Kerala High Court
M.Abdul Rahiman vs The Director on 25 September, 2008
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31540 of 2007(D)
1. M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SENIOR LECTURER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL
4. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :25/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 31540 OF 2007 D
= = =
Dated this the 25th day of September 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Senior Lecturer in Computer Science and Engineering at LBS Centre for Science and Technology for Women, Poojappura, Trivandrum. His claim in this writ petition is that he should be treated as a candidate eligible for the post of Asst. Professor in Computer Science and Engineering, the feeder category of which is Lecturer. Ext. P4 shows the qualifications that are prescribed and in so far as the petitioner is concerned, what he claims is that he has a first class Masters level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology with 5 years' experience.
2. Since the controversy in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner satisfies the prescribed qualification of first class at Masters level in the appropriate branch of Engineering/Technology I need only examine that question. As far as the petitioner is concerned Ext. P1 is the certificate that is issued by faculty of applied science of the University of Kerala to the effect that he has been admitted to the Degree of Master of Technology, he having been certified by duly appointed examiners to be qualified to receive the same in the Branch Computer Science with W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -2- specialization in Digital Image Computing.
3. Ext.P8 is the circular that was issued by the 1st respondent requiring the Principals of the colleges to obtain applications from qualified Lecturers for selection to the post of Professors and Asst. Professors in the respective branches. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Computer Science and Engineering/Technology) and his application was forwarded by the Principal of his college. It would appear that the committee constituted for selection of suitable candidates found the petitioner ineligible and issued Ext. P5 rejecting his candidature. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is as follows:
"Your Masters degree is from thenorms of Appliedby of Kerala University. As per theComputer facultyprescribed Sciences Masters Degree in ScienceAICTE, & Engineering/Technology is required to be qualified for the post of Asst. Prof. in CSE branches."
Petitioner submits that he having acquired M.Tech. in Computer Science as per Ext.P1, satisfies the qualification prescribed in Ext. P4. He is also relying on Ext. P10 certificate issued by the University of Kerala to the effect that the qualification he has acquired has been approved by the University of Kerala. Another document relied on is Ext. P18, a letter issued by the All India Council For Technical Education itself and addressed to the 1st respondent, which states as follows:
W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -3- "In this regard, your kind attention is drawn to the fact that, AICTE has approved M.Tech programme in Computer Science in University of Kerala. Further, the nomenclature of degrees offered is a University matter. AICTE does not discriminate between the M.Tech degree offered by the faculty of Engineering/Technology or by the faculty of Applied Science.
In the light of above clarification, you are requested to take further appropriate action in the matter at your end."
4. The 1st respondent would dispute the qualification of the petitioner. According to the 1st respondent, Ext. P1 does not certify that the petitioner has a M-Tech degree in the concerned branch of Engineering/Technology. At the same time, the 1st respondent would submit that if the AICTE clarifies the eligibility of the petitioner they will abide by such clarification. It is in view of the stand so taken by the 1st respondent, this Court directed the 3rd respondent AICTE to file an affidavit in this case by order dated 14.7.2008. Accordingly an affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein they have reiterated what they have stated in Ext. P18.
5. Proceeding further, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit it has been stated by the 3rd respondent thus:
"It is humbly submitted that this respondent has approved the M.Tech programme in Computer Science offered by the University of Kerala and this respondent does not discriminate whether the M.Tech Degree in Computer Science is offered by the faculty of Engineering/Technology or by the faculty of Applied Science. Minimum qualification and experience prescribed for teaching posts in Technical W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -4- Institutions has been made available in AICTE's Hand Book for Approval Process."
6. Although several contentions have been raised by the petitioner asserting his eligibility, now that the 1st respondent has taken the stand that they will abide by the clarification furnished by AICTE, the only question that needs to be decided is whether a reading of Ext. P18 and the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent discloses that the petitioner is eligible. As already noticed in Ext. P18, it is stated by the 3rd respondent that they have approved M.Tech. programme in Computer Science in the University of Kerala and that the nomenclature of the degree offered is a University matter. It is also stated that AICTE does not discriminate between the M.Tech degree offered by the faculty of Engineering/ Technology or by the faculty of Applied Science which has issued Ext. P1 certificate. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent also reiterated this position and the claim of the petitioner that he satisfies the requirements of Ext. P4 qualification is, in my view, accepted. This position is also reiterated by the counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent as well.
7. In view of all these, I hold that the petitioner satisfies the qualification prescribed by the 1st respondent in Ext. P4 and therefore he is a candidate eligible to be considered for the post of Asst. Professor in W.P.(C) No.31540 OF 2007 -5- Computer Science and Engineering/Technology. In view of this, the rejection of the petitioner's candidature as per Ext. P5 has to be held illegal and I do so.
8. It is seen that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.10.2007 petitioner has been permitted to participate in the selection process on a provisional basis. Now that I have held the rejection of his candidature illegal his participation in the selection process also has to be treated as regular. Necessarily therefore on that basis the petitioner's claim for selection will be considered and consequential decision in this matter will be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 weeks from today.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-