Kerala High Court
Sunil Kumar. P vs Cochin Devaswom Board
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 15588 of 2015 (W)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
SUNIL KUMAR. P
ARACKAL PARAMBIL, EDAVETTY PO, THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 688 001.
2. SREE KERALA VARMA COLLEGE, KANATTUKARA PO, THRISSUR
PIN 680011 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.
Addl. 3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
THENHIPALAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO., MALAPPURAM - 673 635,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
25.6.2015 IN I.A.NO.8792/2015.
RADDL.3 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY
UNIVERSITY
R1 & 2 BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM, SC
RADDL.3 BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04-10-2016 ALONG WITH WPC. 16417/2016, THE COURT ON 17-10-2016
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 15588 of 2015 (W)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXT.P1- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. H.5686/2011 DATED 3.4.2012 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN VARIOUS SUBJECTS
EXT.P2- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOTE OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE DATED 7.5.2014 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT 2005.
EXT.P3- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.6.2014 IN DBP.NO.64/2014 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P4- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.4.2011 IN DBP.NO.56/2011 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P5- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.3.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT AND INFORMATION
DATED 18.6.2015.
EXT.P6- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.6.2015 INVITING APPLICATION
FOR APPOINTMNET OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT. 24.6.2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXT.R1(A)- COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(RT) NO.423/2014/H.EDN.
DATED 28.2.2014.
EXT.R1(B)- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT.) NO.1366/14/H.EDN.
DATED 26.6.2014.
EXT.R1(C)- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.7.2014 SENT BY THE PRINCIPAL, SREE
KERALA VARMA COLLEGE TO THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.
EXT.R1(D)- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED
28.8.2015 IN SLP NO.23677/2015.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
'C.R.'
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.15588 OF 2015 (W)
&
W.P.(C).NO.16417 OF 2016 (B)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The facts and sequence of events in these writ petitions bring to the fore the travails of an exasperated litigant who applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology in the Kerala Varma College, Thrissur. The College falls under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board whose conduct during the course of this litigation has been deplorable, to say the least. Despite an interim order passed by this Court on 27.5.2015, to provisionally appoint the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 as Assistant Professor in Zoology with effect from 1.6.2015, the Board persisted with its adamant attitude and ensured that the petitioner did not enjoy the fruits of the interim order passed by this Court. While this Court is not against, a litigant challenging the legality of orders passed by it before an appellate forum, it would certainly frown upon those who resort to dilatory tactics to avoid compliance with orders that have attained finality.
Such has been the conduct of the Board, despite the indulgence and W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 2 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 patience shown to it by this Court while entertaining petitions filed by it seeking modification of earlier orders passed against it. It is not that this Court is unaware of the discretion it has to refuse to hear, on merits, the case of a party violating orders passed by the court but it was felt, and on hindsight naively, that the respondent Board would rise to the levels of magnanimity and dignity expected of a statutory authority.
2. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of these writ petitions may now be noticed;
The petitioner in W.P(C).No.15588/2015 had, in response to Ext.P1 Notification issued by the respondents, applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. On conclusion of the selection process, Ext.P2 rank list was finalised wherein the writ petitioner was ranked as No.4. The candidates mentioned against Sl. Nos.1 to 3 in the said rank list were appointed to vacancies that arose prior to 31.05.2015.
It is the case of the writ petitioner that he had to be accommodated to a vacancy that arose prior to 01.06.2015, which vacancy arose in the subject of Zoology. By an interim order dated 27.05.2015, this Court W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 3 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 directed the respondents to provisionally appoint the writ petitioner as Assistant Professor in Zoology with effect from 01.06.2015.
Although, the respondents filed I.A.No.7608 of 2015 for vacating the interim order dated 27.05.2015, this Court declined to vary the interim order except for clarifying that the appointment made would be provisional, and that the vacancy to which the appointment was to be made was one that arose prior to 01.06.2015. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.07.2015, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1637 of 2015, wherein it was contended that the writ petitioner's name did not figure in the rank list that was relevant for the purposes of making the appointments to vacancies that arose in the College in question prior to 01.06.2015. The Division Bench considered the said submission raised on behalf of the respondent Board and College and, after noting the submissions made on behalf of the Calicut University, that the only rank list that was received by them was Ext.P2 in which the writ petitioner was shown at Sl.No.4, the Division Bench perused the files that were produced by the learned Standing counsel for the Calicut University and found that in the rank list that was submitted before the University, the writ petitioner was shown against Sl.No.4.
W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 4 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016Taking note of the said factual position, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the interim order passed by this Court and dismissed the writ appeal. The respondent Board, thereafter, carried the matter before the Supreme Court through S.L.P.No.23677 of 2015. The said S.L.P was premised on the contention that the Division Bench had committed an error of fact in recording paragraph (5) of the judgment dated 05.08.2015 in W.A.No.1637 of 2015. The Supreme Court did not deem it necessary to interfere in the matter, and proceeded to dismiss the special leave petition, reserving a liberty in the respondent Board to file a review petition before the Division Bench for getting a clarification on the factual position. The respondent Board, then, filed R.P.No.957 of 2015, wherein a contention was raised that the rank list in which the writ petitioners name was included had expired on 29.05.2015, and the vacancy to which the writ petitioner was directed to be provisionally appointed arose thereafter. It was the submission on behalf of the respondent Board that, under such circumstances, the interim order directing the provisional appointment of the writ petitioner could not have been passed by this Court. The Division Bench found that this was a new W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 5 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 contention that was raised for the first time before the Division Bench and, hence, it was only appropriate that the matter should be considered by the Court which passed the interim order at first instance.
3. Thereafter, when the respondent Board moved an application for modification of the interim order before this court, based on the right reserved to it by the Division Bench of this court, after taking note of the additional contention with regard to expiry of the rank list that was prepared, this court found as follows in its interim order dated 25.02.2016 in I.A.No.16483/2015.
"3. I have heard Sri.George Abraham, the learned counsel for the respondent Board and College, and the learned Senior counsel Sri.K.Jaju Babu, on behalf of the writ petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Board and College is premised mainly on the Calicut Universities 1st Statute, 1979 and in particular, the definition of the phrase "academic year"
and Statute 10 (4) and (5) of the aforementioned 1st Statute. It is his contention that the phrase academic year refers to a period of 12 months commencing on the first day of June. It is further submitted, by placing reliance on Statute 10, that the selection committee is required to prepare a select list on the basis of merit and appointments are to be made only in the order of merit as indicated in the said list. Statute 10 (4) indicates that the select list prepared by the selection committee shall not normally contain more than three times the number of W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 6 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 vacancies likely to arise within one academic year, and in case the selection committees propose to include more names in the list, it shall record the reasons for the same. Reliance is also placed on Statute 10 (5) wherein it is stated that the selection list prepared by the selection committee shall remain in force only for a period of one year or till a fresh select list is drawn up, whichever is later and that the list prepared shall be renewed every year. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Board and College is essentially that, inasmuch as the phrase academic year refers to a period of 12 months commencing from the 1st day of June in an academic year, and the requirement of Statute 10 is for the preparation of a select list normally containing not more than three times the number of vacancies likely to arise within the said academic year, the validity of the select list for the purposes of Statute 10(5) must be confined to the period of 12 months commencing from June of the academic year since that would be in consonance with the definition of academic year under the Statute. Alternatively, it is contended that the expression "shall remain in force only for a period of one year or till a fresh select list is drawn up, whichever is later" can refer only to a situation where a fresh select list is actually drawn up by the respondent Board and College, and not to a situation where there was no fresh select list drawn up at all. It is his contention that, in the absence of a fresh list drawn up by the respondent Board and College, the validity of the earlier select list would expire on the expiry of the period of one year. It is contended that this period of one year would commence from the date of the publication of the earlier select list. He seeks to fortify his submissions by reference to the latter limb of Statute 10(5) which clarifies that the list prepared shall be renewed every year. It is his submission that, since there is a requirement of renewing the list every year, the implication of a select list prepared remaining valid only for a period of one year is evident from the statutory provision itself. The learned counsel would also rely on Ext.R1(a) Government Order and, in particular, Clauses 2, 5 and 6 therein, which also W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 7 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 indicate that a rank list that is prepared has a validity only for a period of one year from the publication of the same, and that the Government cannot permit the extension of the rank list since all University Statutes permit the validity of a rank list for one year only. Reliance is also placed on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vimala Kumari v. State [1994 (2) KLT 47 (FB)] wherein, on the facts of the case before it, the Full Bench had observed that the court cannot compel the Public Service Commission to advise candidates after the expiry of the rank list.
4. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would point out, with specific reference to the Calicut University 1st Statute 1979, and in particular, Statute 10(4)and (5) of the said Statutes, that the select list prepared by the selection committee has a validity not only for a period of one year but till a fresh select list is drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. He would refer to the phrase "shall remain in force only for a period of one year or till a fresh list is drawn up, whichever is later", to contend that inasmuch as the Statute itself contemplates a validity to the select list beyond the period of one year, and till a fresh select list is drawn up, there is no occasion for giving a restricted meaning to the said phrase appearing in the Statute. As regards the second limb of Statute 10 (5), which indicates that the list prepared shall be renewed every year, it is his submission that the aspect of renewal would arise only in the event of an expiry of the existing list and, inasmuch as a fresh select list has not been drawn up by the respondent Board and College till then, it was to be deemed that the earlier select list that was prepared would remain in force beyond the period of one year from the date of its publication and during the period when the vacancy arose in the College prior to 01.06.2015. The learned Senior counsel would also rely on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Public Service Commission v. Pylo [1986 KLT 46] wherein, at paragraphs 8 and 9 it is stated as follows:
W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 8 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016"8. Art.320 of the Constitution speaks of the functions of the Public Service Commissions:
"It shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the services of the State respectively.
2. .............................."
It is for the purpose of discharging that constitutional function that the Commission made Rules. R.13 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure reads:
"The ranked lists published by the Commission shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force provided that the said list will continue to be in force till the publication of a new list after the expiry of the minimum period of one year or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier:
Provided...........................
Provided further that the Commission may take steps for the preparation of a new ranked list wherever necessary even before the expiry of the period of one year of the ranked list, by inviting application but that the ranked list prepared in pursuance of the said notification shall be brought into force only after the expiry of the period of one year of the existing ranked list."
9. The operation of a ranked list is for a period of one year from the date on which it was brought into force, namely, the date of publication. The list will, however, continue to operate until a fresh list is published after the expiry of the initial period of one year or until the expiry of three years from the W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 9 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 date of publication of the original fist whichever occurs earlier. It is well within the power of the Commission to bring out the second list immediately on expiry of the initial period of one year or at any time during the following two years. The date of publication of the second list is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Commission, provided the initial period of one year has expired. The validity of the first list thus lasts till the publication of the second list or till the expiry of three years whichever is earlier. All this is subject to the second proviso which says that it is open to the Commission to take steps for the preparation of a new list even during the initial period of one year. It is therefore open to the Commission to prepare a new list, and for that purpose issue a notification calling for applications, at any stage of the relevant period of three years. The only condition is that the list so prepared shall not see the light of day until the initial period of one year has expired. When that list is published, the earlier list ceases to operate. This construction of the Article is not seriously disputed at the bar. The learned Judge in fact accepted this construction."
5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that, the express provisions of Statute 10 (4) and (5) clearly indicate that a select list prepared by the selection committee does not cease to be in force on the expiry of a period of one year from the date of its publication. The Statute contemplates a situation where the select list shall normally remain in force only for a period of one year, but can continue to be in force till a fresh select list is drawn up. This meaning comes out from the use of the expression "whichever is later" that is used in Statute 10(5). The second limb of Statute 10(5), which refers to the aspect of renewal of the list every year can only be a reference to the renewal of an expired list or preparation of a new list as the case may be. Thus, going by the express provisions of the first W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 10 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 statutes, Ext.P2 rank list was valid till 01.06.2015 by which time, the vacancy, to which the writ petitioner was directed to be provisionally appointed, arose. I, therefore, find that the new contention taken by the respondent Board and College before the Division Bench is no reason to modify the interim order already passed by this court on 02.07.2015. Further, inasmuch as the other grounds of challenge against the interim order dated 02.07.2015 have already been repelled, both by a Division Bench of this Court, as well as the Supreme Court, I am not persuaded to modify the interim order already passed for any of the reasons already considered while passing the said order.
4. The respondent Board, thereafter, challenged the above order of this court before a Division Bench in W.A.No.533/2016. The said Writ Appeal was, however, dismissed with the following observations;
"6. From the order in question, we note that the only contention that was raised before the learned Single Judge was that the list in question had expired on 29.5.2015 and that, therefore, the appellant could not aspire for appointment to the vacancy which arose thereafter. That contention was negatived by the learned Single Judge referring to the provisions contained in the Calicut University First Statute 1979. This contention was reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, we find that as per the provisions contained in Statutes 10(5), the select list prepared by the selection committee shall remain in force for a period of one year or till a fresh select list is drawn up, whichever is later and that the list prepared shall be renewed every year. According to us, the Statute contemplates situations where the select list would not lapse in a period of one academic year. Therefore, having regard to the W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 11 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 language of Statute 10(5), this contention now raised before us cannot be accepted.
7. We note that the counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Ext.R1(a), G.O.(P) No.423/2014/H.Edn. Dated 28.2.2014, to buttress his contention that the validity period cannot exceed more than a year. Though such an interpretation is possible for Ext.R1(a), we find that Ext.R1(a) has been issued without making reference to the specific provisions contained in Statute 10(5) referred to above. Therefore, having regard to the language of Statute 10(5) referred to above, we are unable to place reliance on Ext.R1(a) and accept the contention now raised before us.
8. Finally counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the notification dated 26th February 2014 by which the University Statutes were amended. According to the learned counsel, the amended provisions of the Statute would show that the first respondent is not qualified for the post. Though this contention was resisted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent by making available to us the appointment orders of other persons from the rank list which were allegedly made after the amendment, which again was contradicted by the learned counsel for the appellant, according to us, it is unnecessary for us to go into this controversy. This is for the reason that first of all, no reliance has been placed on this amendment before the learned Single Judge. Secondly, impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge itself would show that the order is a provisional one. Therefore, it is always open to the appellants to place reliance on the amendment and canvass their contentions as and when the writ petition is heard.
9. In our view, the whole exercise is an unnecessary one and the appellants were out and out trying to deny the fruits of the interim order to the first W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 12 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 respondent. Though we are of the view that for all these unnecessary exercises appellants deserve to be imposed costs, having regard to the fact that the money involved is public money, we refrain from doing so.
Appeal is dismissed."
5. While, with the dismissal of the Writ appeal, one would have expected the respondent Board to finally comply with the interim order passed by this court, and provisionally appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Zoology to the vacancy that arose with effect from 31.05.2016, the said petitioner was not fated to reap the fruits of the interim order passed by this court in his favour.
6. On 29.04.2016, the person ranked 5th in the rank list prepared by the Selection Committee filed W.P.(C).No.16417/2016.
The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 is essentially that the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015, who is arrayed as the 4th respondent in her writ petition, is not qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) in the 2nd respondent college. It is relevant to note that the selection process itself is not impugned in the writ petition and the relief sought for is merely for a declaration W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 13 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 that the 4th respondent is not qualified for the post and for a further direction to the respondent Board to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Zoology). The Writ petition was admitted by this court on 29.04.2016, and by an interim order of the same date, a learned Single Judge directed the respondent Board not to fill up the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology in the 2nd respondent college by appointing the 4th respondent. As a result of the said interim order passed by this court, the respondent Board was able to plead inability to comply with the interim order dated 27.05.2015, as modified by the order dated 02.07.2015, when Cont. Case (C).No.1044/2015 was moved by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015. It is thus that all these matters are posted before this court now for disposal, pursuant to a plea by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 for early hearing.
7. In a counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).
No.16417/2016, it is pointed out that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.25461/2014 challenging the selection process and the award of marks to candidates placed W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 14 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 above her in the rank list. It is stated that later, by a judgment dated 5.11.2014, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner to file a fresh writ petition.
The fact that the writ petitioner chose to file the present writ petition only after a lapse of more than 11/2 years is highlighted to suggest that the writ petitioner was set up by the respondent Board to delay the grant of appointment to the 4th respondent when the Board found that it would be constrained to appoint the said respondent pursuant to the dismissal of W.A.No.533/2016 on 14.3.2016. The averments in the writ petition with regard to qualifications of the 4th respondent are countered in the following manner:
"4. The bone of the contention in the writ petition is regarding the qualifications possessed by me and the petitioner has raised specific contention that I am not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) as per the provision of the Calicut University Statute.
5. I am possessing B.Sc Degree in Zoology from Mahatma Gandhi University which is produced as Exhibit P8 in the writ petition. I am also having Masters degree in Mariculture awarded by the central Institute of Fisheries Education. So also I am having Phd. in Fisheries Science (Mariculture) awarded by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education Mumbai. I have passed National Eligibility Test in Aquaculture conducted by the Agricultural Science Recruitment W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 15 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 Board. The documents proving my qualifications have been produced by the petitioner herself as Exhibit P8 to P11. The contention of the petitioner that I am not possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Calicut University Statutes is incorrect and hence denied.
6. It is submitted that the qualifications prescribed as per Calicut University Statute is Masters Degree in the relevant subject from an Indian/Foreign University or equivalent qualifications. In my case I am possessing B.Sc Degree in Zoology and Masters Degree in Mari Culture. The Cochin University of Science & Technology has issued certificate to the effect that Masters Degree possessed by me is equivalent to M.Sc Marine Biology officered by the University. Copy of the Certificate dated 15.12.2015 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(f). It is pertinent to note that though the Cochin Devaswom Board as well as the petitioner have raised the contentions that the qualifications possessed by me is not sufficient, it is also relevant to point out that the candidate rank no.3 in the rank list Smt.Usha Bhagirathan is also possessing Degree in M.Sc Marine Biology which has been treated as equivalent to M.Sc Zoology. There was no objection with regard to her appointment and the Cochin Devaswom Board had accepted the qualifications possessed by Smt. Usha. Therefore, there is no justification in denying the benefit of equivalency to me. Further the Calicut University has declared that M.Sc Marine Biology of CUSAT is equivalent to M.Sc Zoology Degree of Calicut University. Copy of the certificate dated 31.01.2005 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(g). Kerala University has also as early as on 7.9.1964 recognized M.Sc Marine Biology as equivalent to M.Sc Zoology. The Kerala Public Service Commission is also recognizing M.Sc Marine Biology as equivalent to M.Sc Zoology for the purpose of appointments. The Kerala University has recognized M.Sc (Mari Culture) and M.Sc Marine Biology as equivalent to M.Sc (Zoology). Copy of the relevant W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 16 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 extract of the order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(h). Therefore it is clear that I am having the prescribed qualification for appointment as Assistant Professor in Zoology. So there is no merit in the writ petition, which is filed only to circumvent the orders of this Hon'ble Court in my favour and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. I have heard Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015, Sri.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 as also Sri.George Abraham, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Board in both the writ petitions.
9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the following issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions:-
(a) Whether the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 [the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.16417/2016] was included in the rank list of persons pursuant to the selection process that was conducted in connection with Ext.P1 notification ?
(b) Whether the rank list that was so prepared was to W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 17 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 remain valid only for a single academic year or even further till the drawing up of a fresh rank list ?
(c) Could the vacancy that arose in the afternoon of 31.5.2015 be filled by a candidate ranked in the rank list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 notification; and
(d) Was the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015, who was ranked No.4 in the rank list qualified to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) ?
10. It will be seen from the narration of facts and events above, that the first three issues were already considered in detail by this Court while disposing the interim applications filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board seeking modification of the interim orders passed in W.P.(C).No.16417/2016. No fresh ground has been urged in respect of the said issues at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.
Accordingly, this Court has already found that -
(a) The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 was in fact included in the rank list of persons pursuant to the selection process conducted.
(b) The express provisions of Statute 10(4) and (5) of the W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 18 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 Calicut University First Statute, 1979, clearly indicate that a select list prepared by the Selection Committee does not cease to be in force on expiry of a period of one year from the date of its publication but will continue to be in force till a fresh selection list is drawn up.
(c) Going by the express provisions of the First Statute, the rank list was valid as on 1.6.2015, by which time, the vacancy to which the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 was directed to be provisionally appointed, arose.
These findings of this Court have also been affirmed by the Division Bench in the appellate judgments referred above. The findings of this Court on the aforesaid three issues are thus made absolute for the purposes of disposal of these writ petitions. The only remaining issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner in W.P.(C).
No.15588/2015 was qualified for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology).
11. Before examining the said issue, it would be apposite to notice that the Selection Committee that met to consider the candidate of applicants to the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 19 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 found the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 duly qualified for the post and it was thereafter that he was ranked in the rank list. While it is questionable whether the management of the College can go behind the selection conducted by the Selection Committee and enquire into the sufficiency of the qualifications of a candidate included in the rank list, the selection procedure as such is not the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C).No.16417/2016. The petitioner in that writ petition has chosen merely to question the eligibility of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 without challenging the selection procedure that led to a finding with regard to his eligibility in the first place.
12. As regards the qualification for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology), the Calicut University Regulations prescribe the qualifications as follows:-
(1) Assistant Professor
(i) Good academic record with at at least 55%
marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject of this University or an Indian/Foreign University recognized as equivalent thereto as specified in the hand book issued by Association of Indian Universities W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 20 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 from time to time.
(ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC, CSIR, or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET.
(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- clauses (I) and (ii) to this clause, candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in the concerned subject in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009, shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges.
(iv) NET/SLET shall also not be required for such Master's Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET is not conducted.
13. A distinction ought to be noted between the phrase "a relevant subject" used in the Regulations and the phrase "the relevant subject". While the latter may be restrictive in nature to encompass only the particular subject itself, the former will take within its ambit allied subjects that may have a close logical relationship with the particular subject. As the phrase used in the Regulations is "a Masters Degree in a relevant subject", a Masters Degree in Mariculture must, in the absence of any material to suggest to the contrary, be seen as a Masters Degree in a subject relevant to W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 21 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 Zoology, for considering the candidature of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in Zoology. This is more so when even an expert body like the Selection Committee did not disqualify the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 for want of necessary qualifications. I also find that, for the reasons noted above, the decision of this Court in Purushothaman V.M. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Others - [(2011) 1 KHC 821], relied upon by counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board is clearly distinguishable on facts. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 that the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 was not qualified for appointment as Assistant Professor in Zoology is therefore legally untenable and rejected as such.
14. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions is -
(i) W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 is allowed by declaring that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor in Zoology in the vacancy arising in the Kerala Varma College with effect from 31.5.2015/1.6.2015. The respondent Board shall appoint the petitioner to the said post forthwith.
W.P.(C).No.15588/2015 & 22 W.P.(C).No.16417/2016(ii) W.P.(C).No.16417/2016 is dismissed.
(iii) Although this would be a fit case for imposing costs on the Cochin Devaswom Board, I take note of the observations of the Division Bench in W.A.No.533/2016, and refrain from imposing any costs on the Cochin Devaswom Board.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/