Kerala High Court
Dr.Deepak.K.R vs Dr.Anoopa Krishna on 23 September, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 427, 2020 LAB IC (NOC) 18 (KER)
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941
WA.No.478 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 20035/2013 DATED 27-01-2017 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 DR.DEEPAK.K.R
LECTURER IN HINDI,INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE
EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,SENATE
HOUSE,CAMPUS,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
2 DR.RAJAN.T.K
LECTURER IN HINDI,INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE
EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DR.ANOOPA KRISHNA
"ANANYA"XI/946,MUTTAKKAD.P.O(VIA),VENGANOOR,THIRUVANA
NTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695523.
2 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695034,REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR.
3 THE DIRECTOR
INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA,SENATE HOUSE
CAMPUS,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.1685/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA.478/17 & 1685/18 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
/
WA.No.1685 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN / OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695034
BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
RESPONDENT/S:
ANOOPA KRISHNA
ANANYA XI/946, MUTTAKKAD P.O, VIA VENGANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
695523
R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC
R1 BY ADV. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY S.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.09.2019,
ALONG WITH WA.478/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA.478/17 & 1685/18 3
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
V.G.ARUN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.A.No.478 of 2017
&
W.A.No.1685 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2019
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
Appellants are two successful candidates in a selection and the University of Kerala. The challenge was made by the party respondent against the selection of the appellants in W.A.No.478 of 2017 to the two posts of Lecturers (Hindi) in the University of Kerala under the Institute of Distance Education. The learned Single Judge considered the challenge to the selection, on the ground that the writ petitioner having been denied one mark which she was entitled, for research experience after submission of P.hd. thesis. The learned Single Judge called for the records of the selection and found that Exhibits P11, P12 and P13 certificates were available in the selection records which more than substantiated the claim of research experience. The writ petitioner was found to be entitled to one mark on the basis of research experience and there was a direction to recast the select list. The University as also the successful candidates are in appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the University and the successful candidates submit that the writ petitioner never claimed research experience in her application. The certificates, as found by WA.478/17 & 1685/18 4 the learned Single Judge, also did not contain the experience enabling the grant of marks for that experience. It is the specific contention of the University taken in Ground-D of the appeal that while examining the merits of the candidates, it cannot consider any claim which is not reflected in the application and without documents substantiating the claim. The Selection Committee being not privy to any information not furnished in the application cannot be expected to go on a roving enquiry as to the different entitlements of a candidate. It is also argued that any claim for award of marks under a certificate would require production of original documents to substantiate the claim. The learned counsel for the successful candidates also would stress on the fact that the last date fixed for receipt of application was 19.7.2011, when the writ petitioner did not have the experience of one year of post doctoral fellowship which commenced only from 22.7.2010. It is also contended that the experience certificates produced are all later to the application and this alone proves that no such document was produced along with the application.
3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent however would argue that the University has a practice, permitting production of certificates at the time of selection. Further It is argued that the father of the writ petitioner had submitted an RTI application as evident from Exhibit P14 in the writ petition. The first question was with respect to the documents produced by the writ petitioner as available in the records of the Selection Committee. The University WA.478/17 & 1685/18 5 itself had supplied Exhibits P16 and P17 orders of the University which indicate that the petitioner has been granted a Senior Research Fellowship and a Post Doctoral Fellowship respectively. It is the submission of the University even in its counter affidavit that if Exhibits P8, P9 and P10 orders were produced, the University would have considered the entitlement of Research experience. Exhibits P8 and P10 are Exhibits P16 and P17 is the specific contention of the writ petitioner.
4. The entitlement of marks for research experience arises from Exhibit P7 produced in the writ petition. We see in Exhibit P7 at serial No.5 under the academic and additional qualifications of Lecturer, that teaching or research experience is granted two marks. However, this is enabled only when an experience certificate from the Head of the Department or Principal of an Aided College is produced. The research experience is stated to be considered for grant of marks, only if it is after submitting the Ph.d thesis. The two marks are to be divided as one mark for each year of experience. The application of the petitioner is seen as Exhibit P2, which is dated 15.11.2017. In Exhibit P2, there is no claim of research experience specifically taken up nor is there any substantiating document produced along with the application.
5. The contention of the petitioner is with respect to the claim made in column 26 of Exhibit P2 which reads as under:
"26.Any other information that is likely to be relevant to WA.478/17 & 1685/18 6 this application directly or indirectly, either in support or otherwise.
I have completed Senior Research Fellowship. Now doing Post Doctoral Fellowship in University of Kerala. The title of the Research Topic is "Sathottar Hindi Kahani mein Kamkaji Mahilayem aur unki samasyayem-Ek Vishleshanathmak Adhyayan."
We do not find any specific claim having been made of the period in which the writ petitioner had undergone Senior Research Fellowship or the Post Doctoral Fellowship nor even specified the date on which the thesis was submitted, which is relevant for consideration of the claim for experience and the grant of marks as per Exhibit P7. We also notice that column 26 is only with respect to any additional information likely to be relevant which does not take in the academic or additional qualifications which enable the grant of marks in a proper selection conducted as per Exhibit P7.
6. Further, specifically, research experience is sought for under column 16 of Exhibit P2 which reads as under:
16. Teaching Experience/Research Teaching (UG) -
Experience NA
Summary: Enclose attested copy of
teaching experience certificate issued
by Principals of Colleges on Corporate Teaching (PG) -
Management or Director of Collegiate
Education with split up period of UG &
NA
PG Teaching in each college/Documents
showing research experiences at
University or National Level Institutes Research -
including experience of guiding research NA
at doctoral level).
7. Under the teaching and research columns, the petitioner has WA.478/17 & 1685/18 7 written 'NA' indicating 'not applicable'. The petitioner has a contention that column 16 is a homogeneous column connected with columns 14 and 15 and speaks of only teaching experience for which alone API scores are looked at. This again is a stipulation for selection to the post of Associate Professors and not to the post of a Lecturer in a subject.
We are unable to countenance such an argument, since we do not find columns 14 to 16 to be of a homogeneous nature. Column 15 definitely speaks of API score; while column 16 speaks of both teaching and research experience. Column 16 also specify that the document showing research experience at doctoral level has to be produced. Obviously, the petitioner did not make a claim for research experience in the application nor was there any substantiating documents produced. The petitioners claim for grant of marks for research experience has to be rejected and we garner support for the same from a Division bench decision of this Court reported in Public Service Commission Vs. Saroja Nambiyar [ILR 1978 (2) Ker. 241]. There the rejection of an application without supporting documents proving the qualifications and eligibility to apply for the post was held to be proper. Here there was no claim of research experience nor any supporting document produced along with the application.
8. We then look at the contention of the writ petitioner that there was a practice in the University, permitting submission of certificates at the time of interview. To advance this contention, the writ petitioner relies on Exhibit R1(c), the call letter issued by the University. Exhibit WA.478/17 & 1685/18 8 R1(c) speaks of reporting for the interview one hour early "with the following documents in original". The concluding portion of the call letter also indicates that in the event of failure to produce the documents in original, a candidate will not be permitted to attend the interview. We cannot understand Exhibit R1(c) having permitted submission of documents, not already submitted along with the application, to substantiate the claims which were never made in the application at the time of submitting the same. The recitals in Exhibit R1(c) call letter merely indicates that every document produced for substantiating the claims made in the application has to be produced in original at the time of selection for verification by the Selection Committee. It does not enable a candidate to make a claim for a particular experience or qualification at the time of the selection itself. We cannot accept the contention of the writ petitioner that the University as a matter of course permitted production of certificates at the time of selection; even in cases where the specific experience or qualification has not been claimed in the application.
9. It is also submitted that by Exhibit P20, the Scrutiny Committee had called for certain documents which were not produced by the successful candidates. We do not think that Exhibit P20 would improve the case of the writ petitioner since this was a communication issued after initial scrutiny of applications. On the initial scrutiny, when certain applications did not have documents substantiating the claim of essential or additional qualifications or experience claimed, the WA.478/17 & 1685/18 9 candidates were given an opportunity to produce the same. There is no infirmity in giving the candidates an opportunity; but even for that there should be a claim made in the application. In fact, we have to notice that if the petitioner had claimed research experience definitely at the time of scrutiny, she also would have been directed to produce the substantiating documents at the time of selection. There was no such direction in the case of the petitioner, since she had never claimed that research experience, in her case, should be considered as one of the aspects for which she should also be granted marks in the selection process.
10. Yet another contention taken by the writ petitioner is the presence of the documents, Exhibits P11, P12 and P13, in the selection records which were verified by the learned Single Judge. We look at Exhibits P11, P12 and P13. Exhibit P11 is a Ph.D Thesis Submission Certificate which does not indicate when actually the thesis was submitted. Exhibit P12 is also an experience certificate again not clearly indicating the period in which the writ petitioner had undertaken her Post Doctoral Fellowship. Exhibit P13 speaks of the Senior Research Fellowship having been undertaken during the period from 5.1.2010 to 21.7.2010 which does not satisfy the one year criteria. Hence, the presence of Exhibits P11, P12 and P13 is inconsequential for awarding marks for research experience, as per Exhibit P7.
11. There is yet another contention taken that even in the case WA.478/17 & 1685/18 10 of two other candidates, who participated in the selection, the research experience was determined on the basis of Exhibits P16 and P17. We have also gone through Exhibits P16 and P17. These are the documents said to have been released by the University under the Right to Information Act. Exhibit P16 is an order of the University dated 18.2.2010 which accords sanction for the Research Scholars to avail University Senior Research Fellowship. The writ petitioner is seen at serial No.10 and the date of award is 5.1.2010. However, there is nothing in Exhibit P16 to show the submission of the thesis by the writ petitioner. Exhibit P17 is again a Post Doctoral Fellowship, which is awarded after the grant of Ph.D which commenced in the case of the petitioner at serial No.4 from 22.7.2010. Even looking at Exhibit P17, as far as the date of Exhibit P2 application of the writ petitioner is considered as 15.7.2011, there was no possibility of the petitioner to have claimed research experience of one year at the time when the application was submitted. Even if Exhibits P16 and P17 are found to be available in the selection records, there was no obligation on the selection committee, to verify the same, since there was no claim made of research experience in Exhibit P2 application filed by the writ petitioner at the time when it was submitted to the University.
12. We also pertinently observe the following statements made by the University in its Counter-affidavit dated 11.10.2013:-
"In fact, the draft of the index marks which in turn is presented before the Selection Committee is prepared in front of WA.478/17 & 1685/18 11 the candidate during the verification of certificates. In all probabilities, petitioner did not realise the importance of '2' marks then and chose to ignore her claim on the same if any. It is only after the results were declared did the petitioner realise the significance of those two marks and the difference it could have made to the selection process. Therefore in order to 'procure' those two marks, petitioner has levelled all sorts of illegalities and malafides against the Selection Committee. If the petitioner had indeed been denied of any marks due to her, she could have very well brought it to the notice of the Vice Chancellor who is the chairman of the Selection Committee at the time of interview or could have at least raised a complaint immediately after the same. The petitioner not having done so then is now estopped from raising challenges as raised in the instant Writ Petition."
In the totality of the circumstances, we are constrained to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment finding the selection of the appellants in W.A.No.478 of 2017 to be un-assailable. The writ appeals would stand allowed and consequently, the writ petition would stand rejected. There shall be no order on costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE vgsx