Kerala High Court
Dr. Deepa K.G vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 30 October, 2025
2025:KER:81517
RP 605/2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
RP NO. 605 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.3420 OF
2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C):
DR. DEEPA K.G
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O. SRI. V.T.GOVINDAN, VADAKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, EDAT
PO, PAYYANNUR, PIN - 670327
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD
SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P(C):
1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY PO,
KOCHI, PIN - 682022
2 SYNDICATE REPRESENTED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY PO, KOCHI, PIN - 682022
3 SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (PHYSICS)
REPRESENTED BY THE EX OFFICIO CHAIRMAN, THE VICE-
CHANCELLOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY PO, KOCHI, PIN - 682022
2025:KER:81517
RP 605/2025 2
4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, (DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION) NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
5 ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES (AIU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL, 16-AIU HOUSE,
COMRADE INDRAJIT GUPTA (KOTLA) MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110002
6 DR. ANOOP K.K
KILIYANAM KANDY, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673613
7 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI. (SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-
07-2022 IN WP(C) 3420/2018), PIN - 110002
BY ADVS:
SMT.O.M. SHALINA, DSGI
SHRI.PRAVEEN K.V., CGC
SHRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
SHRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, UGC
SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC
SRI. PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)FOR R6
SMT.NISHA GEORGE FOR R6
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.10.2025,
THE COURT ON 30.10.2025 THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81517
RP 605/2025 3
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
R.P. No. 605 of 2025
......................................................
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This review is filed against the judgment dated 25.03.2025 in W.P(C) No.3420/2018, which was filed challenging the selection and appointment of the 6th respondent on the ground that he was ineligible and not qualified for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics) reserved for ETB, vide Ext.P1 notification dated 17.08.2015. There is also a prayer to quash Ext. P14 ranked list and Ext.P15 order appointing the 6th respondent.
2. Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner, instructed by Sri. P. Abdul Nishad argues relying on Regulations 4.4.1 of Ext.P3, UGC Regulations 2010, that the candidate must have cleared the National Eligibility Test, NET, conducted by the UGC, or should have had a PhD degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009, to be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 4 condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in universities/colleges/institutions. Thus, it is contended that the 6 th respondent could not have claimed eligibility for exemption, and therefore, he did not meet the minimum eligibility condition of the NET requirement for selection. In view of the above, the 6th respondent was not qualified to be considered for selection and appointment.
3. It is also argued that the 6 th respondent had claimed that he obtained Master's Degree, i.e., M.Tech in Laser and Electro-Optical Engineering from the College of Engineering, Guindy (CEG), Chennai, Anna University and that no NET/SLET/SET accredited test was conducted for the programme for the Master's Degree obtained by him in M.Tech and therefore, NET/SLET/SET is not required for such Master Degree programme in disciplines for which, NET/SLET/SET accredited test is not conducted as provided in Regulation 3.3.2 of Ext.P3 UGC Regulations, 2010.
4. Learned Senior Counsel argues that NET/SLET/SET was conducted for the Master's Degree programme in M.Sc Physics, and therefore, he was not eligible to claim exemption from the requirement of 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 5 NET/SLET/SET. It is also argued that the M.Tech degree is not in the relevant subject, qualifying for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Physics under Regulation 4.4.1 of Ext.P3 UGC Regulations. It is further argued based on the decisions that qualification is to be tested based on the rules and not the advertisement inviting applications, and no appointment can be made in violation of the Rules. It is also argued that the exemption from NET shall be given only to Ph.D degree holders, awarded, in terms of the 2009 Regulations, and the 6 th respondent, not having obtained the same, must be treated as ineligible.
5. The learned Senior Counsel also contends that there is no finding on the said question that goes to the root of the matter, and in the absence of that, the review petition was maintainable. He also relied on the following judgments to support his contentions: State of Punjab and Another v. Gurdial Singh and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 171], Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., [(2010) 11 SCC 455], Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India and Others [(2009) 8 SCC 273], State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Manoj Sharma and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 329], Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767], Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Bhola Ram Steel Private Limited and Others 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 6 [(2016) 4 SCC 680], Union of India v. EID Parry India (Ltd) [(2000) 2 SCC 223], Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another v. U.P Public Service Commission and Others [(2006) 9 SCC 507], Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2018) 3 SCC 55], Ranjit Kumar Meher v. State of Orissa and Others [(2017) 4 SCC 568], Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association and Others [(1998) 4 SCC 1].
6. The learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, instructed by Smt. Nisha George, appearing for the 6 th respondent, would contend that all grounds available for challenging the selection of the 6 th respondent were taken and noticed in the judgment itself, as is clear from the following paragraphs:
"i. That, the 6th respondent did not claim that he was eligible for the exemption granted to those candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D Degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009 and in the absence of a claim as stated above, the 6th respondent was not qualified and therefore, the candidature of the 6th respondent ought to have been rejected at the threshold itself. ii. That, the 6th respondent did not produce an Equivalence Certificate of Ph.D. Degree Certificates awarded by the foreign university, namely, the University of Naples Federico II, as seen from Exts.P22 & P23, to that of the Ph.D. Degree in Physics awarded by the CUSAT or any of the Indian Universities established under a statute along with Ext.P21 application, under which the last date for applying was 17.9.2015, and going by the stipulation in the notification, late and defective applications ought to have been 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 7 summarily rejected.
iii.That, the 3rd respondent-Selection Committee permitted the 6th respondent, who was ineligible to take part in the selection process, without scrutiny of the eligibility of the 6th respondent. iv.The absence of the claim of the 6th respondent that he cleared the essential eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET and not producing any document to prove that Ext.P23 Ph.D. awarded to him from the foreign university is in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009, he was not eligible to be included in the selection process. v. The 'Course Work' in Physics for the award of Ph.D. being conducted by the 1st respondent-University is entirely different and distinct from the course conducted by the foreign university and therefore, there was no room for declaration of 'equivalence' of a qualification obtained from another university as there can be a declaration of equivalence only between a qualification obtained from a body different from the one awarded by the concerned university. In other words, as the 1st respondent-University does not conduct a Ph.D. course in "NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MATERIALS, SENSORS AND IMAGING- 27th Cycle" there cannot be any question of declaration of 'equivalence' in respect of such a degree awarded by a statutory Indian university.
vi.That the 6th respondent obtained M.Tech in Laser and Electro Optical Engineering from Anna University which is not a subject/specialisation relevant to the subject/specialisation of Physics and therefore, is outside the qualifications prescribed for the post in question.
vii. That, Regulation 4.4.1 of Ext.P3 UGC Regulations, 2010 prescribes good academic record with at least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level "in the relevant subject" from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university would mean that Masters Degree must be closely connected or appropriate to the subject in question and as M.Tech Degree in Laser and Electro-Optical Engineering is not a relevant subject, the 6th respondent could not have been considered for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics). That, neither the Selection 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 8 Committee nor the University had pleaded that the 6th respondent was treated as eligible on the basis that no NET was conducted for the subject of Laser and Electro-Optical Engineering as that was a relevant subject for the Master's Degree for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Physics), the selection of the 6th respondent is clearly illegal as the 6th respondent had admittedly not cleared the NET/SLET/SET test conducted for the Master's Degree Programme in Physics.
viii.That the 6th respondent had produced Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate dated 23.12.2015 of the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) after the last date of 17.9.2015 fixed for the receipt of applications and the certificate produced after the last date could not have been entertained.
ix. That, Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate only stated that the qualification is equated with a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in the corresponding field of an Indian university. "In the corresponding field of an Indian university" cannot mean that it is a certification that the 6th respondent obtained Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2009 for claiming exemption from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET. That, Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate issued by the AIU is not a certificate issued in the exercise of any statutory power as the said body is not one empowered with any such jurisdiction or competence to issue such certificate especially when Ext.P24 Equivalence Certificate is inconclusive.
x. That, no material has been placed on record as to how a declaration of 'equivalence' could be granted without a detailed study more so when the Indian universities do not conduct any course or study for the award of Doctor of Philosophy Degree in "NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MATERIALS, SENSORS AND IMAGING". There is nothing on record to show that the University of Naples Federico II is an accredited university in Italy. That, the Course Work allegedly undergone by the 6th respondent for his Ph.D. Degree was not available with the 1st respondent-University and therefore, Ext.R1(a) certificate issued on 27.4.2017, issued long after the cutoff date of 17.9.2015, was irrelevant and immaterial.
2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 9 xi. That, Annexure R5(b) judgment of this Court in University Grants Commission & Ors. v. Anand J. Illickan & Ors. (judgment dated 19.6.2015 in W.A.No. 847/2015) dealt with a case of appointment of an Associate Professor under the Management/Business Administration which had a statutory prescription of a Ph.D. recognized by the AICTE or declared equivalent by the AIU and in the absence of any such provision as regards the appointment of Assistant Professor (Physics), the said judgment will have no application in the instant case and the said judgment has to be held to be confined to Regulation 4.4.5 relating to Management/Business Administration and in no way a binding precedent as far as the question in issue, in this case, is concerned.
xii. That, Ext.P25 notification can at best be held valid only for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government and not for the selection in question. xiii. The Selection Committee assessed the petitioner's and the 6th respondent's inter se merit in violation of the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), which is to be followed in all selection processes as per the relevant regulations."
7. Learned Senior Counsel would argue that the judgment under review held that the 6th respondent was eligible and qualified, and under such circumstances, a second hearing under the guise of a review cannot be permitted. He also relied on the international list of institutions listed in International Handbook of Universities, Fifteenth Edition 1998, to support his contention that the university from which the 6 th respondent obtained the PhD was a recognised university.
8. The learned counsel for the University, Sri. Peter Jose Christo 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 10 relies on University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D) Regulations, 2016, and a 2018 public notice issued by the UGC, and contends that there is no bar for the university to accept the PhD degree of the 6th respondent as a valid eligibility for selection. It is reiterated that in the absence of any bar for the university in accepting the equivalency offered by the Association of Indian Universities, the contentions of the review petitioner must fail. It is also submitted, based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1964 KHC
570) and Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others (1997 KHC 1435), that a review cannot be converted into a second hearing as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. The writ petition was dismissed on 25.03.2025 with the following findings:
"14. ...................... It is to be noticed that Ext.P1 notification did recognise the acceptability of Ph.D. Degree declared as equivalent by the AIU. There is no express challenge as such to the said stipulation in Ext.P1 notification and the petitioner having participated in the selection process with the said stipulation cannot now turn around and challenge the same 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 11 after the selection process.
15. The UGC which prescribes the qualification for the appointment in question also filed a statement, as extracted above, which shows the acceptability of the equivalence granted by the AIU. Under such circumstances, although Annexure R5(b) judgment pertains to a selection of management faculty, the conclusions stated therein cannot be said to be entirely inapplicable to the selection in question. The contention against the equivalence granted cannot be accepted in view of the statements filed on behalf of the Government of India, the University Grants Commission, the CUSAT and the Government Notification all of which recognise the acceptability and validity of the certificates issued by the AIU.
16. As regards the contention that the documents were furnished by the 6th respondent after the last date for submission, it has to be noted that a declaration of equivalence does not for the first time declare anything new but only declares what is already existing. The Government Notification (Ext.P25) dated 13.3.1995 issued by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education) stating that those foreign qualifications that are recognized/equated by the AIU are treated as recognised for the purpose of employment to posts and services under the Central Government, cannot be discarded more so in the absence of any challenge to the same on the question of lack of power. True, the said Government Notification only dealt with employment to posts and services under the Central Government but it clarified that no separate order for the recognition of such foreign qualifications is needed to be issued. This certainly must be taken as an acceptance of the declaration of equivalence made by the AIU and that read along with the stand of the Central Government, the UGC, the University in question and Annexure R5(b) judgment, I am not inclined to accept the contention on behalf 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 12 of the petitioner that the declaration by AIU is incompetent.
17. It is also to be noted that as per a public notice issued by the UGC on 8.6.2018, regarding equivalence of foreign Ph.D. Degree with Indian Ph.D. Degree as provided in the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D) Regulations, 2016, the UGC had decided that any foreign Ph.D. Degree that is held equivalent by the AIU by following its own procedure may also be treated as valid for exemption from NET for appointment as an Assistant Professor in Indian Universities and Colleges, thus, clarifying that the Universities can use the above provision for determining the validity of foreign Ph.D. Degrees for exemption from NET for appointment as Assistant Professor in Indian universities/colleges. In view of the above, there is no reason why an equivalence determined by AIU should be discarded.
18. The University's/employer's position in this case is crucial as it is primarily for the employer to fix the qualifications and to be satisfied about the acceptability/equivalence of the qualifications prescribed. Ultimately, it is for the appointing authority to take a decision whether the candidate possesses what is required by the post in cases of disputed equivalence as the employer must be held to be the best judge of whom should be appointed. The recruiting agency having been satisfied with the claim of equivalence of qualification by a candidate, this Court cannot vary or delete the conditions of eligibility found fit by the employer. The question of equivalence in such cases falls outside the domain of judicial review. The Courts with the power of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer or to interpret the conditions of the notification or the relevant regulations as courts will exercise restraint while determining equivalence between qualifications. The prerogative of the employer in such cases has to be normally respected.
2025:KER:81517
RP 605/2025 13
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
21. It is trite that the interference of Court in the selection process or academic matters is confined only to cases of glaring illegalities or statutory violations. Courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless there are indications of malafides, emphasizing that when a view is reasonable and plausible, the writ court should refrain from substituting its judgment. The selection committee's function is purely administrative, not judicial or adjudicatory. If no rules require the committee to provide reasons for their selection, they are not obligated to do so, and their recommendations can only be challenged on grounds of malafides or serious statutory violations. When the selection committee comprises subject experts, courts should be hesitant to intervene. Assessing candidates and applying relevant norms is solely the selection committee's responsibility, which should not be second-guessed by the Courts as it lacks the expertise to evaluate candidates' merits, which should be determined by the selection committee. Judicial review cannot extend the scope of qualifications or determine their equivalence; such matters are for the recruiting authority to determine more so when equivalence is a technical academic issue that must be explicitly resolved by academic bodies through their decisions."
11. Thus, the only question to be considered in this review is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review of the findings as regards the eligibility of the 6th respondent.
12. The essential contention raised is that only if the Ph.D is awarded in terms of the University Grants Commission (Minimum 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 14 Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009, can the same be said to be valid. The issue, therefore, boils down to the acceptability or otherwise of the Ph.D awarded to the 6th respondent.
13. It is to be noted that this Court, in the judgment under review, had clearly found that the Ph.D obtained by the 6 th respondent is valid and that he was qualified and eligible to apply for the selection in question. Reasons for so holding were also given in the judgment. Under said circumstances, it cannot be said that the point was not considered while rendering the judgment. The danger of accepting the argument of the review petitioner that only a Ph.D awarded under the UGC Regulations 2009 can be treated as valid is to discard all the foreign Ph.D degrees awarded, even by prestigious institutions, which cannot be the policy of law.
14. True, clearing the NET exam or its equivalent is compulsory in addition to the minimum academic qualifications. However, if candidates had been awarded a Ph.D degree under the UGC Regulations, 2009, they need not clear NET/SLET/SET to be eligible for being appointed. Therefore, the exemption is holding a Ph.D degree as per UGC 2009 Regulations. I have already found in the judgment under review that 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 15 the Ph.D awarded to the 6th respondent is valid, and reasons have been given for the same. Under such circumstances, the contention that I have not considered the eligibility of the 6th respondent is not correct.
15. These issues were considered and answered in the judgment under review, as seen from the findings extracted above, while upholding the selection of the 6th respondent. In view of the above, the 6th respondent could not have been held as ineligible for participating in the selection under question. As regards the decisions submitted on behalf of the review petitioner, the propositions therein admit of no doubt, but the same will not apply to the facts of the case.
16. The power of the Court in a review is limited. It is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Ors. [MANU/SC/1240/2025], which laid down the following principles:
"16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.
17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 16 jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.
18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction. Having noted the appellate and review jurisdiction of the Court, we will apply these principles to the impugned order to determine whether the High Court was within its power of review jurisdiction or had exceeded it by reversing the findings, as if the High Court were sitting in appeal against the order dated 23.09.2022. We appreciate the above tabulated summary of the view taken in the impugned order while doing so."
17. Further, in Northern India Caters (India) Ltd v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167], the Apex Court declared as under:
"8. It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review 2025:KER:81517 RP 605/2025 17 of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so [Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan; AIR 1965 SC 845]. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment [G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta; (1971) 3 SCC 189]. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice [O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi, (1971) 3 SCC 5]."
For the reasons stated above, I do not find any reason for interfering with the judgment under review. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE okb/