Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 11 September, 2025

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dr. Prabhakaran Nair V.R vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 11 September, 2025

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25594 of 2018 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The dispute raised by the appellant/writ petitioner pertains to the qualification for the post of Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences at the Mahatma Gandhi University ('University', in short), held as acquired by the 4 th respondent in the selection process. Per contra, the 4 th respondent, while claiming that he has the required qualification, disputed the qualification of the appellant.

2.1. As per Ext.P2 notification dated 16.12.2017, the University had advertised for the selection of the post of Associate Professor (one post in the open category) in the School of Social Sciences. The appellant, as well as the 4 th respondent, applied for the post, claiming that both of them have the required qualification. As per general condition No.1 stipulated in the 4 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 notification, the appointments against the vacancies notified by Ext.P2 will be made as per UGC norms and reservation principles in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules and Kerala Service Rules. As per condition No.6 in Ext.P2, degrees obtained from Universities/Institutions outside the State of Kerala shall be accompanied by the required equivalence certificate obtained from the University.

2.2. The appellant pleaded in the writ petition that as per notification issued on the basis of UGC Regulations (IV th Amendment, 2016) the minimum qualification for the post of Associate Professor are: (i) Post Graduate Degree in any of the subject under faculty of social sciences; (ii) Ph.D. in the relevant subject; (iii) minimum 8 years of regular teaching experience in University/College which comes under the purview of UGC; and,

(iv) Proven experience in guiding doctoral students ( the candidate must be an approved research guide with experience in guiding doctoral students).

2.3. Pursuant to the interview conducted, Ext.P5 rank list 5 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 dated 03.07.2018 was published by the University, for the appointment of Associate Professor in various departments, including the department of the School of Social Sciences, wherein the appellant and the 4th respondent were listed. As per the rank list, the 4th respondent was placed in the first position, and the appellant was placed in the second position. In furtherance of Ext.P5 rank list, Ext.P6 order of appointment dated 03.07.2018 has also been issued to the 4 th respondent. Contending that the 4th respondent has no required qualification and the distribution of marks in the selection process as improper, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) call for the entire records which led to Exts.P6 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;

(ii) call for the entire records which led to Exts.P5 and quash the same to the extent of placing the 4 th respondent as the 1st rank holder in the general candidate quota to the post of Associate Professor in the school of Social Sciences by the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;

(iii) declare that the 4th respondent is unqualified for being 6 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 selected to the post of Associate Professor and issue consequential direction to respondents 1 to 3 to remove his name from the rank list to the post of Associate Professor in the school of Social Sciences (Ext.P5) and to afford appointment to the writ petitioner by the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;

(iv) issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to place on record the score sheets of the petitioner and the 4th respondent prepared during the selection process which resulted in Exhibit P5;

(v) declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be appointed as Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences in M.G University and issue consequential direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the writ petitioner as Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences"

3. In the writ petition, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 02.08.2018, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(j) documents. The averments in the writ petition are denied in the counter affidavit, and it is inter alia contended by the 4 th respondent that he has the required qualification and has altogether eight research papers published in various subjects, which were narrated in paragraph 4 of that counter affidavit. It 7 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 was also contended by the 4th respondent that students were awarded Ph.D. under his supervision. He further contended that the minimum qualification for the post of Associate Professor mentioned in the writ petition is not fully correct, and the qualifications prescribed for the post of Associate Professor are:

(i) good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/allied /relevant disciplines, (ii) a Master's degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed), (iii) a minimum of 8 years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/Industry excluding the period of Ph.D. research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy papers, and, (iv) contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology-mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.

4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, the 8 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 09.09.2019, producing therewith Exts.P8 to P35 documents.

5. In the writ petition, the 1st respondent University filed a statement dated 26.09.2018. To that statement, the appellant filed another reply affidavit dated 10.02.2019, producing therewith Exts.P36 to P43 documents. The 4 th respondent filed a rejoinder dated 06.01.2019, producing therewith Exts.4(k) to 4(p) documents. To that rejoinder, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 07.07.2019, producing therewith Exts.P44 to P55 documents. Along with I.A. No.5 of 2019, the appellant produced Exts. P56 to P66 documents.

6. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the discretionary jurisdiction to interfere in the exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 is not required to be invoked in the instant case to upset the conclusion of the Selection Committee. It is challenging the said judgment; the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

WA No.575 of 2021

2025:KER:67033

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent.

8. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, after the filing of the writ petition with bare minimum pleadings and documents and filing of the first counter affidavit by the 4 th respondent, the parties to this lis have enlarged their pleadings by repeated filing of the reply affidavits and counter affidavits accompanied by bundles of documents. However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the challenge of the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was limited to two points. The first contention of the appellant is that the 4 th respondent did not have a minimum of five publications as stipulated in clause 4.3.0(iii) of the UGC Regulations, 2010. According to the appellant, as per the selection criteria of the University, it is a mandatory prerequisite to have publications in journals with ISBN/ISSN number. Therefore, the finding in the impugned judgment that the five publications required need not be in UGC-approved journal is unsustainable. The second 10 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 contention of the appellant is that the evidence on record does not show that the 4th respondent has a Post-Doctoral Fellowship. The Selection Committee/University lacks the authority to accept Ext.P23 as a Post Doctoral Fellowship, which is not a document as contemplated under clause 1(e) of Ext.P21, and moreover, it does not even contain the word Post Doctoral Fellowship. The arbitrary award of five marks for a teacher exchange programme, treating it as a Post-Doctoral Fellowship, is not liable to be left to the wisdom of an expert body and the finding to the contrary in the impugned judgment lacks merit.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the University would submit that the contentions raised by the appellant are considered in detail by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment itself. As far as the allegation of absence of ISBN number in some of the publications is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel argued that since some of the publications of the 4th respondent were published much before the introduction of the stipulations regarding ISBN number, there is no illegality in awarding marks, as alleged. While submitting the 11 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 application online, the 4th respondent showed '0000' as the ISBN number of those publications, or else the system will not receive the application. There is no illegality in awarding five marks as alleged. The 4th respondent was invited as a visiting fellow as per Ext.P23 and that invitation is the evidence for the Post-Doctoral Fellowship obtained by the 4th respondent, and there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Pradeep Singh Dehal v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2019) 9 SCC 276] and that of this Court in Narayanan v. State of Kerala [1993 (1) KLT 461] and Dr.Mary Senteria P.S. v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2011 (4) KHC 651] in support his arguments.

10. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent also reiterated the arguments of the learned counsel for the University. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court dated 10.07.2009 in W.A.No.13 of 2009 in the matter of Annie George v. State of Kerala to argue that though several contentions were raised by way of additional pleadings in the reply affidavits, since 12 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 they were conspicuously absent in the writ petition, no relief can be claimed based on those contentions.

11. We have carefully gone through the materials on record and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge at the beginning of the discussion portion of the judgment itself, by pointing out Rule 155 of the Rules of High Court of Kerala, 1971, held that some of the contentions raised by the writ petitioner need not be looked into for the absence of the necessary pleadings in the writ petition.

12. In Narayanan [1993 (1) KLT 461], a learned Single Judge of this Court held thus:

"2. Before proceeding to state the facts of the case or dealing with the contentions raised by the parties, I must mention a feature that has been noted in many of the original petitions that have come up before me for hearing. Leave is often granted by this court for amending the original petitions incorporating new averments and new prayers besides producing new documents. Very often the amendments are not carried out in the original petition; nor copies of the amended original petition produced with the result the court has to wade through various petitions to get a true picture of the amended original petition. Such a situation exists in this original petition also, the petitioner 13 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 not having chosen to carry out the amendment allowed by CMP.No. 15954 of 1992 in the original petition. Nor has he chosen to produce copies of the amended original petition. Normally this should have entailed refusal to look into the amendment. But I am refraining from doing so to avoid a failure of justice. It is necessary that all amendments to an original petition either in the averments or the prayers in the original petition or by way of production of new documents should be carried out in the original petition besides producing copies of the amended original petition for the use of the court and for service on the contesting respondents. However, as stated earlier I am treating the petition as one amended by CMP.No.15954 of 1992 and dealing with it as such despite the default on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the amendment. I must also mention that in between the original petition and CMP. No.15954 of 1992 a document had been introduced as Ext. P15 along with CMP.No. 14019 of 1992, a petition for direction. Having regard to the numbering of this annexure, it is clear that the petitioner intended that also to be treated as part of the original petition. But it has made its appearance in a petition for direction without being followed by any petition for amendment of the original petition. Production of such documents along with applications for interim relief to be treated as exhibits in the main petition also causes difficulties to the court when such production is not followed up by appropriate amendment. One of the problems that may arise is that the exhibit in question will 14 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 remain unexplained and unanswered in any counter affidavit that may be filed by the respondents as it does not form part of the original petition itself, though that contingency does not arise so far as this case and Ext. P15 produced along with CMP.No.14019 are concerned. With these prefatory remarks I shall proceed to state the facts and deal with the matter on merits".

13. In W.A.No.13 of 2009, in the matter of Annie George v. State of Kerala, a Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 10.07.2009, while dealing with the necessity of pleadings in the writ petition, held thus:

"4. We notice that, this is not a point raised in the writ petition, but only in the reply affidavit. We also notice that, Ext.P16 has not been challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this appeal. In this context, we also refer to Rule 155 of the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971, which reads as follows:

"155. New ground or relief not to be raised.- No ground shall be relied upon and no relief sought at the hearing except the grounds taken and reliefs sought in the Original Petition and accompanying affidavit".

14. Though, as noted by the learned Single Judge, there are lengthy contentions raised by the parties by way of reply affidavits and additional counter affidavits producing several documents, we 15 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 are not entering into those aspects for the reason that the area of dispute is now confined to only two points as mentioned hereinabove.

15. The Apex Court in Pradeep Singh Dehal [(2019) 9 SCC 276] held thus:

"13. But it is equally true that it is for the experts to award marks for "publications". The High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, does not sit in the arm chair of the experts to award the marks for publications, that too, on the basis of an earlier selection process. The marks obtained by the writ petitioner under the heading "publications" on May 13, 2012 were not before the High Court. The appellant was granted three marks for "publications" in the earlier selection process initiated vide advertisement No. 3 of 2010. Such "publications" were also required to be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee." (underline supplied)

16. In Dr.Mary Senteria P.S [2011 (4) KHC 651] another learned Single Judge of this Court held thus:

"16. Then the question is whether the assessment by the screening committee that the publications are not of high quality can be interfered with by this Court. The legal position in this regard is well settled. This Court cannot sit 16 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 in appeal over such a decision of an academic body. There are no allegations of extraneous considerations or mala fides against the members of the screening committee. In this context, the principles stated by the Apex Court in certain earlier decisions, viz. Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Others, 1990 KHC 819 : 1990 (2) SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 395 : 1990 (13) ATC 732 : AIR 1990 SC 1402 and Osmania University represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad, A. P. v. Abdul Rayees Khan and Another, 1997 KHC 1366 :

1997 (3) SCC 124 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 763 are relevant. With regard to the scope of interference with the decision of an academic body, in para 32 of Neelima Misra's case, 1990 (2) SCC 746, 1990 KHC 819 : 1990 (2) SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 395 : 1990 (13) ATC 732 : AIR 1990 SC 1402 the Apex Court has stated thus:

"It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic field the court generally does not interfere. In the University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao, 1964 (4) SCR 575, this Court observed that the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointments are based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance. The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor 17 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 has acted. See also the decisions in J. P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, Raj Bhavan, 1980 (3) SCC 418 and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B. S. Mahajan, 1990 (1) SCC 305."

Therefore, the decision of academic bodies cannot be interfered lightly. No bias or mala fides also could be established by the petitioner.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

18. Judged in the light of the above decisions, it can be seen that the law is well settled that as regards the selection of candidates for manning a post in a University, a decision of the academic body unless it is in violation of a statute or tainted by mala fides or biased, this Court will be loathe to interfere. Herein, I have already held that the screening committee has got power under Statute 7(1)(a) of Chap.3 to screen the applications. The decision of the screening committee is not ultra vires. Bias or mala fides could not be established by the petitioner, even though an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Whether the articles published were of high quality or not, or are sufficient or otherwise, are matters for consideration by the expert body itself which consisted of the Vice Chancellor and two other expert members. This Court cannot sit in appeal over those decisions or cannot evaluate the quality of articles in these proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner, even though vehemently argued that the counter

- affidavit has stated different reasons than shown in the 18 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 minutes, the issue really centered around the sufficiency of the publications of the petitioner. Evidently, it is a matter wherein the screening committee had its own role. They have also stated that the specialisation of the petitioner is different from the notified one". (underline supplied)

17. Ext.P2 notification dated 16.12.2017 issued for the purpose of selection to the post of Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the University, which is the basic document that prescribes the eligibility for applying to the post, lays down the following general conditions:

"III. GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. The appointments against the above vacancies will be made as per UGC norms and Reservation principles in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules and Kerala Service Rules.

2. For the post reserved for a particular community or a group of community as mentioned above, the persons belonging to that community or group of communities only need apply.

3. Applicants for post under community reservation quota shall submit Community Certificate and Non-Creamy Layer Certificate issued on or after 01.01.2017. Non Creamy Layer Certificate need not be furnished by applicants for the post reserved for SC and ST Communities.

19 WA No.575 of 2021

2025:KER:67033

4. Natives of States other than Kerala State need not apply for the post notified exclusively under community reservation quota.

5. Applicants need not upload certificates/documents in proof of claim mentioned in the online application form. However, one hard copy of duly completed online application along with self attested copies of all certificates and documents shall be sent to Deputy Registrar-II (Admn.), Mahatma Gandhi University, Priyadarshini Hills P.O, Kottayam-686 560 on or before 24.01.2018. Teachers working in Universities/Private Colleges/Government Colleges etc., shall send the application with NOC from the employer concerned.

Last date for online submission of application will be 19.01.2018. Teachers of private colleges coming under direct payment system shall also forward an application as provided under Statute 20(4) of Chapter 45 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997.

6. Degrees obtained from Universities/Institutions outside the State of Kerala shall be accompanied by the required equivalence certificate obtained from the University".

18. As per condition No.1 above, the appointments against the notified vacancies made as per UGC norms and the University statutes and also the KS and SSR. As per Ext.P13 UGC Regulations 2010, the qualifications for an Associate Professor are as under: 20 WA No.575 of 2021

2025:KER:67033 "4.3.0 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR i. Good academic record with a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/ allied/relevant disciplines.

ii. A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed).

iii. A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/industry excluding the period of Ph.D. research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy papers.

iv. Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology - mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.

v. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix III".

19. The appellant contends that the 4th respondent does not have the minimum five publications as books and/or research/policy papers as stipulated in Regulation 4.3.0 (iii) of Ext.P13 UGC Regulations, 2010. But while going through Regulation 4.3.0 (iii) of Ext.P13 Regulations, we notice that there 21 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 is no stipulation that the publication mentioned therein should be in UGC-approved journals. In the statement filed by the University, it is stated that the 4 th respondent has eight publications as research papers/books instead of the required five stipulated in clause 4.3.0 (iii) of Ext.P13 Regulations. Among the eight research papers/books submitted by him, four research papers are published in UGC approved journals, and he has published a Book (Chapter) entitled 'Photography and Colonial Modernity in Keralam' in the year 2003. The selection committee convened on 26.06.2018 unanimously accepted the five publications for the requirement of clause 4.3.0(iii) of the said Regulations for considering his candidature. The learned Single Judge considered this point and reached to a conclusion that the 4th respondent satisfied the said clause in Ext.P13 UGC Regulations.

20. As far as the contention of the appellant with regard to the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score is concerned, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the same has to be assessed by the evaluation committee based on verifiable records 22 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 as per category III(B) of the Regulations. In category III(B), a minimum score of 30 per book published by the international publishers with ISBN/ISSN number as approved by the University and posted on its website is required to be given. According to the appellant, the 4th respondent could not have obtained the minimum score of 300 since the 4 th respondent had only four publications with an ISBN number. According to the appellant, if 30 marks on the above ground were deleted, the score of the 4 th respondent would be below the minimum requirement of 300. Though a contention seems to have been taken before the learned Single Judge that the 4th respondent ought not have granted 30 marks for guiding candidates for a doctoral degree, as mentioned above, during the course of arguments of this writ appeal, that ground was not seriously pressed into service by the appellant. As noted by the learned Single Judge, the writ petition does not contain any allegation of the absence of a minimum score under API. The said contention was taken by way of subsequent pleadings. Moreover, as far as the absence of an ISBN number is concerned, there is an explanation for the 4 th respondent that 23 WA No.575 of 2021 2025:KER:67033 those publication was effected much before the introduction of the stipulation regarding the mentioning of ISBN number. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, these are all matters of fact which cannot be decided without proper pleadings.

21. The decision to select the 4th respondent by virtue of the marks awarded during the selection process was made by an expert committee. As discussed hereinabove, the expert committee, based on the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the 4th respondent has the required qualification and he was granted more marks in the selection process than that of the appellant. It is noting all these facts and circumstances in the light of the law governing the field and the judgments of the Apex Court, the learned Single Judge reached to a conclusion that no interference is needed to the decision of the expert committee. It is trite that interference with the judgment of a learned Single Judge by exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is warranted only if it is proved that the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge are perverse or illegal or against the settled position of law. 24 WA No.575 of 2021

2025:KER:67033

22. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and the pleadings and materials on record, we find no circumstance to hold that the learned Single Judge erred in arriving at a proper finding while passing the impugned judgment. The appeal is therefore necessarily to be dismissed.

In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE sks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court