Kerala High Court
Sreejith Kanholi vs University Of Calicut on 15 October, 2012
Author: M.L.Joseph Francis
Bench: K.T.Sankaran, M.L.Joseph Francis
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/23RD ASWINA 1934
RP.No. 396 of 2009 IN WA.NO.394/2009
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
-----------------------------------
SREEJITH KANHOLI, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. K.SREEDHARAN, VAISAKH,
MALADATH THAZHAM
POST KOTTOOLI, CALICUT-16.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE
SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR
SRI.V.S.SHAKKIR JAMEEL
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/2ND RESPONDENT:
----------------------------------------
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O.
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SELECTION BOARD (CONSTITUTED TO THE POST
OF ASSISTANT CURATOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. SUDHEER K.,
THARAMGINI, THUVVAKODE P.O., CHEMANCHERI VIA
KOZHIKODE-673 304.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC FOR CALICUT UNIVERSITY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-10-2012,
ALONG WITH R.P.NO.397/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN &
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------
R.P.NO.396/2009 in W.A.NO.394/2009
and
R.P.NO.397/2009 in W.A.NO.332/2009
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2012
O R D E R
K.T.Sankaran, J.
These Review Petitions are filed by Sreejith Kanholi who challenged the selection and appointment of Sudheer.K. (appellant in W.A.No.332 of 2009) as Assistant Curator in the Zoology Department of the Calicut University. Sreejith Kanholi filed W.P.(C) No.4300 of 2008 challenging the selection process and the selection and appointment of Sudheer.K. A learned single Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition by the judgment dated 3.11.2008 and set aside the selection and appointment of Sudheer.K. The Selection Committee of the University was directed to conduct interview of the candidates in the manner as laid down in the Rules framed by the University. The University was directed to prepare a fresh ranked list and to make appointment. The judgment of the learned single Judge was challenged by Sudheer.K. in W.A.No.332 of 2009 and by R.P.NO.396/2009 in W.A.NO.394/2009 and R.P.NO.397/2009 in W.A.NO.332/2009 :: 2 ::
the University and the Selection Board in W.A.No.394 of 2009. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeals by the common judgment dated 11.3.2009.
2. The University of Calicut by notification dated 1.1.2005 (Ext.P1), invited applications to one vacancy of Assistant Curator in the Zoology Department. The qualifications for the post were: (1) Degree in Zoology; and (2) Experience in collecting and preserving Zoological specimens. In response to the notification, Sreejith Kanholi, Sudheer.K. and others submitted applications. They appeared for the written test. It is stated that Sreejith Kanholi secured 72 marks in the written test, while Sudheer.K. secured 38 marks in the written test. As per the norms for selection prescribed (Ext.P10), the maximum marks for written test was 75 and the maximum marks for interview was 25.
3. The Selection Committee held the interview several months after the written test and after this Court issued directions in the Writ Petition filed by Sreejith Kanholi. It would appear that the committee R.P.NO.396/2009 in W.A.NO.394/2009 and R.P.NO.397/2009 in W.A.NO.332/2009 :: 3 ::
for selection decided to fix 75 marks for the interview, quite contrary to the norms set out in Ext.P10 by the Syndicate. In the interview, 56 marks were awarded to Sudheer.K. and 20 marks were awarded to Sreejith Kanholi. Thus Sreejith Kanholi got 92 marks (72+20) and Sudheer.K. got 94 marks (38+56). By the strange process adopted by the Selection Committee, Sudheer.K., who would not have got higher marks even if the entire 25 marks for the interview were awarded to him, was selected and appointed.
4. The learned single Judge rejected the contentions raised by the University and held that the Selection Committee had no jurisdiction or authority to lay down the norms for selection. In fact, Sreejith Kanholi was not aware of the fact that 75 marks were fixed for the interview, at the time when he filed the Writ Petition. However, fixation of total marks for interview at 75 was disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the University. On the basis of the correct facts which were revealed, it was contended before the learned single Judge that the entire selection process was invalid. R.P.NO.396/2009 in W.A.NO.394/2009 and R.P.NO.397/2009 in W.A.NO.332/2009 :: 4 ::
5. Sreejith Kanholi had raised a contention in the Writ Petition that Sudheer.K. was illegally awarded marks for experience, while in fact, he had gained that experience during his research for Ph.D. Ext.P9 was produced by Sreejith Kanholi to prove that contention. It was also contended by Sreejith Kanholi that though he gained experience after his Degree and after his Post Graduate Degree, that was not reckoned by the Selection Committee and he was not awarded any marks for experience. The learned single Judge did not consider these contentions, evidently since he found the entire selection process as illegal and, on that ground, set aside the selection and appointment. However, when the Writ Appeals were considered, a Division Bench of this court considered that question and held that Sreejith Kanholi did not have the required experience as his experience was not attributable to any service or employment after acquisition of the basic qualifications. Holding thus, it was held by the Division Bench that the other questions need not be looked into as Sreejith Kanholi has no locus standi to challenge the selection process, since he did not have the required experience. However, the Division Bench did not consider the question whether R.P.NO.396/2009 in W.A.NO.394/2009 and R.P.NO.397/2009 in W.A.NO.332/2009 :: 5 ::
Sudheer.K. had the required experience, only on the ground that according to the Division Bench, the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed as Sreejith Kanholi had no locus standi. This appears to be an error apparent on the face of the record. If Sreejith Kanholi cannot be said to have experience as he did not gain that experience during any employment, the same is the position in the case of Sudheer.K. also. This fundamental aspect was omitted to be taken note of by the Division Bench, which, according to us, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
6. The Division Bench did not consider the question on which the learned single Judge held that the selection and appointment were illegal. The Division Bench rested their decision only on the question of locus standi. It is now fairly clear, going by the un- controverted statement of Sreejith Kanholi that Sudheer.K. had left the job as Assistant Curator in the Department of Zoology after accepting another job elsewhere. In the statement dated 25th August, 2012 filed on behalf of the University, it is stated that Sreejith Kanholi had the acceptable experience after acquiring the R.P.NO.396/2009 in W.A.NO.394/2009 and R.P.NO.397/2009 in W.A.NO.332/2009 :: 6 ::
basic qualifications. However, according to the University, he did not have the experience for a period of one year. Nowhere in the notification it is prescribed that the experience should be for a period of one year. This also would make it clear that the decision rendered by the Division Bench requires reconsideration.
For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the Review Petitions and set aside the judgment in W.A.Nos.332 of 2009 and 394 of 2009.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge ahz/