Kerala High Court
Dr.K.Satheesan vs Dr.V.Madhu on 20 May, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942
WA.No.1346 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.3.2019 IN WP(C) 8341/2016(P) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
DR.K.SATHEESAN
SCIENTIST. E., NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARCTIC AND
OCEAN RESEARCH (NCAOR), HEADLAND SADA, VASCO DA GAMA,
GOA - 403 802 (CORRECTED), (ADDRESS OF R2 IS
CORRECTED AS DR. K. SATHEESAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
METEOROLOGY DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, FINE
ARTS AVENUE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY CUSAT, KOCHI - 682 016. AS PER ORDER DATED
07.04.2016 IN IA .NO.4901/2016.)
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
KUM.NEETU VINOD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 DR.V.MADHU
AGED 47 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR GRADE II, DEPARTMENT OF
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, CUSAT,
KOCHI -682 016 (CORRECTED) (DESIGNATION OF THE
PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE
- II, AS PER ORDER DATED 08.04.2016 IN
IA.NO.4901/2016)
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CUSAT CAMPUS, KOCHI
UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022.
R2 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC,
R1 SRI. SHYAM KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-02-2020,
ALONG WITH WA.1356/2019 & WA.1664/2019, THE COURT ON 20-05-2020
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases
-:2:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942
WA.No.1356 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.3.2019 IN WP(C) 8341/2016(P)
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT),
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CUSAT CAMPUS,
KOCHI UNIVERSITY P.O, KOCHI- 682022.
BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT:
1 DR.V.MADHU,
AGED 47 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR GRADE II, DEPARTMENT OF
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MARINE
SCIENCES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), KOCHI- 682016, (CORRECTED)
(DESIGNATION OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II AS PER ORDER DATED
08.04.2016 IN I.A.NO.4901/16).
WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases
-:3:-
2 DR.K.SATHEESAN,
SCIENTIST.E., NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARCTIC AND
OCEAN RESEARCH (NCAOR), HEADLAND SADA, VASCO DA
GAMA GOA-403804. (CORRECTED) (ADDRESS OF R2 IS
CORRECTED AS DR.K.SATHEESAN, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MARINE
SCIENCES, FINE ARTS AVENUE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), KOCHI-
682016, AS PER ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 IN
I.A.NO.4901/16).
R1 BY ADV. SHYAM KRISHNAN (B/O)
R2 BY ADV. BRIJESH MOHAN (B/O)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1346/2019, WA.1664/2019, THE COURT ON
20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases
-:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1942
WA.No.1664 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.3.2019 IN WP(C) 8341/2016(P)
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
DR.V.MADHU
AGED 47 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR GRADE II, DEPARTMENT OF
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MARINE
SCIENCES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCES AND
TECHNOLOGY(CUSTAT), KOCHI-682 016 (CORRECTED)
(DESIGNATION OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II AS PER ORDER DATED
08.04.2016 IN IA NO.4901/2016).
BY ADV. SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:
1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY(CUSAT),
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CUSAT CAMPUS,
KOCHI UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI-682 02.
WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases
-:5:-
2 DR.K.SATHEESAN,
SCIENTIST E, NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARCTIC AND
OCEAN RESEARCH (NCAOR), HEADLAND SADA, VASCO DA
GAMA, GOA-403 802 (CORRECTED) (ADDRESS OF R2 IS
CORRECTED AS 'DR.K.SATHEESAN, ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MARINE
SCIENCES, FINE ARTS AVENUE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, (CUSAT), KOCHI-682
016' AS PER ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 IN IA
NO.4901/2016).
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY (BY ORDER)
R2 BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYALAKSHMI (BY ORDER)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-02-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.1346/2019, WA.1356/2019, THE COURT ON
20-05-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases
-:6:-
JUDGMENT
WA Nos.1346, 1356 & 1664/2019 Dated this the 20th day of May, 2020 Shaffique, J.
These appeals arise from the judgment dated 8/3/2019 in W.P.(C) No.8341/2016, by which the learned single Judge having found that the award of marks by the selection committee of the University was irregular and not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, set aside the selection of the 2 nd respondent to the post of Associate Professor (Meteorology) and directed the selection committee to conduct the selection and to award points in the light of the directions issued. Until such time, the 2 nd respondent was permitted to continue in office. The directions had been issued as under:
"25. Accordingly, the following directions are issued for the guidance of the selection committee:
i. The selection committee shall keep in mind the objection raised by the petitioner as well as the second respondent in regard to the awarding of the points under the academic background and research performance.
ii. Assessment of domain knowledge skill shall be in strictly WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:7:- with PBAS proforma. It can redraw the criteria in accordance with clause (iv) and also such other criteria as provided in template issued by UGC Regulations. Lacking in any of the criteria as referred in clause (iv) would only dissuade the selection committee in awarding points.
iii.The interview marks can also be based on an evaluation of teaching skill, presentation as referred in Regulation 6.0.1.
26. The upshot of discussions is that the selection of the second respondent was not in accordance with UGC Regulations.
27. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the selection of the second respondent and the selection committee shall select candidates, who were qualified in accordance with the above observations and findings. The selection committee is directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of two months. The second respondent can continue till selection is completed and his continuation would be subject to the outcome of such selection. If the second respondent is selected again, he shall be given all such service benefits from the date on which he was first appointed. The Registry shall return the original file to the learned Standing Counsel. No costs".
2. The writ petitioner, as well as the respondents have preferred separate appeals. WA No. 1664/2019 is filed by the writ petitioner, WA No.1356/2019 is filed by the 1 st respondent and WA No.1346/2019 is filed by the 2nd respondent.
3. The short issue in the case relates to selection of a candidate to the post of Associate Professor in Meteorology, pursuant to a notification issued by the Cochin University of WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:8:- Science and Technology (hereinafter referred as the University).
4. The parties are referred as shown in the writ petition unless otherwise stated. The selection to the aforesaid post was conducted pursuant to a notification dated 17/8/2015. There were only two candidates, namely the petitioner and the 2 nd respondent. The selection committee, after evaluation of their respective credentials awarded 77.77 points to the petitioner and 82.92 points to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent being rank no.1, was given appointment.
5. Petitioner obtained all the records relating to the application and score sheet of the 2 nd respondent, and on finding that the 2nd respondent did not qualify for being considered for selection, and also that several points were given to the 2 nd respondent, which he did not deserve, filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to declare that the 2 nd respondent was not qualified or eligible to be appointed to the said post, to quash the memo/appointment order in favour of the 2 nd respondent and for a direction to appoint the petitioner to the said post.
6. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are the following;
WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:9:-
(i) That the 2nd respondent did not satisfy the essential requirements laid down in clause (iv) of Ext.P3 notification which prescribes the minimum qualifications. The argument is that though the 2nd respondent claims to be a member of a committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of Goa University to examine the suitability of a candidate for Ph.D research, he does not qualify with respect to the stipulation aforementioned.
(ii) That the 2nd respondent is not National Eligibility Test (NET) qualified.
(iii) That the 2nd respondent did not sign Part B of the hard copy of the application.
(iv) That the 2nd respondent has been awarded 7 credit points under serial No. 2.3 of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score sheet. According to the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent did not produce any valid documents to support the aforesaid award of points.
(v) The 2nd respondent was given 20 credit points for externally funded research under serial No. 2.5 of the API score sheet, which is totally unwarranted, as no documents had been produced by the 2nd respondent. He had only submitted a WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:10:- proposal to a funding agency and the argument of the petitioner is that grant of an external funded project to an institution can never be construed as one granted to an individual for claiming such a credit.
(vi) 3 points was granted to the 2nd respondent under serial No. 2.7-C of the API score sheet. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had only produced a letter from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics, whereby he was offered a post doctoral position for a project, in which he was paid a stipend, which according to the petitioner does not amount to a fellowship.
(vii) As per UGC Regulations, 20 points is earmarked for assessment of 'Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills' and 20 points for interview. Contention urged by the petitioner is that the head domain knowledge and teaching skills coming under serial No. 3 has been further split up by providing separate points. 10 points for additional teaching experience, 10 points for post doctoral research experience, 5 points for participation in workshops and 5 points for academic, administrative experience. Still further, the total score under the said head is limited to a WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:11:- mere 10 points. Thereafter evaluation of teaching skills/presentation is separately considered at serial No. 3.5 and it is allotted 10 points. The argument is that, by bifurcating domain knowledge and teaching skills, the UGC regulations have been violated, which demands that the scoring system proforma is to be based on API score as provided in Table I to IX of Appendix III. According to the petitioner, the teaching or research aptitude can be assessed only at the interview stage and not in this manner.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent University, it is inter alia contended that only 2 applicants were found eligible by the scrutiny committee for the aforesaid post. They were interviewed on 11/2/2016 and the rank list was published on 22/2/2016. It is contended that the 2 nd respondent was qualified for the post as he had Ph.D degree and a minimum of 8 years of experience in either teaching or research in an academic/research position equal to that of Assistant Professor in University, college or accredited research institutions/industry. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had been a scientist in National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR) for more than 11 years and therefore he was qualified for the said post. It is WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:12:- pointed out that NET is not an essential qualification for the post of Associate Professor, as per UGC Regulations. NET is an essential qualification only for the post of Assistant Professor and even otherwise, if a candidate holds Ph.D degree before 10/7/2009 for the post of Assistant Professor, NET requirement is exempted. It is further contended that the 2 nd respondent was working in the aforesaid institution for more than 5 years as a Scientist and head of Atmospheric Sciences and as the Principal Investigator for three projects in atmospheric sciences as evident from letter dated 22/1/2016 issued by the Director of NCAOR. He had also conducted three workshops in the said organisation. Two of them in connection with the Belmont Forum and one on the Atmospheric Analysis in the Arctic Research. It is further stated that the selection committee consisting of eminent and senior professors from institutions all over India would have found the 2nd respondent as a better candidate in all respects, and have ranked him accordingly. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent stating that verification of original documents and PBAS evaluation with supporting documents of the candidates was carried out on the previous day of the WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:13:- interview. Officials who had verified the credentials of the 2 nd respondent had stated that he had produced all necessary documents on the date of interview before the interview board and the members of the selection committee awarded the marks, accordingly. It is stated that if there is any defect in a document at the time of verification, normally the candidate will be asked to rectify such defects and submit the same before the selection committee, in order to avail the points based on Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS). It is further stated that points were awarded to the 2nd respondent by the members of the selection committee as they found it suitable to give such points.
8. The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that he was fully qualified to participate in the selection process. He had narrated his credentials in paragraph 4, which reads as under:-
"I passed MSc Degree in Mathematics from the University of Calicut in April, 1995 with 55.6% of marks. A true copy of my mark list for MSc. Mathematics and a true copy of the MSc Degree certificate issued by the University of Calicut are produced herewith and marked as Exhibits-R2(a) and R2(b) respectively. I also passed M.Tech Degree in Atmospheric Sciences in August 1997 from CUSAT with 66% of marks. A true copy of my mark list WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:14:- for M.Tech in Atmospheric Sciences and the M.Tech degree certificate are produced herewith and marked Exhibits-R2(c) and R2(d) respectively. I obtained Ph.D degree from the Faculty of Marine Sciences of CUSAT, in May, 2003. My Ph.D thesis was on the topic "Studies on Tropical Lower Atmospheric Turbulence and Tropical Tropopause". A true copy of the Ph.D certificate is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(e). All these would establish that I have got sufficient educational qualification for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
9. Further the experience he had derived while working as a scientist in the Indian Space Research Organisation and thereafter his post doctoral fellowship, joining as a scientist in the NCROA in Goa, and all the other experience he has gained in the field has been narrated in paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit. He further contended that petitioner obtained 13 marks under serial No. 2.1 of the API, which relates to research papers in referred journals. 2nd respondent points out that those articles were accepted by the publisher only after the interview, and he relies upon, Exts R2(u), R2(b) and R2(w). In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, he stated that in so far as an expert body had found him eligible after a comparative assessment, and had appointed him. The petitioner has WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:15:- approached the Court only for the purpose of harassing him. According to him, his qualification and experience is much above the petitioner and therefore he was entitled for being selected to the aforesaid post.
10. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on several judgments, which we shall refer only if the factual circumstances warrant interference in the case. In so far as the petitioner and the respondents had filed separate appeals, it has to be considered whether the factual circumstances in the case warrants interference by exercising writ jurisdiction.
11. First contention urged by the petitioner/appellant was that 2nd respondent was not qualified, in so far as he did not satisfy the minimum requirement laid down in clause (iv) of Ext.P3 notification. Clause (iv) of the minimum qualifications reads as under:
"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".
This apparently is an over all assessment of a candidate, WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:16:- depending upon the nature of work he had done during the previous years. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent he had narrated as to how he qualified in the above category. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 are relevant which reads as under:
"5.After obtaining Ph.D in 2003 from CUSAT, I joined as Scientist SD in January 2004 in the Indian Space Research Organization(ISRO), at its Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad in Gujarat. A true copy of certificate No. EST/OSD/AC07699/2008 dated 04.12.2008 of the Administrative Officer of the Space Application Centre, evidencing the above fact is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(f). Thereafter, I worked as a Post Doctoral Fellow for the period from 2008 March to May 2010, in the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in Sweden. A true copy of certificate dated 31.05.2010 issued by the Swedish Institute of Space Physics, evidencing the above fact is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit- R2(g). After completing my Post Doctoral Research in Sweden, I joined as Scientist-D in National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research in Goa in November, 2010. The National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research is a Central Government Research Institution run by the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India. I became Scientist-E in the above Institution in due course. It was while working there that I applied for the post of Associate Professor in CUSAT pursuant to Ext.P2 notification. In this context true copy of the No Objection Certificate No.NCAOR/II/Per(A)(28)/10 dated 14.09.2015 issued by the National Centre for Atarctic and Ocean WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:17:- Research, showing the fact that I was working as Scientist in the above Central Govermment Research Institution is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(h). From Exts.R2(f) to 12(h), it can be seen that I had to my credit nearly 11 years of research experience in very reputed national/international organizations, as on the last date for submission of application pursuant to Ext.P2 notification.
6. Apart from the above exemplary academic and research qualifications/experience to my credit, I also possess teaching and research guidance experience. Certificate No.CSSTEAP/SATMET/2016 dated 05.01.2016 issued by the Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in Asia and the Pacific(CSSTEAP) shows that I had been delivering lectures for the 4th and 5th batches of Satellite Meteorology students. A true copy of that certificate is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(i). Ext.R2(i) also shows that I had successfully guided a Pilot Project relating to remote sensing. CSSTEAP is an International Space Science and Technology Educational Organization affiliated to the United Nations. In India, this Organization is managed by the ISRO. The cover page of the thesis submitted by Sri.Sourav Chatterjee on the topic "Identification of the Sources of Dust Deposited in Antarctica Using a Lagrangian Particle Dispersion Model", submitted to Centre for Advanced Training, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, shows that I was his guide at NCAOR, Goa. The Research Guidance was for a period of one year. A true copy of the cover page of the above thesis is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(j). The cover page of project report submitted to the Andhra University by Sri.K.S.R.Dilip Kumar on the topic "Study of Variability in SST and winds over the WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:18:- north Indian Ocean using Empirical Mode Decomposition"
shows that I was one of the Guides for the above project. A true copy of the cover page of that project report is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(k). Officer order No.NCAOR/II/Per(E)(148)/14 dated 26.09.2014 of the Administration In Charge of NCAOR, Goa shows that Sri.Pradeep Kumar Dontha, Junior Research Fellow conducted the research under my guidance. A true copy of that office order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(l). Office order No.NCAOR/II/Per(A)(39)/11 dated 30.12.2011 of the Administrative Officer, NCAOR, Goa shows that Dr.Denny P.Alappattu, Scientist-B was conducting research at NCAOR, I being his Reporting Officer. The Reporting Officer's job is to guide the young Scientist in research activities. A true copy of that office order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit- R2(m). Office order No.NCAOR/II/Per(A)(33)/11 dated 27.12.2011 of the Administrative Officer NCAOR, Goa shows that Dr.Nuncio Murukesh worked as Scientist-B at NCAOR, I being his Reporting Officer. A true copy of that Office order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(n). In this context it is also submitted that, I had also worked as Guest Lecturer in Mathematics in PTM Government College, Perinthalmanna, during the period from 27.11.1998 to 31.03.1999. A true copy of the experience certificate dated 31.03.1999, evidencing the above fact is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R2(o)."
"8. In this context, it is further submtited that I had been closely associated with the Belmont Forum, one of the major global funding agencies for Global Environmental Change WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:19:- Research, having its activities spread across the world. At present the headquarters of the Belmont Forum is Paris. I was associated with the Belmont forum as a national Contact Point and group of Programme Co-ordinator for the Collaborative Research Area. This is evident from certificate No.MoES/16/02/2014-RDEAS(BF-CRA) dated 16.3.2016 of the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India. A true copy of that certificate is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(p). I was also a member of the expert group for assessing and reviewing the Scientific Programmes of the Indian Scientific Expedition to Antarctica. This is evident from letter No.NCAOR/MoES/35-ISEA/2015 dated 13.5.2015 of the Project Director (Science) of the National Centre for Antarctic & Ocean Research. A true copy of that letter is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(q)".
The aforesaid pleadings coupled with Exts.R2(f) to R2(q) documents substantiate that the 2nd respondent qualifies under clause (iv) of Exhibit P3. Therefore, such a contention at the instance of the petitioner is only to be rejected.
12. Regarding NET qualification, as rightly contended by the respondents, NET is not an essential qualification for PhD holders even for becoming an Assistant Professor. Further NET is not made an essential qualification for Associate Professors. That the 2nd respondent did not sign part B of the hard copy of the application, cannot be a reason to reject an application. Even if WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:20:- there is any defect, it could have been rectified at any point of time. The persons who had scrutinised the application of the 2 nd respondent did not raise any such objection, and hence such a contention is not worthy of consideration. Respondent has produced the copy of Part B submitted to the University, obtained under the Right to Information Act as Ext.R2(ab), to substantiate the contention that he had signed Part B.
13. Yet another contention urged was that the 2nd respondent was awarded 7 credit points under serial No.2.3 of the Academic Performance Indicator (API) score sheet, which is in relation to conference proceedings. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated as under:
"At the stage pre-interview verification, I had submitted the screen shots of the website which hosted conference proceedings and the programme sheet for talks. All the details regarding the proceeding are clearly written on the website screen shots and the originals were verified by the Selection Committee."
Such being the position, the above contention is baseless.
14. The 2nd respondent was given 20 credit points for externally funded research under serial No. 2.5 of the API score sheet. This according to the petitioner was totally unwarranted, WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:21:- as no documents had been produced by the 2 nd respondent. It is argued that grant of an external funded project to an Institution can never be construed as one granted to an individual. The 2 nd respondent in his additional counter affidavit has stated thus:
"It is relevant to point out that the national Centre for Antartic and Ocean Research where I was working earlier is an Autonomous Institution under the Ministry of Earth Sciences. The Ministry of Earth Sciences gives Grant-in-Aid to National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research only for an operational cost and salary of staff. All the Scientific Project undertaken by Scientists in National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research and are obtained after undergoing rigorous peer review process. When projects are submitted by the Head of a Group in their respective subject to the director of National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, the projects will be reviewed by a Research Advisory Committee and thereafter by the Governing Council of the National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research. The Research Advisory Committee of National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research comprises of eminent scientists and academicians while the Chairman of the Government Council is the Secretary of the Ministry of Earth Sciences. All such approved projects are consolidated and submitted as a project to Expenditure Finance Committee or Standing Finance Committee depending upon the budget. All the projects in Atmospheric Sciences mentioned in my application were submitted by me which is clear from the certificates issued by the Director of National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research, copy of which is produced WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:22:- herewith and marked as Exhibit R2(ad). Ext.R2(ad) clearly shows that I was the Principal Investigator of the projects mentioned in my application which was considered by the Selection Committee and marks were awarded for the same."
In fact the selection committee consisting of experts in the field had chosen to place reliance on the document submitted by the 2nd respondent and has evaluated the same as sufficient enough to give such points, it is not within the realm of this court to take a different view.
15. Still further, it is argued that 3 points was granted to the 2nd respondent for International/ National fellowship, coming under serial No. 2.7-C of the API score sheet. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent had only produced a letter from the Swedish Institute of Space Physics, whereby he was offered a post doctoral position for a project, in which he was paid a stipend. We don't think that such a contention has any relevance. The certificate produced as Ext.P47 clearly evidences a post doctoral position in the Swedish Institute of Space Physics in relation to their Atmospheric Physics programme. When a post doctoral position has been given by such a reputed organisation, it is not proper to demean the same by contending that only a WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:23:- stipend was being paid. The selection committee was justified in treating the said post doctoral position as a fellowship, and there is no error in granting points in favour of the 2nd respondent.
16. As per UGC Regulations, 20 points is earmarked for assessment of 'Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills' and 20 points for interview. The head domain knowledge and teaching skills coming under serial No. 3 has been further split up by providing separate points. 10 points for additional teaching experience, 10 points for post doctoral research experience, 5 points for participation in workshops and 5 points for academic, administrative experience. The total score under the said head, however is limited to 10 points. Thereafter evaluation of teaching skills/presentation is separately considered at serial No. 3.5 and it is allotted 10 points. It is argued that, by bifurcating domain knowledge and teaching skills, the UGC Regulations have been violated, which demands that the scoring system proforma is to be based on API score as provided in Table I to IX of Appendix III. In fact, UGC Regulations, 2010 has been amended in 2013, and clause 6.0.2 read as under:
"The Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:24:- committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent Colleges/affiliated colleges (Government/Government-aided/Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. As indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS. The universities may adopt the template Proforma or may devise their own self-assessment-
cum-performance appraisal forms for teachers. While adopting this, universities shall not change any of the categories or scores of the API given in Appendix III. The universities can, if they wish so, increase the minimum required score or devise appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment." Therefore, for more easy and transparent method, University itself has prepared a format for PBAS, and both the candidates have applied for the post, based on the said format. The specifications therefore made by the University is well within the mandate laid down under the UGC Regulations. In the light of the 2013 amendment to UGC Regulations we do not find any error on the part of the University in devising their own self appraisal forms. The only restriction is that, the categories or the scores of the API given in Appendix III, shall not be changed. Therefore WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:25:- University was very well justified in splitting up the 'Domain Knowledge' into four separate categories and giving separate scores, but limiting the total score to 10 points. Both the candidates got 10 points each under this category and hence no prejudice has been caused. In the light of the above discussion, no error has been committed by the University in allotting 10 points for the teaching skill. Petitioner got 5 points for teaching skill/presentation and the 2nd respondent got 6 points. Therefore the points acquired by the petitioner and 2 nd respondent under this head would not have tilted the ranked list in favour of the petitioner.
17. It is settled law that when a duly constituted selection committee, after verifying the credentials and expertise of the candidates, select a candidate, in the absence of any patent illegality or irregularity, it may not be possible for this court to interfere with such selection process or the ranked list. There is no allegation of any malafides or bias in the selection process. Under such circumstances and in the light of the aforesaid discussion, learned single Judge was not justified in issuing the impugned directions. We are of the view that the selection to the WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases -:26:- aforesaid post has been made in accordance with the UGC Regulations and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Since we have decided the case on the available facts, we don't think it necessary for us to make mention of the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner.
In the result, we set aside the impugned judgment by allowing W.A.Nos.1346/2019 and 1356/2019. WA No.1664/2019 is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
Rp JUDGE
WA No.1346/19 & conn.cases
-:27:-
APPENDIX OF WA 1664/2019
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PBAS DATA SHEET FILLED
UP BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH SELF
ASSESSMENT WITH THE SCREEN SHOT,
INDICATING THAT IT WAS SENT ON
10.02.2016.