ext. P7 and submitted her representations again, the last of which was Ext. P11. However, the respondent clandestinely continued their inert approach and self revealing silence, it is alleged.

According to the petitioner, what is done to the petitioner is cruelty and grave injustice by patently abusing vast powers vested in the syndicate to render undue favour to the 4th respondent who is the wife of one of the members of the syndicate of the respondent University. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

Respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:

Respondents 4 to 8 who are the four appointees joined duty after receiving proper appointment letters. Though the petitioner has averred that she preferred Ext. P6 representation before the first respondent, none among Ext. P6 representation were actually received by the first respondent. Further, the request of the petitioner made by her under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to supply her with details of the selection and also to furnish a copy of the evaluation records was promptly responded to and was made available to the petitioner at the earliest possible opportunity by the first respondent. The allegation that the 4th respondent came to be appointed only because she was the wife of a member of the syndicate of the respondent University is without any factual basis and is hereby denied.

It is contended by respondents 1 to 3 that as per prescribed norms, two marks are to be awarded for each published paper subject to a maximum of 10 marks. The petitioner along with her application to the post submitted reprints of two papers published in approved journals and was accordingly, given 4 marks. The other 4 papers which the petitioner now claims to have under her credit were neither attached to the application of the petitioner nor produced before the selection committee for reasons best known to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to 10 marks in the category of publication in journals is thus unjustified and unsustainable.

According to the petitioner, she is entitled to the credit of her teaching experience of 5 years and 3 years as Research Officer. Ext. P10 is the list of teaching experiences of the petitioner. Any teaching experience obtained as a guest lecturer and/contract lecturer cannot be treated at par with regular teaching experience. Further, the selection was for the post of lecturer in the Department of Education and therefore, any teaching or research experience obtained in an irrelevant field is only to be excluded. Thus, the selection committee was justified in awarding zero marks to the petitioner in the category of teaching or research experience. This has been done for the reasons stated above and not to favour any candidate as has been alleged by the petitioner; it is contended.

It is contended that the selection committee after evaluating the relative merits of the candidates based on their educational qualifications, additional qualifications, co-curricular activities and their respective performance in the interview, awarded marks in the interview. The petitioner has been given as many marks as the selection committee unanimously thought fit on evaluation of the performance by the committee.

It is also contended by respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner has been awarded eligible marks for her qualifications and additional qualifications as per the norms. These marks have been awarded to the petitioner in the light of credentials produced along with her application which was placed before the selection committee. The contention of the petitioner that she should have got more marks in the category of "publications in standard/approved journals" and "Teaching or research experience", without a trace of dispute as has been stated above is wholly without merit and deserves to be rejected. The appointments have been made purely on the basis of merit and no candidate has been unduly favoured over another as has been alleged by the petitioner. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Ext. P8 list of journals is also misplaced and item Nos. 36, 37 and 39 enumerated therein were not approved journals at the time when notification was issued for selection to the post of lecturer in education. A list of approved publications is produced and marked as Ext. R1(a) for the perusal of this Court.

The representation preferred by the petitioner before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University (produced as Ext. P11 to the writ petition) has been put up before the Vice Chancellor along with the whole appointment files for perusal and orders.

The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit as follows:

It is contended that the petitioner had sufficient statutory remedy under Chapter III of Section 7(3) of Kerala University Act 1974 to agitate the matter before the Chancellor and she had not stated any reason for not having resorted to the other efficacious statutory remedy for the redressal of her alleged grievances.

It is further contended that the writ petition is filed after the elapse of more than 3 years since the selection to the post of lecturer in education was made by the statutory selection committee as early as on 27.6.2007 and which has got the seal of approval of the statutorily constituted syndicate of the University of Kerala. The petitioner in paragraph 7 of the writ petition had admitted that she had filed representations dated 16.7.2007, 10.3.2008, 15.6.2008 and 25.8.2009. In short, the last representation said to have been filed by the petitioner was on 25.8.2009. The writ petition was filed only on 17.8.2010. That would mean that the petitioner was sleeping over the issue for the last so many years. There is no evidence of having brought up the matter before His Excellency, the Governor of Kerala, who is the Chancellor of the University of Kerala by the petitioner at any point of time since her Ist representation dated 16.7.2007. The husband of the petitioner Dr. Viswanathan Nair was the head of the Department of Education of the University of Kerala, during the period of the selection. He had also worked as Dean of Faculty of Education of University in two occasions. Therefore, the petitioner and her husband were well-versed with the statutory rules governing the university. She cannot pretend ignorance about the authority to whom the complaint has to be made regarding any allegation in the selection process to the post of lecturer of education. She could have also invoked Section 7(1) of the Kerala University Act. In any view of the matter, the present writ petition is barred by limitation of time, frivolous, vexatious and is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and latches.

The allegation that there was lightening speed in issuing the appointment orders and the assumption of charge by appointees is without any basis. The 4th respondent received the order of appointment on 28.6.2007 and at that time, the 4th respondent was working at Karmela Rani Training College, Kollam. Immediately on coming to know of the selection the 4th respondent went to the University Department in the afternoon and reported to duty. There is nothing improper or illegal in joining duty at the earliest point of time.

It is contended that there is no specific allegation against the impartiality or lack of competency or complaint about any favoritism shown to any candidate in the selection process. Without making any specific allegations or mala fides specifically against any of the respondents, this Court need not consider the vague and general allegations against the selection process.

As far as the awarding of marks by the statutorily constituted selection committee for the interview and with reference to the other requirements, the 4th respondent has nothing to state as the statutorily constituted selection committee consisting of eminent and most competent personalities had conducted the selection and there is no law which postulates for a review of the statutory selection process made by eminent personalities in the field of education. The entire allegations levelled against the 4th respondent are unsustainable and therefore, liable to be discarded.

It is further contended that a mere perusal of Ext. P7 would reveal that one would not secure selection by merely getting more marks for the interview alone and the selection can be secured only on getting marks for other discipline also as provided in the guidelines. Marks for interview are usually being awarded considering the performance of the candidates and the candidate who merely possesses higher qualification need not perform well in the interview. The 4th respondent had secured first class with distinction for M.Ed. and the petitioner has secured only lesser marks in the said examination. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that the 4th respondent was given higher marks than assigned to her might have arisen because of her mind set and wrong understanding of the selection process. It is submitted that when the interview was conducted by the statutorily constituted selection committee for the selection of a lecturer in the department of education, University of Kerala Dr. Viswanathan Nair who is none other than the husband of the writ petitioner was the Head of the Department of Education, University of Kerala and the petitioner was well aware of the guidelines for selection and he retired from the service on the A.N. of 31.5.2008. There was ample opportunity for the petitioner to have up to date details on the transaction of business in the department of education till 31.5.2008 through her husband and it is evident from paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition that she had only filed two representations before the University authorities and her contention that she was waiting for reply from the university till this much time is nothing, but a shear lie. The 4th respondent is occupying the post of Lecturer in Education (now designated as Asst. Professor) Department of Education, University of Kerala, since 28.6.2007, as the respondent being fully qualified to occupy the same, it cannot be disturbed by raising frivolous and baseless allegations. Regarding the allegation of awarding of marks in the 4th respondent''s favour, it is contended that it is in consonance with the guidelines fixed for the same. It is further contended that the 4th respondent had made presentation in International seminars in different occasions in Australia, Philippines, Turkey etc. The 4th respondent was given a recognition award in Australia by World Council for Curriculum and instruction which is an NGO having B status with UNESCO. The 4th respondent was also given the Shushruthi Best paper Presenter Award in the International Seminar organized by the Bangalore University. The 4th respondent has also contributed a chapter in the book "Educating for a world view" published by University Press of America. Incl. which was edited by Dr. Larry Hufford and had been recommended by the UGC for the Commonwealth Academic Staff Fellowship 2008. The true copies of testimonials issued in favour of the 4th respondent by various organizations are produced and marked as Ext. R4(A) to R4(D). The petitioner had no case that she has the credentials on par with the 4th respondent apart from the allegations that it is in collusion with the 12th respondent that the 4th respondent got selected for the post. It is also to be noted that the 4th respondent was in possession of Ph.D Degree at the time of the interview, but no specific marks were given to the 4th respondent under that head, i.e. the additional qualification Ph.D.

Selection committee was constituted by His Excellency the Governor of Kerala, in his capacity as the Chancellor of the University. The 4th respondent could only find after the interview that there were eminent personalities who were formerly Vice Chancellors in other reputed universities in the Selection Committee; it is contended.

As regards the marks awarded to the publication in approved journals, it is submitted by the 4th respondent that he is given to understand that the petitioner had only produced two publications in the approved journals of University of Kerala for which marks were awarded and she never produced any additional publications in any approved journals. This is further evidenced from the information given under the Right to Information Act. Regarding the approval of journals as on the date fixed for the submission of the application, the marks are to be awarded only to the publications made by the applicant in the Journals approved by the University. In the instant case, the petitioner had published articles only in two journals which were approved by the University. The four journals in which the petitioner claimed to have published her articles lacks approval of the University and those journals could not have been reckoned by the selection committee for awarding the marks. This is evident from the letter of authority issued by the University under the Right to Information Act. True copy of the list of approved journals in the University of Kerala is produced and marked as Ext. R4(E).

It is further contended by the 4th respondent that it is given to understand that the petitioner had submitted the certificate from a self financing college and a certificate from SCERT for claiming additional marks for teaching experience. SCERT is an autonomous body under the Department of General Education, engaged in the preparation of syllabi, text books and other allied matters concerning the secondary education of the State and the experience certificate issued by such an organisation cannot be used for staking a claim to the post of Lecturer in Education in the Department of Education. According to the relevant University statutes, there are three types of colleges.

Government College

Private Colleges

Private self financing colleges.

The colleges run by IHRD which is an autonomous body and the experience certificate issued by that body cannot be treated on par with a regular service rendered by a person in Government/Aided colleges.

It is further contended that the 4th respondent had joined duty on the same date of the syndicate taking the decision to appoint the 4th respondent. It is pointed out that in almost all postings in the various departments of the University, the candidates have joined duty on the same date of the Syndicate approving their appointments. The 4th respondent had applied under the Right to Information Act to give the details of the candidates who have joined duty on the same date of the decision of the syndicate approving the appointments. True copy of the letter No. PRO/PIO/RTI/956/2012 dated 15.12.2012 is produced and marked as Ext. R4(F). True copy of letter No. PRO/PIO/RTI/954/2012 dated 26.12.2012 is produced and marked as Ext. R4(G). Exts. R4(F) and R4(G) are the details of few candidates who have joined duty on the same day of taking the decision by the syndicate. A perusal of Exts. R4(F) and R4(G) disclose that 31 candidates have joined duty on the date of the syndicate taking the decision to approve their appointments. There are so many other appointments wherein also the candidates have joined duty on the same day of the decision of the syndicate.

The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:

Two journals in which the petitioner had made publication cannot claim the status of standard publications for the purpose of awarding marks for publications in the journals. The petitioner had to her credit two publications in the journal "International Educator" and hence she was awarded 4 marks for publications. There is no illegality in the awarding of marks to the petitioner.

The petitioner''s teaching experience in IHRD does not qualify for awarding marks. Similarly, the period during which the petitioner had worked as Research Officer in SERT does not entitle her for marks for research experience. That is why the petitioner was not awarded marks under the head Teaching/Research experience.

In the 5th respondent''s application, he had claimed that he had served as Part time/Guest Lecturer in Government Vocational Higher Secondary School and as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya for different spells. The 5th respondent also had claimed that he had served as lecturer in S.N. Training College, Nedungadam from 14.10.1992 to 31.3.1993 and as lecturer on contract basis in Teacher Education Centre, University of Kerala, Kollam from 21.11.1994 to 30.11.1995. True copy of this application dated 20.3.2003 is produced and marked as Ext. R5(a).

The selection committee awarded marks based on the evaluation of the performance of the candidates at the interview.

The selected candidates joined duty on 28.6.2007 on receipt of order of appointment. The first respondent issued order No. Ad. Aii. 2/2007 dated 20.7.2007 to the effect that the selected candidates joined duty on 28.6.2007 and that they are placed on probation for a period of one year. True copy of the above order is produced and marked as Ext. R5(b). The Ist respondent has issued Order No. Ad. A-II/2/09 dated 3.2.2009 declaring satisfactory completion of probation of respondents 4 to 7. 5th respondent''s probation is declared with effect from 29.6.2008. True copy of the above order is produced and marked as Ext. R5(c).

The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:

The selection and appointment of the 6th respondent under the category of OBC has not in any manner affected the selection process in which the petitioner has been alleged to have been denied appointment. Therefore, the 6th respondent has been impleaded in the above writ petition without any legal justification.

It is contended that no candidate under the category of OBC has challenged or raised any allegation against the appointment of the 6th respondent. As such raising untenable allegations to unnecessarily implicate the 6th respondent in the above writ petition is unfair and unjustified.

The 6th respondent was duly qualified at the time of notification and from SSLC to Post Graduation, she has passed the examination in flying colours. She secured Ist class in SSLC, 3rd rank in B.S.C., 2nd rank in B.Ed. She has qualified in UGC Net-JRF. From 1994 to 3.2.2003, the date on which the University had invited the application, the 6th respondent had 9 years of service under different universities as Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. She had taught 4 years at Post Graduate Level including M.Ed. Before getting appointment in the respondent university. She was working as Selection Grade Lecturer at NSS Training College, Pandalam. She had also obtained Ph.D and guided several minor research works at B.Ed and M.Ed level. A detailed bio-data of the 6th respondent is produced and marked as Ext. R6(a).

The allegation that the 6th respondent and other candidates joined the service in lightening speed is baseless. The interview was over on 25.6.2007 and the 6th respondent came to know about the selection on 28.6.2007, the day on which the meeting of the syndicate was convened. She had requested her employer to relieve her with effect from the forenoon of 28.6.2007 and she could join at 3 p.m. in the Department of Education of the respondent University. By travelling 100 kms. within 1 hours is not the matter of miracle. Therefore, the allegations in this regard is misconceived.

In Exts. P6 and P6(2), the petitioner makes complaints only regarding the candidates who were selected under the open category, whereas in Ext. P6(3) the petitioner requested not to declare the probation of the OBC candidate and the open category candidate and left the SC candidate without any complaint. The afterthought in making allegation against the 6th respondent''s appointment which had not affected the petitioner in any manner is due to extraneous considerations. Marks awarded to the 6th respondent are commensurate with the 6th respondent''s qualification, experience and co-curricular activities. The 6th respondent has secured 2.3 marks more than the candidate who is next below the 6th respondent in the OBC category; it is contended.

The 6th respondent has secured only 167 marks in the interview. But due to her consistent level of academic performance, long experience of teaching in the B.Ed and M.Ed level, the teaching/guiding experience and satisfactory performance in the interview have contributed the 6th respondent to secure 66.9% of marks in the selection process. At the time of interview, the 6th respondent had completed her Ph.D Course. The 6th respondent had also expected more marks in the interview, but he could secure only lower than expected. The petitioner has not raised any allegation against the marks secured by the 6th respondent as evidenced by the evaluation sheet.

It is contended by the 6th respondent that he was working as Selection Grade Lecturer after rendering 13 years of service as Lecturer when she was selected and appointed as Lecturer in the respondent university. Thereafter she has been granted Selection Grade and appointed as Associate Professor and continues as such at present.

After keeping silence over 3 years after the appointment of the 6th respondent, the present attempt in this writ petition to unnecessarily implicate the 6th respondent also in the litigation is ill motivated; it was contended. It is also contended that while the petitioner was a student of the M.Ed course in the University of Kerala, her husband was the Professor and the then Head of the Department of Education. This might have contributed directly or indirectly to the petitioner to secure high marks in the examination over which her husband had considerable influence. But, in the interview those high marks were not helpful to secure high marks in the interview for which the 6th respondent is in no way responsible; it is contended.

The 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:

The 7th respondent''s name was included as Sl. No. 13 in Ext. P7 score sheet and was awarded 64.4 marks. He placed as rank No. 1, from among the candidates belonging to scheduled caste community. The 7th respondent was appointed in the vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidates. Considering the merit, qualifications and the norms prescribed by the University, the 7th respondent was rightly included rank No. 1 from the candidates belonging to scheduled caste community. The petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste community. She has no locus standi to challenge the 7th respondent''s appointment under reservation quota guaranteed by the constitution.

As the publication claimed by the petitioner is prior to its approval, she is not entitled to get marks. The other publication published in the year 2001 is not an approved journal and cannot claim the status of the standard publications for awarding marks in Ext. P9. The petitioner was awarded 4 marks for publication in the journal. The teaching experience in IHRD of the petitioner and the research officer in SCERT does not qualify for awarding marks to the petitioner as per the norms prescribed by the University.

The selection committee in accordance with the norms issued marks in Ext. P7. After verifying the records, taking into consideration of the 7th respondent''s qualification, experience and the entitlement to get reservation for scheduled caste community awarded first rank for reservation candidates. The university selected candidates and the syndicate in its meeting held on 28.6.2007 decided to appoint the 7th respondent as lecturer against the post in the University, Department of Education as per order No. AD. H/2913/2007 dated 28.6.2007. The true copy of the above order is produced and marked as Ext. R7(a). In obedience to Ext. R7(a) the 7th respondent joined duty and is still continuing the post without any interruptions.

Since the petitioner who had participated the interview and the selection proceedings cannot turn round and challenge the selection proceedings as it was well settled by the Apex Court in K.H. Siraj Vs. High Court of Kerala and Others, . Thus, the respondents prayed for a dismissal of the petition.

The petitioner has filed reply affidavits to all these counter affidavits.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the respondent University, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the learned senior counsel for the 5th respondent and learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

Admittedly, the petitioner as well as respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 along with many other candidates applied in response to Ext. P1 notification for appointment as Lecturers in the Department of Education under the first respondent University. Seventy six candidates including the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 appeared for the interview. Ranks were awarded by the selection committee to the candidates under different heads as shown in Ext. P7. The vacancies notified as per Ext. P1 were 4 out of which 1 vacancy was reserved for scheduled caste, one vacancy was reserved for OBC candidate and two vacancies were set apart for open merit candidates. The petitioner, 4th respondent and 5th respondent contested for the open merit quota.

A perusal of Ext. P7 would indicate that the petitioner''s name was included as Sl. No. 11. She has been awarded total marks of 74.1. The 4th respondent was awarded 78.1 marks and 5th respondent was awarded 76.9 marks. Therefore, the 4th respondent was placed in the Ist rank and 5th respondent was placed in the second rank. The petitioner could not get selection as she gained only 74.1 marks. The 6th respondent who belongs to OBC category was awarded 66.9 marks and she was awarded rank No. 1 among OBC candidates. The 7th respondent from the SC community obtained 64.4 marks which was highest among the aforesaid category and she was placed as rank No. 7 in SC category. Accordingly, 4th and 5th respondents were selected and appointed in two open merit vacancies and respondents 6 and 7 were appointed in the vacancy reserved for OBC and SC candidates.

The following are the main contentions of the petitioner against the marks assigned to her in Ext. P7 under different heads:

a) She has been awarded only 4 marks under head No. 5 for publications in standard approved journals, as against her entitlement for the maximum 10 marks.

b) She has not been awarded any marks for her teaching experience.

c) The marks awarded to her for interview is very much on the lower side.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is eligible to get 10 marks for the publication described in Ext. P9.

In answer to the said argument, the learned standing counsel for the respondent University as well as the party respondents would point out that three among the publications of the petitioners were in the journal by name "Experiments in Education" published during the years 1998, 1999 and 2002. It is the definite case of the respondent University that the above journal was approved by the university only in the year 2004 and hence, publication of the above journals prior to its approval does not entitle the petitioner for the marks in respect of the three publications. The other journal in which the petitioner claims to have published an Article in the year 2001 is the journal by name "Pedagogics". This, according to the university is not an approved journal.

Therefore, according to the learned standing counsel for the respondent university and other party respondents, the aforesaid two journals in which the petitioner had made publications cannot claim the status of standard publications for the purpose of awarding marks for the publication in the journal.

In answer to the above said argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the journal by name "Experiments in Education" was approved by the Board of Studies in Education (Post Graduate) of the Kerala University as early as on 16.11.1995 and the faculty of education approved the same on 6.2.1996. Later, the academic council has ratified the decision.

In support of the said argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Exts. P12 to 14. Ext. P8 is the list of approved standard journals in education in the respondent University which contains the name of 39 journals. Sl. No. 24 is the "International Educator". Sl. No. 25 is the "Studies in Education". Sl. No. 36 is "Experiments in Education". Sl. No. 37 is "Pedagogics". Ext. P12 is the copy of minutes of annual meeting of the Board of Studies in Education held at 11 a.m. on 16th November 1995. In Ext. P12, the Board of Studies in Education recommended to include the journal "Experiments in Function" in the list of standard journals. Presumably, it must be "Experiments in Education". This was followed by the annual meeting of the faculty of education in February 1996 which was discussed Ext. P13 minutes by which the Board recommended to include the journal "Experiments in Education" in the list of standard journals. The minutes of faculty of education held on 6.12.1996 was approved by the academic council in its meeting held on 15.7.1996 as evidenced by Ext. P14. These documents would cut the very root of the case of the respondents that the petitioner had only two publications in her credit which were published.

It was contended inter alia by the University that the copies of the four other papers were not produced.

In answer to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext. P17 which is the true copy of the application form dated 28.3.2003 submitted by the petitioner. At Page No. 4 of the application form, the number of papers is shown as 9. At page No. 2 of the application, it is stated that separate list is attached. The learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that in the list of enclosures attached to the application against item No. 7, it has been stated that copies of all the published papers have been enclosed. If only 4 papers were available at the time of verification of Ext. P17, definitely, that would have been mentioned by the respondent university then and there. Therefore, this Court cannot agree with the stand taken by the respondent university that the petitioner had sent only two publications along with her application.

The learned standing counsel for the University would rely on Ext. R1(a) which according to the University is the list of approved publications. However, Ext. R1(a) is a photocopy of handwritten list of publications. The authenticity of Ext. R1(a) is doubtful as it is against Exts. P12 to P14 documents which show that the Research Journal "Experiments in Education" has been approved by the Board of Studies, Faculty as well as the Academic Council long before Ext. P1 notification which is dated 3.2.2003.

It is true that the petitioner had the credit of two publications in the journal by name "International Educator" which was approved by the respondent university during the relevant period. Thus, she was awarded 4 marks for the publication. The other three publications of the petitioner were published in the journal "Experiments in Education" which was approved by the respondent university as early as in 1996, as evident from Exts. P12 to Ext. P14. Therefore, she was entitled to get 6 more marks under that head.

For the reasons stated above, there cannot be any dispute that the position would have been different, if the marks for three publications in the journal "Experiments in Education" were also awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner would have got the maximum marks of 10 on that count. Instead, she was awarded only 4 marks which is an apparent and grave mistake.

Regarding the second contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner had not been awarded marks under the head "teaching experience".

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no stipulation that "teaching experience" means teaching experience in training colleges for conducting courses for awarding B.Ed or M.Ed qualifications alone. It was pointed out that IHRD is an institution fully owned and controlled by the Government of Kerala and the appointments in IHRD was done on the basis of selection by a selection Board constituted as per the Rules approved by the Government of Kerala. Therefore, it was argued that the teaching experience of the petitioner in IHRD has to be reckoned for awarding marks. It was further argued that SCERT, where the petitioner worked from 29.10.1999 to 17.1.2005 as Research Officer, is also an establishment under the Government of Kerala. It was pointed out that in the memorandum of association of SCERT, it is stated as follows:

"SCERT would assist and advise the Department of Education, Government of Kerala in the implementation of its policies and major programmes in the field of education, particularly, school education."

It was argued by the learned standing counsel for the respondent University that as per the norms for awarding marks for teaching experience in the matter of appointment of lecturers in the Department of Education, the teaching experience only in training colleges conducting courses for awarding B.Ed or M.Ed are reckoned for awarding marks.

It is crucial to note that the petitioner''s teaching experience in IHRD does not qualify for awarding marks. Similarly, the period during which the petitioner had worked as Research Officer in SCERT does not entitle her for marks for research experience. That is the reason why the petitioner was not awarded marks under the head Teaching/Research experience.

It is also crucial to note that as per Ext. P7 score sheet, the 5th respondent''s service as lecturer in training college has been reckoned for award of marks. She was awarded one mark for teaching experience reckoning her service over one year as lecturer in the training college. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that she was discriminated and denied marks under the head "Teaching/Research" experience.

Ext. P10 is the list of teaching experience of the petitioner. As rightly contended by the respondents any teaching experience obtained as a guest lecturer or contract lecturer cannot be treated at par with regular teaching experience. The selection was for the post of lecturer in the Department of Education and therefore, any teaching or research experience obtained in an irrelevant field is only to be discarded. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any further marks for teaching experience.

The next contention was that the petitioner was awarded only low marks for the interview. Normally, the selection committee awards marks based on the evaluation of the performance of the candidates in the interview. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the interview board in such matters. Here, the petitioner was awarded 14 marks for the interview. Ext. P7 reveals that several other candidates including those who were holding M.Phil and Ph.D were awarded single digit marks. Therefore, I see no valid force in the contention of the petitioner that she was awarded low marks in the interview.

The further case of the petitioner is that there was undue haste in issuing appointment orders and joining duty. This was frantically attempted to be justified by the contesting respondents. The lightening speed at which the respondent University proceeded after the decision of the meeting of the syndicate in the forenoon of 28.6.2007 and the contesting respondents have joined the service on 28.6.2007 itself are also factors which create suspicion against the appointments of respondents 4 and 5.

Respondents 4 and 5 also attempted to rely on the delay caused in approaching this Court. However, this Court is of the definite view that wherever there is an appointment involving irregularities, the service rendered by the selected candidates cannot justify the ineligible entry secured by them.

Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Ext. P7 is quashed to the extent the selection committee had violated the norms stipulated for the award of marks to the petitioner in respect of the publications and to deny marks to the petitioner which she was legally entitled for.

Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to correct the apparent error on the face of record which is discussed above and to grant marks to the petitioner as per the norms for the five publications of the petitioner in the journals approved by the respondent University.

The respondents 1 and 2 shall convene the selection committee which prepared Ext. P7 and shall award marks for the publications of the petitioner correcting the errors which have crept in Ext. P7.

There is no need to conduct de novo interview.

As the 6th and 7th respondents have obtained selection under reserved categories, they shall not be disturbed.

Formal orders, making selection to the post of lecturer in the Department of Education under the respondent university in the open merit quota from among the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, shall be made and consequential appointment orders shall be issued within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.