Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dr.Elizabeth George vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 22 January, 2021

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

      FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER/S:

                DR.ELIZABETH GEORGE
                AGED 45 YEARS
                W/O.BIJU C.MANI, RESIDING AT CHERIYANIRAPPEL,
                EDAYAPPURAM ROAD, ALUVA (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
                PIN-683 101.

                BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                REGISTRAR.

      2         THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
                TECHNOLOGY,
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022.

      3         SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
                COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022.

      4         THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR RECRUITMENT OF ASSOCIATE
                PROFESSOR,
                COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
                KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022.

                R1-2 BY SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, COCHIN
                UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

                                  2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of January 2021 The petitioner has laid challenge to promulgation of re-notification dated 26.12.2019, Ext.P3 whereby the posts advertised by the notification dated 17.8.2015, Ext.P1 have been re-notified.

2. The facts, as noticed from the pleadings are, that the petitioner is a Ph.D holder from a Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Social Science from the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) in the subject of Psychological Empowerment. She also hold Bachelor of Commerce undergraduate from St.Xaviers's College for Women, Aluva has also completed her Master of Business Administration. The petitioner being qualified and aspirant to the post of Associate Professor in the CUSAT, in pursuance, to the notification dated 17.8.2015 ,whereby, applications to the post of Associate Professor to various Subjects in the 1 st respondent University were invited submitted application. The notification also included advertisement to the post of Associate WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C) 3 Professor in Personal Management/Industrial Relations from the open category. Candidates were required to submit an information data sheet citing their qualification and paper publications which was submitted vide Ext.P2 (a) before the last date of the application ie., 17.9.2015.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was flabbergasted to notice the re-notification dated 26.12.2019, Ext.P3 with respect to the post of Associate Professor in seven(7) subjects /specialization which was already notified way back in 2015, Ext.P1. During the interregnum, first respondent did not conduct any selection procedure or published any result. Applicants who had applied in pursuance to the first notification Ext.P1 were exempted from payment of fees and their age limit was to be reckoned as per the conditions in the earlier notification. Petitioner concededly, submitted again application before the expiry date as evidenced from Ext.P4. But through the instant writ petition has assailed Ext.P3 on the premise that the cancellation of Ext.P1 without conduct of any selection process is illegal, arbitrary. There should have been a decision on the process of selection initiated vide WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C) 4 Ext.P1 nor Ext.P1 has been cancelled. The persons who were not qualified as on Ext.P1, but acquired qualification subsequently are now eligible to apply. The action of re- notification is therefore detrimental to the opportunities of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner had already submitted an application pursuance to Ext.P3 and by way of interim relief has sought a direction to the first respondent to conduct selection procedure to the post of Associate Professor- Personal Management/Industrial Relations from amongst the applications received against Ext.P1 notification and publish the results until which time all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 notification may be kept in abeyance. The application received in pursuance to the notification Ext.P1 was scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee held on 1.2.2016. Against Sl.No.35, to which the petitioner had submitted application, only five applicants had applied including the one submitted by the petitioner. While scrutinizing the application the minimum Application Programming Interface WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C) 5 (API) score for the post of Associate Professors was not ascertained. The interview for the posts of Associate Professor in School of Management Studies notified as Sl.Nos.29, 31, 32 and 33 was conducted on 24th and 25th October 2019. The Selection Committee recommended a rank list only against one post of Associate Professor Finance Management in which two candidates were ranked out of the nine applications accepted by the Scrutiny Committee. No candidates were found eligible to be ranked for the other posts notified as Sl.Nos.29, 31 and 32 and hence these posts were proposed for re-notification. While considering conduct of interview for the remaining posts notified as Sl.Nos. 34 and 35, the Vice Chancellor ordered to re-notify these posts along with the above mentioned posts due to the availability of only very few eligible applicants. Scrutiny Committee did not ascertain the satisfaction of minimum API Score of 300 as per the UGC Regulations, then in force, for the candidates whose applications had been accepted, many of the candidates who reported for the interview conducted on 24th and 25th October 2019 for Sl.Nos 29, 31, 32 and 33 were not permitted to attend the interview as majority did not satisfy the minimum WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C) 6 required API score. All these aspects led to the re- notification of the posts. Ext.P3 notification has taken care of the interest of the candidates regarding the exemption, payment of fees and the age limit. In fact no selection process was conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P1 is deemed to have been cancelled. There is no such allegation of malafide in issuing Ext.P3.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. All the aspirants have a right for consideration but cannot delineate a right from the notification which has not culminated into initiation of any selection process. The reason assigned in the counter affidavit as noticed in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, in my view do not spell out any element of favouritism, malafides or arbitrariness. It is also settled law the candidates who had already submitted application in pursuance to Ext.P3 notification cannot permitted to turn around and challenge the criteria. It should have been much before participation. Such candidates cannot be permitted to approbate or WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C) 7 reprobate. Scrutiny Committee found that the minimum API score was wanting. It was one of the ground for issuance of re-notification as number of the applications received, were minimal whereas no application was received the post notified at Sl.No.30. None of the candidates were found eligible to be ranked for other posts notified at Sl.Nos.29, 31 and 32. The action of the respondents in re-notifying the aforementioned proposal cannot be faulted with as it does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or policy making decision. The writ petition is devoid of the merits and accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-


                                        AMIT RAWAL

  sab                                      JUDGE
 WP(C).No.4623 OF 2020(C)

                                 8


                             APPENDIX
  PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

  EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING
                       NO.AD.D3/136/NOTIF./08(2) DATED
                       17.08.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

  EXHIBIT P2           TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
                       THE PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION
                       NO.SMS-133-5302 DATED 16.09.2015.

  EXHIBIT P2 A         TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATA SHEET
                       SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
                       14.09.2015.

  EXHIBIT P3           TRUE COPY OF THE RE-NOTIFICATION BEARING
                       NO.AD.D2/136/NOTIF/2018(I) DATED
                       26.12.2019.

  EXHIBIT P4           TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IS BEARING
                       REGISTRATION NO.SMS-477-26654 DATED
                       16.01.2020.

  EXHIBIT P5           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11.04.2019
                       IN W.P(c) NO.36652 OF 2018 OF THIS
                       HON'BLE COURT.