Kerala High Court
By Advs.Sri.Santhosh Mathew vs By Advs.Sri.Santhosh Mathew on 17 August, 2015
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 21ST POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 24551 of 2017
------------------------
PETITIONER
----------
JASMINE ALEX,
ARTHANAKUNNEL NIRMALALAYAM,
VALLICHIRA, KOTTAYAM - 686 574.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SMT.MARIA ROY
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 22,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. THE REGISTRAR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 22.
3. THE SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 22,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.12.2017,
THE COURT ON 11.01.2018, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 24551 of 2017 (T)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION
NO.AD.D3/136/NOTIF/08(2) DATED 17.08.2015 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON INTERIM ORDER DATED
22.12.2015 IN W.P.(C) NOS.10301/2013 AND 19351/2014 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON INTERIM ORDER DATED
18.11.2016 IN W.P.(C) NOS.10301/2013 AND 19351/2014 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
UNIVERSITY IN W.P.(C) NO.19351/2014 ON 03.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES I.A.NO.93/2017 IN W.P(C)
NO.19351/2014 FILED BY RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO BEARING NO.RECT/201701/FACULTIES-
SLS/2017(6407) DATED 10.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL RECEIVED BY THE
PETITIONER FROM THE UNIVERSITY ON 19.04.2017.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT DATED
07.07.2017 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN
W.P(C) NO.10301/2013.
EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 642ND MEETING
OF THE SYNDICATE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY HELD ON 22.04.2017.
EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE RE-NOTIFICATION BEARING
NO.AD.D3/SLS/NOTIF/2014 (PF) DATED 21.06.2017 ISSUED
BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
PROSPECTUS FOR 2017 WITH DETAILS OF THE POST
GRADUATE PROGRAMME IN LAW ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.01.2013
WITH THE GUIDELINES FOR INTRODUCTION OF ONE
YEAR LL.M PROGRAMME 2012 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
---------------------
R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.4.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE
COCHIN UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEE'S ASSOCIATION.
/TRUE COPY/
K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 24551 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2018
JUDGMENT
The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:
"i. call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibits P9 and P10 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same in so far as it renotify the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open);
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents to fill up the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open) from among the applications received pursuant Exhibit P1 notification, forthwith;"
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent University. It is submitted that the petitioner was an applicant for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open) in the 3rd respondent School of Legal Studies. She had applied for the post pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification dated 17.8.2015. It is stated that Exhibit P2 interim order had been issued by this Court on 22.12.2015 in a batch of writ petitions seeking urgent steps to fill up the vacancies of teaching staff under the 3rd WP(C).24551/17 2 respondent. When no steps had been taken to comply with the same, this Court, by Exhibit P3 order, had required the respondents to show cause as to why proceedings in contempt shall not be initiated against them. It is stated that an affidavit had been filed in W.P(C).No.19351 of 2014 contending that four applications had been received for the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence and that steps are taken to scrutinise the applications received and to complete the recruitment process without further delay. It is stated that Exhibit P5 interlocutory application was also preferred in the same writ petition seeking extension of time till 31.5.2017 for complying with Exhibit P2 interim order. The petitioner received a call letter for interview to be held on 25.4.2017. She was also directed to report for verification of certificates at 10 a.m on 18.4.2017. The verification was conducted as scheduled on 18.4.2017 and the petitioner contends that she was told that she had the requisite API score as per the UGC Regulations and her signature was obtained on the PBAS data sheet prepared. However, on 19.4.2017, the petitioner received Exhibit P7 intimation that the interview proposed to be held on 25.4.2017 has been postponed and the new date will be intimated later. WP(C).24551/17 3 However, it is stated that an additional affidavit was filed in W.P (C).No.10301 of 2013 contending that the Syndicate of the University had, in its meeting held on 22.4.2017, had resolved to renotify all faculty posts in the School of Legal Studies. The minutes of Syndicate is produced as Exhibit P9. No reason has been stated for renotifying the vacancies. A renotification was issued on 21.6.2017, which is under challenge here.
3. It is contended that the action of the University in renotifying the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence to which there were four valid applications after the verification of the certificates of qualification of all the applicants was clearly arbitrary and unsustainable and was intended only to keep out the petitioner who was otherwise fully eligible for appointment. It is stated that the action of the respondents is clearly intended to favour interested candidates who had not applied pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification and who are liable to be appointed if the renotification is permitted.
4. At the time of admission of this writ petition, this Court had stayed all further proceedings based on Exhibit P10 renotification to the extent it relates to the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open). By order dated 17.11.2017, WP(C).24551/17 4 the 2nd respondent was directed to produce (1) the file, record or document from which the 2nd respondent concluded that the Syndicate had decided to renotify all vacant posts in the School of Legal Studies; (2) the letter dated 18.4.2017 claimed to have been submitted by the Cochin University Employees' Association; (3) the file, record or document from which the 2nd respondent concluded that the facts averred in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit are the factors which prompted the Syndicate to take a decision to re-notify all the vacant teaching posts in the School of Legal Studies; and (4) the order passed by this Court referred to in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit granting time till 1st of November, 2017 to complete the selection process and fill up all the vacant posts in the School of Legal Studies. It was further ordered that in case the documents called for are not available, the 2nd respondent shall file an affidavit why a decision was taken to renotify the impugned selection in the writ petition, despite the availability of applications.
5. An affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the said order. Exhibit R2(a) letter dated 18.4.2017 was also produced. It was contended that sufficient applications had not WP(C).24551/17 5 been received pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification and that pursuant to Exhibit 10 renotification, eight applications had been received which were not scrutinised in view of the interim order in this writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner had applied pursuant to Exhibit P10 and had participated in the interview conducted for the post of Professor-Law (Self Financing) (Open), but failed to secure the minimum marks. It is factually admitted that there was no other material except Exhibit R2(a) before the Syndicate of the University to decide to renotify all the vacancies in spite of the availability of four applications in the case of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open).
6. A detailed counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition. It was contended in the original counter affidavit that sufficient eligible candidates were not available in spite of repeated notifications for appointment to the teaching posts under the 3rd respondent. It is stated that pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P(C).Nos.19351 of 2014 and 10301 of 2013, eleven vacancies of Assistant Professor in the School of Legal Studies were filled up. Even though the University had taken earnest efforts, the process of WP(C).24551/17 6 filling up of the remaining vacancies could not be completed in time. It is stated that this Court had granted time till 1st November, 2017 to complete the selection process and to fill up all the vacant posts in the School of Legal Studies. It is admitted that the certificate verification of the petitioner and other applicants had been conducted on 18.4.2017. Two of the four applications received were rejected. Only two candidates including the petitioner were found eligible to compete the selection. The applicant other than the petitioner was also an applicant for another post of Associate Professor in Legal Studies reserved for ETB category, which is SL.No.27 in Exhibit P1 notification. Therefore, in effect, no sufficient candidates were available for conducting a proper selection to the post of Associate Professor Jurisprudence (Open). It is stated that the rights of the petitioner are not prejudicially affected by Exhibit P10 and the petitioner will be entitled to compete with other qualified eligible candidates for appointment to the post.
7. I have considered the contentions advanced. Exhibit R2
(a) is the complaint allegedly received regarding the irregularities in the selection process. The operative portion of Exhibit R2(a) reads as follows:
WP(C).24551/17 7
"Under these circumstances, we demand to freeze the entire selection process to various vacancies existing at the School of Legal Studies and to conduct an enquiry about the presence of illegal candidates to the post. Also we demand to scrap the constitution of illegal Scrutiny Committee, recently seen as the core of unhealthy practices in connection with the faculty appointments and to reinstate the statutory selection committee having the legal rights for selection."
8. The allegation apparently is with regard to ineligibility of certain persons to apply for appointment. It is clear from the two affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 3 before this Court that there was no other material before the Syndicate to call off the selection and to renotify the posts. It is also clear that even in cases where there was only one applicant available, the University has proceeded to appoint the said candidate on finding him fit for appointment. For the post of Associate Professor (Criminal Law), only two applications were received. But the Scrutiny Committee rejected one application and the eligible candidate was called for interview on 27.10.2017 and had been selected and appointed. Going by the chronology of the dates and events in this case, the petitioner's contention that the renotification of the post of Associate Professor in WP(C).24551/17 8 Jurisprudence (Open), where there were four applications, out of which two were found to be in order after the scrutiny, was intended either to deny appointment to one or both of the eligible applicants or to include some other persons who had not submitted application in pursuance of Exhibit P1 notification appears to be a clear and distinct possibility. This is more so, because, it was after the verification of the documents and findings that there are two eligible applications that the post was renotified. However, in the case of Associate Professor in Criminal Law, where there was only one valid application, an interview was conducted on 25.7.2017 and eligible candidate was appointed.
9. From a close perusal of Exhibit R2(a) and the factual aspects of the matter as discussed above, I am of the opinion that the reasons attributed for the decision of the Syndicate to renotify all the posts including the one for which there were four applications were unreasonable and perverse and were vitiated by absolute want of application of mind. There were evidently some extraneous considerations in forming such a decision, since Exhibit R2(a) by itself would not have induced any person of a reasonable mind to cancel the entire process at WP(C).24551/17 9 a stage where the University was facing action for contempt before this Court. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Exhibit P10 renotification cannot be sustained.
In the result, Exhibit P10 to the extent it re-notifies the post of Associate Professor in Jurisprudence (Open) is set aside. The University shall proceed to conduct the interview and to make appointments in pursuance of Exhibit P1 notification in accordance with law. Needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs