Kerala High Court
Saji K.A vs Sree Sankaracharya University Of ... on 30 November, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 20541 of 2011 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
----------
SAJI K.A.
RESIDING AT KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, MANJAPRA
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683581.
BY ADV. SRI.A.G.BASIL
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT
KALADY, PIN 683574
REPRESENTED BY, ITS REGISTRAR.
2. VICE-CHANCELLOR & CHAIRMAN,
SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE SELECTION OF, ASSISTANTS
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF, SANSKRIT, KALADY
PIN 683574.
3. SAKKIR P.B., ASSISTANT (PROVISIONAL),
TEMPORARY SECTION OFFICER
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY
MAIN CENTRE, KALADY-683574.
4. MOHAMMED HARIS.H.,ASSISTANT(PROVISIONAL)
TEMPORARY SECTION OFFICER
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY
MAIN CENTRE, KALADY-683574.
5. JAMES V.A., ASSISTANT (PROVISIONAL),
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY
REGIONAL CENTRE, THRISSUR.
R1-2 BY SR.ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN,SC,SREE SANKARACHARY UTY.
R1-R2 BY ADV.SRI.ARUN B.VARGHESE,SC, SREE SANKARACHARYA UTY.
R5 BY ADV.SMT.P.V.ASHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12/06/2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 19731/2012, THE COURT ON 06/11/2013
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX TO W.P.C.NO.20541 OF 2011
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.R.CELL-12678/SSUS/2009
DATED 30/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.B.4849/SSUS/07 DATED
04/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD (ROLL NUMBER) NO.17103565
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE B.COM AND M.COM DEGREE CERTIFICATES OF
THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, IDUKKI DISTRICT FOR CLERK/CASHIER.
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 10/12/2010 TO THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PRIOR SANCTION ORDER NO.GO(MS)
NO.60/2004/HEDN.DATED 08/06/2004.
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.RCELL/12678/SSUS/2010
DATED 09/11/2010.
EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
UNIVERSITY IN CIVIL APPEAL SLP (CIVIL) NO.29660/2009.
1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHING SEPARATE RANKED
LIST INTENDED FOR LOW PAID EMPLOYEE.
EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED
22/08/2011.
5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 9/11/2010 ISSUED TO 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST DATED 22/12/2010.
EXT.R5(C): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/12/2010.
EXT.R5(d): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2012 OF THE
UNIVERSITY.
// True Copy// PA toJudge
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.C.Nos.20541 of 2011
and 19731 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of November 2013
J U D G M E N T
Since common questions arise in the above writ petitions they are decided together.
2. Petitioners are class IV employees of the first respondent, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. The University issued Ext.P1 notification dated 30/11/2009, inviting applications for the post of 52 vacancies of Assistants. 5% of the said vacancies were earmarked for class IV employees of the University. By Ext.P2 order dated 04/10/2010, the University increased the 5% posts reserved for class IV employees to 10%.
3. Petitioners are applicants who participated in the selection process. After participating in the written test, they were not called for any interview. No rank list was published by the University in respect of candidates who had W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 2 & 19731/2012 participated in the selection process from class IV employees. The petitioner in W.P.C.No.20541 of 2011, therefore contends that there is inordinate delay in conducting the interview and publishing the rank list. According to the petitioner the competitive test includes written test as well as interview. Written test carries 100 marks and interview 25 marks. Only the written test was conducted and the interview was not conducted. The rank list could be prepared only after conducting the written test and interview. Hence the petitioner seeks for publication of rank list after conducting the interview exclusively for low- paid employees and to make appointments to the 10% posts.
4. In W.P.C.No.19731 of 2012 the petitioner is a similarly placed person who also seeks identical reliefs and further challenges Ext.P5 Government order insisting on 40% minimum marks in written test to be included in the separate rank list and for other consequential reliefs. W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 3 & 19731/2012
5. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that, as per the notification for selection of candidates the method of selection is stated to be, by written test and interview. The respondent University has shortlisted candidates by resorting to the marks obtained for the written test alone. A minimum of 40% marks is stipulated for the written test, which according to the petitioners is illegal, as it is not specifically mentioned in the notification.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent University it is inter alia contended that even in the notification it is specifically stated that 5% of the total existing vacancies will be filled up from low paid staff working in the University from the separate rank list maintained exclusively after conducting the written test. They produced the relevant Government order dated 08/12/1989, as per which it is stated that in order to get included in the rank list the candidate has to secure 40% mark in the competitive test. According to them the said W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 4 & 19731/2012 Government order has been implemented in the University as per University order dated 06/07/2006 which is produced as Ext.R2(c). Since the petitioners have only secured less than 40% marks in the written test they were not called for the interview. Therefore, according to the University, at the time of notification only 5% seats were available and that too, only for candidates securing minimum 40% marks in the written test. In fact, according to the University, only one person got more than 40% marks in the written test. He was called for interview and he was selected as early as on 22/12/2010 as per Ext.R1(a) produced in W.P.C No.20541 of 2011. Further, University has contended that altogether 12,241 candidates appeared. University published a short list of 467 candidates eligible to be called for interview, after the written test. There was only one candidate who scored 40 and above from among the low-paid employees and he alone was included in the shortlist. Interview was conducted for 14 days from 20/11/2010 to 20/12/2010 and after the W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 5 & 19731/2012 interview a final rank list was drawn up and published on 22/12/2010. The fifth respondent was the only person appointed from the category of class IV employees of the University.
7. Having regard to these contentions, the question to be considered is whether there is any illegality on the part of the University in shortlisting the candidates, who are class IV employees, who participated in the selection process, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, by insisting for 40% marks in the written test.
8. On a perusal of Ext.P1 notification it is clearly indicated that "5% of the total existing vacancies will be filled up from the low-paid staff working in this University who have minimum qualification for the post and from the separate rank list maintained exclusively for them after the written test." Therefore even in the notification it is made clear that a separate rank list will be prepared from such candidates, that is, low-paid staff working in the University W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 6 & 19731/2012 after the written test. In fact the notification by itself does not disclose the minimum marks to be obtained in the written test. The mode of selection is indicated in the notification as written test and interview.
9. In the counter affidavit filed in W.P.C.No.19731 of 2012 the University relied upon Ext.R2(b) Government order dated 08/12/1989 in which reference is made to G.O.(P) 11/74/PD dated 10/01/1974 wherein it is ordered that 5% of the vacancies arising in the cadre of LD Clerks, LD Typists, Typist Clerks and Copyists be reserved for the persons holding low-paid posts who secure not less than 40% marks in the competitive examination conducted by PSC. By Ext.R2
(c) dated 06/07/2006 the University adopted and implemented Ext.R2(b) Government order. Therefore, fixation of minimum 40% marks in the written test is backed up by the procedure prescribed by the Government in the matter of giving 5% allotment of the posts to last grade employees. When such a method had been adopted by the W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 7 & 19731/2012 University prescribing cut-off marks for selection among the last grade employees, after approval by the Syndicate of the University, such process cannot be challenged by the petitioners. Therefore I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the action taken by the University in fixing 40% marks for the written test as cut-off mark for becoming eligible to participate in the interview.
10. The petitioners do not have a case that a different treatment had been meted out to any other person and therefore when the University had adopted a uniform pattern in respect of the 5% posts from among the candidates to be appointed in terms of Ext. P1 notification, the petitioners cannot complain about violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. It is clear from the factual circumstances involved in the matter that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the petitioners to participate in the selection process and since there is no illegality in the method of selection as W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 8 & 19731/2012 contended by the petitioners the same cannot be challenged by the petitioners.
12. The petitioner in W.P.C.No.19731 of 2012 had challenged the inclusion of cut-off marks as 40% in the written test as stated in Ext.P5 Government order. It is relevant to note that the qualification for a particular post is to be fixed by the appropriate authorities and it is to carve out the eligible candidate from those who have the prescribed qualification, that a competitive examination is conducted. Such an examination is conducted and minimum mark is prescribed to eliminate those persons who are not competent especially since there will be large number of candidates who are eligible to be appointed. But when a uniform method is adopted and when there are large number of candidates who generally apply to the said post, the appointing authority will have to adopt a method to make a selection from such large number of candidates. If such a method is not adopted the appointing authority will W.P.C.Nos.20541/2011 9 & 19731/2012 not be in a position to screen such candidates and appoint a proper person for the post. In the case on hand, it so happened that the last grade employees did not have the minimum cut-off marks. But if it was a case that there were several such persons who had obtained the minimum marks, definitely it would have been difficult for the University to prepare the rank list. Such being the position, adopting a minimum cut-off marks cannot be treated as arbitrary or unreasonable in order to declare the same to be unconstitutional. Fixing of cut-off marks for the written test as well as the interview is a well settled principle and cannot be treated as unconstitutional or illegal.
In that view of the matter, I do not think that the petitioners have ventilated a valid case for interference and therefore these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr