Kerala High Court
Dr.Rehna Augustine vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 3 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 1233
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
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941
WA.No.1515 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 23829/2015 DATED 22.06.2017
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.REHNA AUGUSTINE, D/O.AUGUSTINE,
CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KOZHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686633.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O, COCHIN-682022,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2 SRI.BABY CHAKARAPANI,
AMBADY, 18/1047A, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-682006.
3 UNIVESITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
R3 BY ADV. SRI. S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC (BY ORDER).
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2019,
ALONG WITH WA.1545/2017, WA.1677/2017, WA.1678/2017, WA.1978/2017,
THE COURT ON 03-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 2 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941
WA.No.1545 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 33795/2016 DATED 22-06-2017
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3:
DR.REHNA AUGUSTINE, D/O.AUGUSTINE,
CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KOZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 633
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SMT.V.A.HARITHA
SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE
SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDDENT NOS.1&2:
1 DR.BABY CHAKRAPANI P.S., S/O. SRI P.C SASIDHARAN,
RESIDING AT 'AMBADY' 18/1047-A, S.N JUNCTION,
PALLURUTHY, COCHIN 682 006.
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN 682 022,
RERPESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3 THE REGISTRAR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN 682 022
R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SR.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY,
SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2019,
ALONG WITH WA.1515/2017, WA.1677/2017, WA.1678/2017,
WA.1978/2017, THE COURT ON 03-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 3 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941
WA.No.1677 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC 36153/2015 DATED 22-06-2017 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD PARTY:
DR. RAHNA AUGUSTINE, D/O. AUGUSTINE,
CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KOZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686633.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
SMT.K.VIDYA.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:
1 ROHINI P.C., W/O. JOGY CHOORAPOIKA, AGED 48 YEARS,
CHOORAPOIKAYIL HOUSE, NO.IX/544E,
CANAL ROAD, PANDIKUDI,
KOCHI-682002.
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN-682022,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O.,
COCHIN-682022.
4 SRI. BABY CHAKRAPANI,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
KALAMASSERY,
COCHIN-682022.
WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 4 -
connected cases
5 AJITH VENGALLOOR,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-682022.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH (BY ORDER)
R2-R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY (B/O)
R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPLAN (SR.)
R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJA SIMHAN,
R5 BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH,
R5 BY ADV. SRI. K.NIRMALAN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2019,
ALONG WITH WA.1515/2017, WA.1545/2017, WA.1678/2017,
WA.1978/2017, THE COURT ON 03-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 5 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941
WA.No.1678 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 23406/2015 DATED 22-06-2017
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD PARTY:
DR. REHNA AUGUSTINE, D/O. AUGUSTINE,
CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KOZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686633.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
SMT.K.VIDYA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:
1 DR. SOORAJ M. BASHEER,
S/O. MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 38 YEARS,
CC 11/684, BISHOP GARDEN, PATTALAM, KOCHI-682001.
2 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN-682022,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
3 AJITH VENGALLOOR,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY,
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-682022.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.GANESH
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, (BY ORDER)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL (BY ORDER)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2019,
ALONG WITH WA.1515/2017, WA.1545/2017, WA.1677/2017,
WA.1978/2017, THE COURT ON 03-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 6 -
connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 11TH ASWINA, 1941
WA.No.1978 OF 2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23406/2015 DATED 22.06.2017
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.SOOREJ M. BASHEER, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O MOHAMMED BASHEER,
CC XI/684, BISHOP GARDEN, PATTALAM, KOCHI- 682 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY P.O. KALAMASSERY, KOCHI- 682 022,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2 AJITH VENGELLUR, S/O MADHAVAN NAMBOODIRI V.M.,
VENGALLUR MANA, KALLADIPATTA P.O., PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD- 679 313.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY (BY ORDER)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-09-2019,
ALONG WITH WA.1515/2017, WA.1545/2017, WA.1677/2017,
WA.1678/2017, THE COURT ON 03-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 7 -
connected cases
K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.A.Nos.1515, 1545, 1677, 1678 & 1978 of 2017
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of October, 2019
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran,J:
The appeals arise from a common judgment in seven writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed challenging the selection to the post of Assistant Professor [Life Science/Bio-technology with specialisation in Molecular Biology] and Assistant Professor [Life Science/Bio-technology with specialisation in Genetic Engineering] in the Cochin University of Science and Technology [CUSAT].
2. WP(C) No.23829 of 2015 was filed by one Dr.Rehna Augustine, who came second in the selection to the post which required specialisation in Molecular Biology. WP(C) No.23406 of 2015 is filed by Dr.Sooraj M. Basheer, who came second in the selection to the post requiring specialisation in Genetic Engineering. WP(C) No.36153 of 2015 was filed by one Rohini P.C., who applied for both the posts, but was not included in either of the lists after final evaluation. The challenge was to the entire process WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 8 - connected cases of selection as illegal and unlawful. WP(C) No.33795 of 2016 is filed by Dr.Baby Chakrapani P.S., who obtained first rank in the selection to the post requiring specialisation in Molecular Biology, seeking his appointment to that post. WP(C) No.30140 of 2015 was filed by two petitioners, who obtained respectively 7th and 8th ranks in the selection to the posts requiring specialisation in Microbiology and Genetic Engineering respectively, which judgment has not been appealed against. WP(C) Nos.14287 of 2015 & 13668 of 2015 relate to a challenge against a preliminary screening test notified by the CUSAT, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge, against which no appeal is filed. WP(C) Nos.23829 of 2015, 36153 of 2015 & 33795 of 2016 were disposed of by directing the CUSAT to evaluate the Ph.D. obtained by Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur in terms of Annexure R3(b) Circular produced along with the statement filed by the UGC in WP(C) No.23829 of 2015.
3. Dr.Rehna Augustine has filed appeals from WP(C) Nos.23829 of 2015, 23406 of 2015 and 36153 of 2015 as also WP(C) No.33795 of 2016. Dr.Sooraj M. Basheer has filed appeal from the writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr.Ajith Vengellur.
WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 9 -connected cases
4. Dr.Baby Chakrapani was selected to the post of Assistant Professor requiring specialisation in Molecular Biology and Dr.Ajith Vengellur to the post requiring specialisation in Genetic Engineering; having obtained first rank in the respective selections carried out by the University. Dr.Rehna Augustine challenges the appointment of Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Sooraj M. Basheer challenges the appointment of Dr.Ajith Vengellur. The challenge against both the successful candidates is first urged on the ground that their applications were delayed. Exhibit P22 produced in the writ petition from which W.A.No.1978 of 2017 arises indicates the date of receipt of applications of Dr.Ajith Vengellur and Dr.Baby Chakrapani respectively to be on 15.05.2015 and 04.05.2015. According to the petitioners, the notification produced as Exhibit P1 in the writ petitions have the last date as 24.05.2015. It is argued that the University had accepted the delayed applications and this itself shows the preference of the officials of the University for the selected candidates.
5. As far as Dr.Baby Chakrapani is concerned, he obtained Ph.D. from a University in Germany, which can be accepted for the purpose of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor only if there is an equivalence issued WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 10 - connected cases by the UGC or the University itself. As far as Dr.Ajith Vengellur is concerned, his Ph.D is from a University in the USA and his M.Sc. from a University outside the State of Kerala. Both require equivalence from the UGC or the University. Exhibit P1 notification is specifically pointed out to argue that the clear stipulation in Exhibit P1 is to forward the Eligibility Certificate with respect to qualifying examinations from Universities outside Kerala along with the applications. The notification also stipulated that defective applications will be summarily rejected. Admittedly, the equivalence of the P.G. and Ph.D qualifications were issued by the University far later. In such circumstances, the applications could not at all have been considered, is the contention.
6. With respect to Dr.Baby Chakrapani, it is also submitted that he does not have the National Eligibility Test [NET] qualification, which alone would enable him to be appointed as an Assistant Professor in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2010 as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Suseela v. UGC & Others [(2015) 8 SCC 129].
7. The learned Single Judge looked at Annexure R3(b) produced by the UGC and found that there are two WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 11 - connected cases aspects to be considered as per the said order. The first aspect is whether the Ph.D. has been granted as per the UGC [Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree] Regulation, 2009 and the other aspect was as to whether the Ph.D. awarded by another University, including one from abroad, would be equivalent to that awarded by the University itself. It was found that the University had only considered the equivalence and had not considered whether the qualification is awarded in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009. A consideration was directed in accordance with Annexure R3(b). Admittedly, the University, subsequent to the judgment, has considered the issue and found the Ph.D. of both Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur to be one granted in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009 as also equivalent to that granted by the University and hence eligible for appointment. On the question of the Post Graduate Degree of Dr.Ajith Vengellur, the learned Single Judge found that CUSAT had recognised such qualifications under the provisions of the UGC Act in the past also and that such qualifications are and were accepted and recognised by the University. Even without a formal Certificate being issued, it was construed that all these qualifications are accepted and recognised by the WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 12 - connected cases CUSAT at all times past after Annexure R4(b) was issued. The question as to whether the applications of the successful candidates were in time and whether NET was a mandatory qualification was not considered by the learned Single Judge, though it is specifically raised in the writ petitions filed.
8. We first look at the apprehension expressed by the writ petitioners that the re-notification made was to suit the convenience of Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur and also to accommodate them in the selection, despite their applications being after the last date of the notification dated 24.04.2013. We have called for the records and perused the same and also examined the website of the University. Exhibit P1 notification is dated 24.04.2013. We verified the website of the University in http://faculty.cusat.ac.in. Under the "Older Notifications", we noticed this link:
"VACANCY NOTIFICATION (RENOTIFICATION) ASSISTANT PROFESSORS IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS No.Ad.D3/136/Notif/08 dated 24.04.2013."
On clicking the said link, we get the re-notification and not Exhibit P1 dated 24.04.2013, The re-notification as produced before us, and available from the above link in WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 13 - connected cases the website, indicate the last date for receipt of online applications is 31.05.2013 and 11.06.2013 for the hard-copies to reach the University. However, the re-notification, available in the website does not have a date. We also went through the files produced before us meticulously and could not find any decision for making the re-notification. We are surprised that the CUSAT, a reputed University and a public authority, has manipulated the website in such a manner as to upload a re-notification without any date; extending the last date from 24.05.2013 to 31.05.2013. We also are anguished by the fact that the original notification at Exhibit P1 dated 24.04.2013 is not available in the website as of now. The files with respect to an initial screening test being conducted, which decision was taken after the receipt of the applications, also refer only to the notification bearing No.ADE3/136/notif/08 dated 24.04.2013; which is Exhibit P1. Despite our noticing the gross irregularity, the files reveal that almost all the candidates, even those who challenged the selection, have submitted their applications either on 30.05.2013 or 31.05.2013. The learned Standing Counsel for the University has a contention that the University, in its anguish to find the best equipped for WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 14 - connected cases the faculty positions, had further extended the date. We accept the said contention and ignore the irregularities, since it does not amount to a gross illegality or nepotism in favour of the selected candidates. We, however, caution the University from resorting to such practices, which would raise serious suspicion with respect to selections carried out.
9. Now we look at the contention of the applications being delayed even as per the re-notification. The reliance placed by the writ petitioners is on Exhibits P21 & P22 produced in WP(C) No.23406 of 2015. ExhibitP21 is a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Exhibit P22 is the reply. The date of receipt of application of Dr.Ajith Vengellur and Dr.Baby Chakrapani is intimated as 15.05.2015 and 04.05.2015. Obviously, this is the date on which they applied for the equivalence of their Ph.D. qualification as also the Post Graduate qualification of Dr.Ajith Vengellur. As we noticed herein above, the on-line application of Dr.Ajith Vengellur as seen from records is dated 30.05.2015 and that of Dr.Baby Chakrapani is dated 31.05.2015; both within the last date as re-notified. The learned Standing Counsel also submits that the date of receipt of applications as noticed in WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 15 - connected cases Exhibit P22 are those applications seeking equivalence.
10. Here we also have to consider the argument of Dr.Sooraj M. Basheer that Exhibit P1 required documents supporting the eligibility of the candidate to be furnished along with the application. When substantiating documents are not furnished along with the application, then the application itself has to be summarily rejected, is the contention. We notice that the Ph.D. qualification obtained by both successful candidates, from abroad and the Post Graduate qualification of one of them from an Indian University, outside the State of Kerala; all of which are from reputed Universities. As was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr.Baby Chakrapani, the UGC Regulations of 2018, exempt candidates having Ph.D. qualification from Universities listed in the World Ranking by accredited agencies, within 500, to be exempt from NET qualification. This is only recognising the worth of the qualifications obtained from such Universities having very high ranking in the world itself. Both the Universities from which Dr.Ajith Vengellur and Dr.Baby Chakrapani obtained Ph.D's come within 500 ranking, that too, quite high in the list. There is also a contention that the NET exemption would be so applicable to Dr.Baby Chakrapani, which we will deal with a WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 16 - connected cases little later.
11. As far as equivalence and also the qualification being granted in accordance with the terms of UGC Regulations of 2009, as on the date of selection, it was exclusively within the premise of the University to which the selection is made, to so consider it as per Annexure R3(b) produced by the UGC. We cannot accept the position that such equivalence has to be furnished along with the application. We notice that the time for application was one month as revealed from Exhibit P1 and then extended for six days. This time is very negligible and would not suffice for a proper consideration of the equivalence. We cannot accept the position that a person, on obtaining a Degree, Post Graduation or Ph.D. from a University outside the State or abroad would have to foresee the vacancies arising in every University and obtain an equivalence from all such Universities. Here, we see that Dr.Baby Chakrapani had applied from abroad, where he was gainfully employed. Dr.Ajith Vengellur also was abroad till 2011. Their desire must have been to return back to their country. Whatever their motivation it is a welcome move since the usual lament is against the brain-drain occasioned by reason of migration abroad. We WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 17 - connected cases cannot hold the procedure by which the University accepted the applications for equivalence later to the notification to be irregular. Even if they were selected if the equivalence was not affirmed by the University, obviously they would not be considered for appointment, despite their high rank in the selection. In such circumstances, we reject the contention of the writ petitioners that the equivalence should have been furnished along with the application.
12. Now we look at Annexure R3(b) produced in W.P.(C) No.23829 of 2015 [W.A.No.1515 of 2017] by the UGC. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Annexure R3(b) are as follows:
"This is to further inform you that in terms of the provisions of the UGC (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in universities and institutions affiliated to it)(3rd amendment) Regulation, 2009, the Commission has initiated the process of identifying candidates of various institutions, who have been awarded Ph.D. Degree in compliance of the provisions of the UGC (minimum standards and procedure for awards of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009, so as to exempt them from the requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 18 - connected cases equivalent positions in various universities, colleges and institutions.
However, since the above process is likely to take time, therefore, keeping in view the public interest and the interest of students at large in expediting the filling up of various vacant positions of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in various universities, colleges and institutions, the Commission has decided as an ad-hoc measure, to leave it to the concerned universities, colleges and institutions to decide as to whether the Degree of Ph.D. awarded to various candidates is in compliance of the provisions of UGC (minimum standards and procedure for awards of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009, so as to exempt them from the requirement of minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent position in their universities and institutions".
Hence, Annexure R3(b) noticed the different regulations, which initiated a process by which candidates could be identified for the purpose of exemption from minimum qualification of NET/SLET. This exemption has, however, interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela.
13. We have looked at the Regulations of 2010. We see from Clause 3.3.1 that "NET/SLET/SET is the minimum WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 19 - connected cases eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions"
(sic). The proviso is also to be noticed, which exempted such requirement in case of candidates who have been awarded a Ph.D degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009. It is this proviso which was found to be against the directions of the Central Government issued under Section 26 of the UGC Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela. P.Suseela considered the prayer for exemption of the candidates who had obtained Ph.D as per the Regulations of 2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that merely because the Regulations of 2009 provided for an exemption with respect to candidates having Ph.D from obtaining NET/SLET/SET, it cannot be said that after the Regulations of 2010 came into force the exemption would apply to all those persons who obtained Ph.D as per the UGC Regulations of 2009. This was found to be clearly in violation of the directions by the Central Government under Section 26. This finding applies to those fresh candidates who seek appointment as Lecturers/ Assistant Professors. A person appointed long before the NET qualification was made mandatory in 2010, would be unaffected by the later requirement. In such circumstances, NET/SLET is a mandatory WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 20 - connected cases qualification as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela being a mandatory stipulation as required by the Central Government under Section 26 of the UGC Act.
14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr.Baby Chakrapani took us through a later notification of the UGC to argue that there is a new exemption available with respect to foreign Universities who are listed in the world ranking by accredited agencies. The learned Senior Counsel has produced before us UGC Regulations (on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education), 2018. The specific clause as pointed out is, clause 4.1, I.B, which is as under:
"B. The Ph.D degree has been obtained from a foreign university/institution with a ranking among top 500 in the World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the following: (I) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS)
(ii) the Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai)".
The University from which Dr.Baby Chakrapani acquired his Ph.D. is ranked 84 in the Times Higher Education World WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 21 - connected cases University Rankings 2015-16. However, we are afraid, such an exemption would be applicable only from the year 2018, when the regulations came out with such an exemption.
15. There is yet another argument raised on the basis of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors v. Manoj Sharma & Ors.[(2018) 3 SCC 329] by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University. It is submitted that the aforesaid decision, in paragraph 20 after quoting from P.Suseela, stated so:
"20. Thus, from the above judgment, it is clear that NET qualification is now minimum qualification for appointment of Lecturer and exemption granted to M.Phil. degree holders have been withdrawn and exemption is allowed only to those Ph.D. degree holders who have obtained the Ph.D. degree in accordance with 11.7.2009 regulations, namely, Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure). Although, this aspect has not been noticed by the High Court but since the learned Single Judge has directed the consideration of the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of M.Phil. degree which was obtained by them by distance education mode prior to 2009, it is necessary that their eligibility for the post be examined taking into consideration the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment). The advertisement and selection WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 22 - connected cases for Guest Lecturers having been conducted in the year 2012 when both the Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) and Regulations 2009 of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) were applicable".
(underlining by us for emphasis)
16. The learned Senior Counsel emphasised on the underlined portion. We have to immediately notice that Their Lordships were dealing with the question of whether M.Phil through Distance Education could be considered as an eligible qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors. The issue whether the Ph.D. degree holders who were awarded the same in accordance with the 2009 Regulations was not at all considered in the decision. In this context, we notice paragraph 18 of P.Suseela, which has been followed and affirmed in Manoj Sharma:
"18. The arguments based on Article 14 equally have to be rejected. It is clear that the object of the directions of the Central Government read with the UGC Regulations of 2009/2010 are to maintain excellence in standards of higher education. Keeping this object in mind, a minimum eligibility condition of passing the national eligibility test is laid down. True, there may have been exemptions laid down by UGC in the past, but the Central Government now as a matter of policy feels that any exemption would WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 23 - connected cases compromise the excellence of teaching standards in universities/ colleges/institutions governed by the UGC. Obviously, there is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in this -- in fact it is a core function of UGC to see that such standards do not get diluted".
The categoric finding is that the Central Government, as a matter of policy, was of the opinion that any exemption would compromise the excellence of teaching standards in the institutions governed by the UGC. The above view has been reiterated and affirmed by Manoj Sharma. We cannot find Manoj Sharma having laid down any proposition different from that stated in P.Suseela.
17. Viewed in the above perspective. It has to be found that Dr.Baby Chakrapani does not have the qualification of NET/SLET, which is a mandatory qualification as spoken of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; which stands incorporated in the Regulations of 2009. The exemption in the Regulations of 2009 to Ph.D. holders being against the policy decision of the Central Government was held to be not sustainable. The exemption, hence, by the rigour of the Supreme Court decision, is no more available in the Regulations of 2009. In such circumstances, Annexure WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 24 - connected cases R3(b) proffered by the UGC for exemption of the Ph.D. qualification to be in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009 for the purpose of exemption from NET/SLET qualification has absolutely no effect. Viewed in that perspective, what could be looked into by the University is only a matter of equivalence, which has been looked into and Ph.D. qualifications of both the selected candidates as also the post-graduate qualification of one of them was found to be equivalent and sufficient for the purpose of appointment as Assistant Professor in the University. Equivalence is not an issue dealt with in Annexure R3(b) and it falls for consideration only as per the norms of the University to which the selections are conducted. We have already held that there is no requirement for such equivalence to be furnished along with the application, since the time for making an application under the notification was not enough for applying and getting a certificate of equivalence. We reiterate that the University has looked into the qualifications and appropriate authority has taken a decision and they are satisfied that the Ph.D. and post-graduation obtained from outside Universities are equivalent to those issued by the University itself and satisfies the eligibility condition WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 25 - connected cases for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.
18. Be that as it may, in the case of Dr.Baby Chakrapani, there arises a difficulty insofar as he is not having NET/SLET qualification. There was a feeble argument put forth by the learned Senior Counsel that there was no NET examination conducted in the subject of Bio-technology. However, on going through the files, we have seen the application and the assessment for the purpose of granting of marks, of the candidates, all of whom have NET qualification in the subject of Life Sciences, which Dr.Baby Chakrapani, who has M.Sc. in Bio-technology is entitled to sit for. We have to notice that Dr.Soorej M.Basheer has M.Sc. in Micro Biology; Dr.Rehna Augustine has M.Sc in Agriculture; Dr.Baby Chakrapani has M.Sc. in Bio-technology and Dr.Ajith Vengellur has M.Sc. in Micro Biology and Bio-technology; all of whom are qualified to appear for the subject "Life Science" in NET. There cannot be any contention taken that there was no NET qualification which Dr.Baby Chakrapani could have acquired, since he was eligible to sit for the subject of Life Science, which he obviously did not. The posts to which selection was conducted are both Assistant Professor in Life Sciences/Biotechnology. Except Dr.Baby Chakrapani, every WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 26 - connected cases other candidate had the NET qualification. We cannot be unduly enamored by the award of Ph.D by a foreign university; when the specific statutory regulation prescribe a minimum qualification of NET, over and above the post graduate and doctoral qualifications.
19. There is also a contention that at the time of notification, Regulations of 2009 with exemption was applicable and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Suseela came only on 16.03.2015. We have to immediately notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held the declaration made thereunder to be prospective. The exemption to NET/SLET having been found to be against the specific requirement made by the Central Government under Section 26 of the UGC Act, there could be no exemption allowed even prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after the regulations of 2010 came into effect. We also notice that the actual selection was carried out on 13.05.2015, after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.03.2015. The Regulations of 2018 also would not be applicable to the selection made in the year 2015; by a notification of the year 2013. In such circumstances, we have to find the appointment of Dr.Baby Chakrapani to be in violation of the Regulations of the UGC. We set aside the WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 27 - connected cases same, allowing the writ petition filed by Dr.Rehna Augustine, being the 2nd rank holder, who is entitled to the appointment. The appointment shall be made within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
20. As far as Dr.Ajith Vengellur is concerned, he has NET qualification and both his Ph.D and post-graduation have been found to be equivalent and similar to the degrees issued by the CUSAT itself. After the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Syndicate of the University again considered the issue and found the qualifications to be satisfactory. In such circumstances, the selection of Dr.Ajith Vengellur has to be upheld.
W.A.Nos.1515, 1545, 1677 and 1678 of 2017 are allowed. W.A.No.1978 of 2017 is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Vku/ WA.No.1515 of 2017 & - 28 - connected cases APPENDIX OF WA 1515/2017 RESPONDENT'S/S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.AD.D2/BIOTECH/ASST. PROF/2015 DATED 15.7.2017.
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT. ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE MET ON 15.7.2017.
ANNEXURE R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
ANNEXURE R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AD.D2/BIO.TECH/ASST.PROF/2015 DATED 18.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
[TRUE COPY]