Kerala High Court
Dr. Reeny Mary Zacharia vs The Kerala Agriculture University
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/26TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 34133 of 2016 (N)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------
DR. REENY MARY ZACHARIA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, (SENIOR SCALE)
RICE RESEARCH STATION, MONCOMPU,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN
SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM)
SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE
SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA)
SMT.SOUMYA JAMES
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY
MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA,
THRISSUR-680656, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE VICE -CHANCELLOR,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
VELLANIKKRA, THRISSUR-680656.
3. PROF.(DR) P. RAJENDRAN,
VICE-CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITY P. O,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY - PO,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
MAIN CAMPUS, THRISSUR-680656.
WP(C).No. 34133 of 2016 (N)
----------------------------
4. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
CAREER ADVANCEMENT PROMOTION FROM ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR (SS) TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR UNDER
1996 UGC SCHEME, KERALA AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR -680656,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN VICE-CHANCELLOR OF
THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.
5. THE SUB COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR-
REGISTRAR,AGRICULTURAL UNIVERISTY,
MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR-680656.
R1 TO R6 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,
SRI. ROBSON PAUL, SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 34133 of 2016 (N)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/C2/10177/99 DATED
15.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE
PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT, 2005.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.9.2010
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF REMINDER DATED 27.6.2012
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8.3.2013 WP(C)
NO.5983 OF 2013-W.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.GA/K1/9808/2013 DATED
16.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 17.6.2014 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/K1/8909/2013
DATED 24.6.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF MINUTES DATED 8.11.2013 OF THE
508TH MEETING OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11TH FEBRUARY, 2016
IN WP(C) NO.17348 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF ORDER NO.GA/K1/9808/2013 DATED
26.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE ORDER OF THE VICE
CHANCELLOR .MM.
EXHIBIT P12: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE
SIGNED BY THE MEMBERS ON 15.6.2016.
WP(C).No. 34133 of 2016 (N)
----------------------------
EXHIBIT P13: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.GA/G2/6645/16
(OA-11/544) DATED 28.6.2016 FROM THE
REGISTRAR TO RECRUITMENT OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.GS5-1929/2016
DATED JULY 15, 2016 FROM THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNOR TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.VC/55/2016 DATED
2.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NUMBER
G.A/K1/9808/2013 DT 24/6/2014.
EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE.
EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SELECTION
COMMITTEE FOR THE CAREER ADVANCEMENT
SCHEME PROMOTIONS UNDER UGC 2006.
EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE SECRETARY,
HONOURABLE GOVERNOR OF KERALA DT 2/7/2016.
EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE UGC REGULATIONS, 1996.
EXT.R1(b): KAU STATUTES.
EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE REMARKS OF THE THREE MEMBER
EXPERT COMMITTEE DT 17/5/2017.
EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY LETTER DT 2/6/2017.
EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE CLAUSE 6.27 OF 1996 UGC
SCHEME.
EXT.R1(f): UNIVERSITY ORDER 24/6/201 COPY OF THE
LETTER 4
EXT.R1(g): COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY LETTER DT 2/6/2017.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
P.V.ASHA, J.
W.P.(C) No.34133 of 2016
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner who is an Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) in the Rice Research Station under the Kerala Agricultural University (herein after referred to as "the University" for short) filed this writ petition aggrieved by the denial of Career Advancement Promotion ('CAP' for short) to the post of Associate Professor.
2. The petitioner commenced her service as Assistant Professor in the University on 24.11.1999. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 order dated 15.10.2005, implementing the revised UGC scheme 1998, in the University. Clause 6.20 thereof provides for Career Advancement Promotions for the teachers. Clause 6.25 provides for placement of an Assistant Professor in senior scale. Clause 6.26 provides for placement of Senior Scale Assistant Professor as Assistant Professor (selection grade). Clause 6.27 provides for promotion as Associate Professor. Clause 6.28 provides constitution of selection committee in tune with the relevant provisions contained in the statutes/ordinances. Petitioner was granted CAP as Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) on 1.9.2006. She acquired Ph.D on 19.9.2006.
3. Petitioner applied for CAP as Associate Professor, after she became eligible for the same with effect from September 2009. But W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :2: she was not granted promotion. As the reasons for denial of promotion was not revealed to her, she submitted application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 when she got Ext.P2 report of the screening committee, which considered her case for CAP. The committee did not recommend her for promotion as Associate Professor. Ext.P2 report produced by the petitioner contains a tabular chart indicating the assessment of candidates under the following 4 heads: (1) refresher course (2) self appraisal report (3) publications and (4) seminar/conference. Petitioner points out that remarks against all these entries are given as "yes". However there is an endorsement by the committee, below the tabular chart, in writing: "Not recommended due to lack of criteria prescribed in clause 6.27 (iii) of Prgs of Kerala Agricultural University dated 15.10.2005".
4. On receipt of Ext.P2 report, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Vice Chancellor, on 20.9.2010 pointing out that she had published 5 articles at the time of submission of her application; she is the Principal Investigator of 4 research projects on rice and mushroom at RRS, Moncompu since December 2007; she has a teaching service for 1 year and two months in the College of Agriculture, Kasargode and has conducted more than 40 training programs covering 2500 farmers from different districts of Kerala. She W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :3: pointed out that several other Senior Scale Assistant Professors were granted promotion as Associate Professors, reckoning even the service rendered by them as junior Scientist, which is not equivalent to the post of Lecturer/Scientist. She also pointed out that she was denied promotion contrary to the UGC guidelines or ICAR norms and requested for review of her case. After repeated representations before the University as well as the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner approached this Court, filing W.P(C) No.5983 of 2013. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 8.3.2013, this Court directed the Vice Chancellor to place her representation before the executive committee of the University for appropriate decision on her request. Thereafter the University issued Ext.P6 order on 16.8.2013 in which it was stated that petitioner had not successfully substantiated her claim against the decision of the screening committee held on 6.4.2010, and it did not recommend her to the post of Associate Professor. The decision in Ext.P6 was ratified in the 518th meeting of the executive committee held on 17.6.2014, much after expiry of the time stipulated in the judgment, after she had filed Cont.Court (C) No.914 of 2013.
5. Petitioner points out that on 9.6.2014 this Court had issued an order in Cont.Court (C) No.914 of 2013 directing personal appearance of the 2nd respondent on 17.6.2014 and against that order the 2nd W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :4: respondent filed Contempt Appeal No.8 of 2014. Interim order sought in the contempt appeal was granted. The executive committee meeting was held on 17.6.2014 which ratified the decision in Ext.P6. Thereafter Ext.P8 order was issued by the Registrar on behalf of the executive committee. The executive committee agreed with the findings of the previous selection committee, on the basis of the report of the sub committee. It was stated that the petitioner would be considered for promotion from the next due date of CAP provided she has good publications as prescribed in paragraph 6.27 (iii) of Ext.P1 order and that she has to apply/appear again for CAP. According to the petitioner, the decision was not in tune with the direction of this Court. Petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.17348 of 2014. By Ext.P10 judgment dated 11.2.2016 the decision of the executive committee in Ext.P8 was set aside, directing the respondents to constitute a sub committee within a period of two weeks to review the case of petitioner for CAP and directing the executive committee to take appropriate action on the sub committee's report. In Ext.P10 judgment this Court found that Ext.P6 order was passed by the Vice Chancellor whereas the direction was to the executive committee. The matter was thereafter placed before the executive committee which had referred the matter to a sub committee, which in turn submitted a report on W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :5: the case of the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was rejected as per Ext.P8 order.
6. The petitioner pointed out that the Vice Chancellor was a member of the executive committee as well as the sub committee. That sub committee had considered the recommendation of the previous selection committee and rejected the case of the petitioner. This Court found that the presence of Vice Chancellor in the subcommittee was not fair when the selection in which he was a part, was under challenge. This Court found that even though there was no defect in the participation of the Vice Chancellor, going by the provisions in the statute, in fairness, the Vice Chancellor who rejected her case once, ought not have considered it again, even as part of the sub committee. This Court also found that one of the members of the sub committee was an Advocate who cannot have any expertise in the subject. In those circumstances this Court found it necessary that the case of the petitioner required to be reviewed by constituting a new committee with three members preferably subject experts from outside the University.
7. Thereafter the University passed Ext.P11 order, constituting a three member committee, for considering the case of the petitioner with Dr.C.K.Peethambaran, Former Director of Research, Kerala W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :6: Agricultural University, Dr.V.Prakasam, Former Professor of Pathology, Tamilnadu Agricultural University & Chairman, Mushroom Foundation of India, Coimbatore and Dr. R.Chandramohan, Former Head, Division of Crop Protection, CPCRI, Kayamkulam and the Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University, as convener. That Committee considered the case of the petitioner on 15.6.2016 and submitted Ext.P12 report, which was again against the petitioner. The committee found that there are only two publications, which read as follows:
1. Biological control of post harvest diseases of Brinjal appeared in the abstract of National seminar on fungal biodiversity and biopropedine in the age of global warming October 2009. This cannot be considered as a scientific research paper published in pre revised journal. This abstract does not have any NAAS rating.
2. Partial characterisation of bitter gourd distortion mosaic virus - Abstract appeared in 5th International conference in plant pathology in the globalised era, New Delhi 2009. This also cannot be considered as a scientific research publication. This also does not have any NAAS rating.
8. Thus both the publications were not found sufficient, saying that what was produced was only extracts which do not have any NAS rating. Hence the Committee found that the petitioner does not have the required minimum qualification to be considered for Career Advancement Promotion in tune with clause 6.27 (iii) of Ext.P1 and that committee also recommended her case for promotion as and when she acquired the qualification. The report of that committee was ratified by Ext.P13 minutes in the 544th executive committee which met on 23.6.2016.
W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :7:
9. In the meanwhile petitioner had submitted a complaint before the Chancellor on 4.4.2016 and the Secretary to Governor had as per communication No.GS5-1929/2016 dated 15.7.2016 forwarded the reports received from the University to the petitioner. Along with that letter the report of the Vice Chancellor Ext.P15 was also enclosed, in which the Vice Chancellor had furnished the details regarding the case of the petitioner for Career Advancement Promotion, in which it was stated that the petitioner did not have the eligibility criteria prescribed under UGC norms. However there was no communication regarding the results of the selection to the petitioner. This writ petition is filed in the above circumstances.
10. One of the contentions raised in the writ petition is that the the sub committee was not constituted in tune with the direction in Ext.P10 judgment. It was pointed out that the sub committee was to be constituted by the executive committee. But in this case the Vice Chancellor- the 3rd respondent constituted the sub committee inducting his own favourable men. Petitioner pointed out that the members of the sub committee have only signed the report at the instance of the 3rd respondent who was impleaded in his personal capacity.
11. Based on the direction of this Court issued on 17.3.2017 the minutes of the meeting of the executive committee was made W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :8: available to this Court. As it was found that the committee was not constituted in tune with the directions in the judgment, University was directed to constitute a committee consisting of three subject experts to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of two months and to place the report. Thereafter, on 19.6.2017, the 1st respondent has filed an affidavit dated 13.6.2017 explaining the constitution of the new committee and its findings.
12. The University as per its order No.GA/K1/9808/2013 dated 12.5.2017 constituted a committee with the following subject experts;
1.Dr.M.L.Jeeva - Principal Scientist, Central Tuber Crop Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram; 2. Dr.R.Viswanathan - Head, Division of Crop Protection. ICAR Sugar Cane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore;
3. Dr.D.Alice - Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore which was approved by the executive committee. The expert committee met on 17.5.2017 at Headquarters of the University considered the case of the petitioner in accordance with paragraph 3.3.0 of the UGC Regulations 1996, which explains the selection process. The respondents have stated that the petitioner's application submitted on 28.12.2009 along with all the documents attached with that, including the two abstracts and a booklet on mushroom which were not accepted by the previous W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :9: committee as quality research publications, were presented before the committee for screening. It is stated that on the basis of the request of the petitioner the following two research articles were also produced before the committee for evaluation:
1. Phylloplane Fungi for the biological control of post harvst diseased of Tomato and Brinjal. Kavaka 37 & 38 31-36, 2009- 10.
2. Biological Control of Post Harvest Diseases of Brinjal. Vlo.XVII:
No.1 &2 SB Academic Review 2010 : 101-112.
13. The respondents further state that the sub committee submitted its recommendations in sealed cover, after examining the case in accordance with 1996 UGC Scheme. The executive committee examined that report and approved the same. In Ext.R1(c) report of the sub committee, it is stated that the quality of publications produced by the petitioner was not sufficient for recommendation for promotion as per 6.27 (iii) of UGC/ICAR Career Advancement Promotion, 1996. It was further stated that in view of the production of two other articles on 27.2.2016 before the Vice Chancellor, the petitioner can apply afresh with proper documents along with the publications produced. Hence the sub committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner for promotion. Thereafter University as per Ext.R1(d) letter dated 2.6.2017 requested the petitioner to submit a fresh application with supporting documents. In the affidavit it is W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :10: stated that the University is not in a position to commend on the findings of the committee. The subject experts identified for inclusion in Selection Committees under UGC norms conducted the screening procedures without any bias. It further states that UGC scheme is followed in the University from 1986 onwards. Thus according to the 1st respondent, the screening committee as well as the sub committee has rejected the case of the petitioner in terms of 1996 UGC Scheme as well as clause 6.27 of Ext.P1-proceedings No.GA/C2/1077/1999 dated 15.10.2005 issued by the University.
14. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel.
15. The application of the petitioner was rejected referring to clause 6.27 (iii) of Ext.P1, which is the eligibility criteria no.(iii) for Career Advancement Promotion as Associate Professor, viz:
"made some mark in th areas of scholarship and research as evidenced eg. by self-assessment, reports of referees, quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula and extension activities."
16. The objection raised by all the committees which considered the case of the petitioner was against the publication. Thus the subcommittee, which was constituted on 12.5.2017, on the basis of the direction of this Court in the order dated 05.04.2017 in this writ petition, consisting of three subject experts met on 17.05.2017, also W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :11: rejected the case of the petitioner, on the ground of the publications. Ext.R1(c) report of the screening committee found that the quality of the publications produced by petitioner along with her application, is not sufficient for consideration for promotion as per Clause 6.27 (iii) of the UGC/ICAR and advised the candidate to apply afresh along with the publications she had produced later before the Vice Chancellor.
17. Thus all the committees which considered the case of the petitioner were not satisfied with the publications produced by the petitioner. It is true that there is nothing adverse against her, in the remarks with respect to the other three criteria i.e refresher course, self appraisal reports and seminars/conference attended, contribution to educational innovation design and new courses, curricula and extension activities etc., in clause 6.27(iii) of Ext.P1. The finding of the earlier committees were that the publications were only extracts or that it does not have scientific value. Petitioner's case is that promotion cannot be denied on the basis of evaluation of the publications. According to the petitioner, subcommittee or any other committee is not expected to evaluate the publication of the petitioner; there needs only some mark in the area of scholarship and research as evidenced by self assessment, reports of referees, quality of publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :12: courses and curricula and extension activities. Therefore it is necessary to consider whether evaluation of publications is required for the purpose of CAP.
18. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent producing the report of the committee of subject experts which met on 17.05.2017, it is stated that the evaluation of publication was made in accordance with clause 3.3 of Ext.R1(a) - the UGC Regulations 2000. The University Grants Commission issued Ext.R1(a) Regulations- UGC (Minimum Qualifications required for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000, which provides for qualification for appointments as well as Career Advancement Promotions, the method of selection, constitution of selection committee etc. Clause 3 of 2000 Regulations provides for selection committees recommended by UGC. Clause 3.3.0 provides for the process of selection for the post of Reader and the composition of the selection committee, according to which the process of selection should involve inviting the bio-data and reprints of major publications of the candidate before the interview and getting them assessed by three external experts, who are to be invited to interview the candidate.
19. Now it is necessary to examine Ext.P1 order, based on which W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :13: petitioner's case was considered. From Ext.P1 it is seen that the executive committee of the University has, as per its decisions on 5.11.2003 and 5.1.2005 approved the proposal for implementation of the 1996 UGC/ICAR scheme and the Career Advancement Promotion Scheme in the University, in continuation of the University proceedings dated 2.3.2000, in line with G.O.(P) No.171/99H.Edn dated 21.12.1999. Clause 3.1 of Ext.P1 provided that the revised UGC/ICAR Scheme 1998 will be restricted to those categories of staff only who were brought under the UGC/ICAR Scheme, 1986. Career advancement is provided under clause 6.20 onwards of Ext.P1. Clause 6.20 provides for career advancement of an Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) on completion of 4 years with Ph.D, 5 years for those with M.Phil and 6 years for those without M.Phil or Ph.D. Clause 6.21 provides that for movement into the grades of Associate Professor and above, the minimum eligibility criteria would be Ph.D. Clause 6.22 provides that an Associate Professor with a minimum of eight years of service in that grade will be eligible to be considered for appointment as a Professor. Clause 6.23 reads as follows:
" The selection committees for career advancement shall be the same as those for direct recruitment for each category.(copy enclosed)".
20. On direction from this Court, the learned Standing Counsel Sri.Robson Paul made available the enclosure referred to in Ext.P1. W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :14: The enclosure provides that the selection committees recommended by the UGC/ICAR for the post of University Assistant Professor, University Associate Professor, Professor, Director of Research/Director of Extension/Deans & Associate Deans, shall be as per statutes.
21. The process of selection for CAP as Associate Professor provided in the enclosure to Ext.P1 is as following:
"The process of selection should involve inviting the biodata and reprints of three major publications of the candidate before interview and getting them assessed by the same three external experts, who are to be invited to interview the candidate. The selection committee should have the following composition
1.Vice Chancellor to be the Chairperson of the selection committee
2.An academician who is the nominee of the Chancellor Three experts in the concerned subject/field, out of the list recommended by the Vice Chancellor and approved by the Executive Committee.
4Dean of the faculty
5.Head of the department At least four members including two outside experts, must constitute the quorum".
22. The mode of appointment as well as composition of the selection committees in clause 3.30 of UGC Regulations [Ext.R1(a)] and that given in the enclosure to Ext.P1 are one and the same. Clause 3.3.0 relates to Reader. By the time Ext.P1 was issued there is no post of Reader. The eligibility for an Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) for CAP as Associate Professor is given in clause 6.27 of Ext.P1, which reads as follows:
6.27 An Assistant Professor in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor if she/he has:
i. Completed 5 years of service in the Senior Scale ii. Obtained a Ph.D degree or has equivalent published work iii. Made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced eg. By self-assessment, reports of referees, quality of W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :15: publications, contribution to educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula and extension activities.
iv. After placement in the senior scale, participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes of approved duration or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified of approved by the University Grants Commission/Indian Council for Agricultural Research and v. Possesses consistently good performance appraisal reports.
23. When the process of selection, as provided in the enclosure to Ext.P1, provides that it would involve inviting the biodata and reprints of three major publications of the candidate before interview and getting them assessed by the same three external experts, who are to be invited to interview the candidate, the contention that the respondents shall not undertake the evaluation is unsustainable.
24. The aforesaid process is provided in the UGC Regulations, 2000 itself in clause 3.3.0. The requirement to get the publications assessed before the interview by the external experts indicates the relevance of the publications, which are required to be produced by a candidate when he submits application, along with the biodata.
Therefore going by clause 6.27 read with the provisions contained in the enclosure to Ext.P1 as well as clause 3.30 of the UGC Regulations, it is evident that the publications of a candidate for CAP as Associate Professor requires evaluation by the experts. Therefore it can be concluded that mere production of publications, will not make the petitioner eligible for CAP, even if other conditions are satisfied. Unless and until the publications are found worthy in the qualitative W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :16: assessment by the experts, petitioner cannot have any valid claim on the ground that she satisfies other criteria.
25. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that clause 6.27(iii) does not contemplate any evaluation of publications or that CAP could not have been denied only on account of the quality of publications is unsustainable. The contention that once the other parameters in clause 6.27(iii) are satisfied petitioner should have been granted CAP, when publications were produced, is also equally baseless. It is equally incorrect to have the eligibility assessed on the basis of documents which were not produced at the relevant time.
26. A validly constituted selection committee has considered the case of the petitioner for CAP, as directed by this Court. The finding of the committee is the same, as those rendered by the committees which considered the case of petitioner on all occasions. The reports of the selection committee in respect of those who were considered for CAP along with the petitioner, made available for perusal show that there were other candidates also who were not recommended for CAP on account of poor quality of publications. On examination of these reports of the selection committee, I could not find any discriminatory treatment towards petitioner, in considering her for CAP. W.P.(C) No.34133/2016 :17:
27. Each of the selection committees, which included experts in the field has assessed the case of petitioner and found that the publications produced by the petitioner were not upto the mark. When the publications are to be evaluated by the experts before the interview and an applicant for CAP has to furnish the reprints along with her application and biodata, consideration of the case of petitioner can only be based on the publications which she chose to produce along with her application. There cannot be any consideration based on documents produced subsequently.
28. Petitioner was each time advised to submit fresh application. In the counter affidavit it is stated that applications were called for in 2014 also. Petitioner could have availed that opportunity and got her case assessed in accordance with the rules in force at the relevant time. When experts in the field have assessed the claim of petitioner, in accordance with rules, this Court, which does not have that expertise, will not, under Article 226 venture to examine the correctness of the assessment made by the selection committee.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.V.ASHA JUDGE rkc