Kerala High Court
Dr.Anju T.R vs Cochin University Of Science And ... on 17 July, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/1ST ASHADHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 13668 of 2015 (G)
-------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
-------------------------
DR.ANJU T.R.,
WIFE OF ARUN CHANDRAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 'USHUS', ATHANI, KUSUMAGIRI P.O.,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AZIZ
SRI.I.G.MANOHARAN
SRI.N.N.PANKAJAKSHAN
RESPONDENT(S) :
-----------------------------
1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS,
KOCHI-682 022.
* ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED
2. DR.BABY CHAKRAPANI P.S,
S/O.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, AGED 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 'AMBADY', 18/1047-A, S.N JUNCTION,
PALLURUTHY, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM - 682 006.
* ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.07.2015
IN I.A.NO. 9812 OF 2015
R1 BY ADVS. SRI. S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S.C
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
R2 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 22-06-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 14287 OF 2015 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 13668 of 2015 (G)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.D3/1326/NOTIF/08
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF MEMO FOR SCREENTEST.
EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF ONLINE NOTIFICATION NO.RECT./201424/BIOTECH (4&5)/
2014.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE UGC REGULATIONS (2ND AMENDMENT) 2013.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL ADDRESSED TO THE VICE
CHANCELLOR.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TOJUDGE.
Msd.
CR
Devan Ramachandran, J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.13668, 14287, 23406, 23829,
30140 & 36153 of 2015 & 33795 of 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
The essential challenge in this batch of writ petitions, being considered together, relate to the process of selection undertaken by the Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT) to the posts of Assistant Professor (Life Science/Biotechnology with specialisation in Molecular Biology) and Assistant Professor (Life Science/Biotechnology with specialisation in Genetic Engineering).
2. Since all these cases involve essentially similar issues, reliefs sought therein being concatenated with each other and the nature of the pleadings and submissions being such that those in one would impact the others, it is only appropriate and idoneous that I consider all these cases together and dispose them WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 2 jointly. However, for the sake of convenience I treat W.P. (C)No.23829/2015 as the lead case and any reference to parties and documents in this judgment, unless otherwise specifically mentioned, would be as is obtaining in the said writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, assisted by Sri.S.Sujin, learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Jaju Babu, assisted by Sri.Brijesh Mohan, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Sri.P.A.Aziz, Sri.John Joseph, appearing for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for CUSAT and University Grants Commission (UGC) and Sri.P. Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in some of the writ petitions.
4. The constitutive point of controversy in all these cases is as to how the qualifications of the persons now included in the respective rank lists for the post of WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 3 Assistant Professors as aforementioned have been reckoned and how they have been evaluated for the purpose of inclusion in the rank lists.
5. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23829/2015 is the second rank holder in the list prepared for the appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Life Science/Biotechnology with specialisation in Molecular Biology) while the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23406/2015 is ranked No.2 in the list published for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Life Science/Biotechnology with specialisation in Genetic Engineering). As regards the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30140/2015 is concerned, she is rank No.7 in the list relating to Assistant Professor (Life Science/Biotechnology with specialisation in Molecular Biology) and Rank No.8 in the list relating to Assistant Professor (Life Science/Biotechnology with specialisation in Genetic Engineering). The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.36153/2015 claims that she had applied for WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 4 both the posts but that she was not included in either of these lists after the final evaluation. She has, therefore, challenged the entire process as being illegal and unlawful.
6. Before answering the specific averments and issues contained in these writ petitions, one will have to understand how the evaluation and appointment process has been taken by the CUSAT.
7. The CUSAT issued Exhibit P1 notification dated 24.04.2013 calling for applications in the prescribed format from qualified persons to the post of Assistant Professors in various categories including those mentioned in this judgment. The qualifications were mandated to be as per the 'University Grants Commission 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, 2010' (UGC Minimum Qualifications WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 5 Regulations, 2010), a copy of which has been marked as Exhibit P11. As per this Regulations, the minimum qualification required for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/Institutions is NET/SLET/SET. Clause 3.3.1 of the said Regulations, however, provide that candidates, who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 (UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009), shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor.
8. The persons who are shown as the first rank holders in the rank lists for appointment to the two posts referred to above are petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33795/16, whose name is Dr.Baby Chakrapani (who is rank No.1 relating to Assistant Professor (Life Science/ Biotechnology with specialisation in Molecular Biology)) WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 6 and the fourth respondent in W.P.(C)No.36153/2015, namely Sri.Ajith Vengellur (who is rank No.1 relating to Assistant Professor (Life Science/Biotechnology with specialisation in Genetic Engineering)). The second rank holders in these two lists, as mentioned above, are the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23829/2015 Dr.Rehna Augustine and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.23406/2015 Dr.Soorej M.Basheer.
9. Since several writ petitions are involved in this batch I deem it appropriate that I refer to the parties by name rather than by their rank so as to avoid any confusion in this judgment as we go forward.
10. The area of contest in all these cases is not very large. It pirouettes essentially around the question as to whether the Ph.D. Degrees held by Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur are of such quality that it can grant them the benefit of exemption from acquiring NET/SLET/SET, which is the primary WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 7 unexpendable qualification as per Exhibit P11. I must, however, notice immediately that Sri.Ajith Vengellur also holds NET and therefore, the question regarding Ph.D. may not be relevant to him as much as it is to the case of Dr.Baby Chakrapani.
11. As regards Dr.Baby Chakrapani is concerned, he has obtained a Ph.D. from the University of Freiburg in Germany. The contention of Dr.Rehna Augustine, who opposes his inclusion in the list as Rank No.1, is that Ph.D. held by Dr.Baby Chakrapani would not entitle him to an exemption from holding NET/SLET/SET. It is the specific case of Dr.Rehna Augustine that Dr.Baby Chakrapani does not hold NET/SLET/SET and, therefore, that the Ph.D. that he is holding, should have been evaluated by the University initially, to find out whether it was issued by the German University in conformity with the terms of the UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009. The singular contention of the learned counsel appearing for WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 8 Dr.Rehna Augustine is that clause 3.3.1 of Exhibit P11 Regulations/UGC Minimum Qualifications Regulations, 2010) is explicit in its mandate that only those candidates who hold Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009 would be entitled to be considered for inclusion in the list since the qualification prescribed as a minimum eligibility condition is always the NET/SLET/ SET. He contends vehemently that since the qualification of Ph.D. is only an exemption from the general rule, it has to be construed strictly and within the narrowest possible compass. I am in complete conformity with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for Dr.Rehna Augustine. There is no doubt that Dr.Baby Chakrapani would be entitled to be included in the list only if it is seen that he has obtained Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009. Admittedly, the Ph.D. obtained by Dr.Baby Chakrapani is from the University of Freiburg in Germany. Therefore, WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 9 the question is whether this Ph.D. could be seen to be one acquired by Dr.Baby Chakrapani in terms of the aforesaid Regulations. A submission was made by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan that what is mandated in Exhibit P11 is only that the qualification obtained by his client is to be equivalent to a Ph.D. obtained from one of the Universities in India. He refers to Exhibit P15 certificate issued by the CUSAT in W.P.(C) No.33795/2016, which reads as under:
"Certified that the Ph.D. Degree in Natural Sciences awarded to Dr.Baby Chakrapani P.S. By the University of Freiburg, Germany has been recognized by Cochin University of Science and Technology after due scrutiny by the competent authority on the basis of the certificates awarded to him by that institution, for his thesis on "The role of Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor (CNTF) in the regulation of neural stem cell proliferation and differentiation" submitted after successful completion of the prescribed course work, for the purpose of employment in Cochin University of Science and Technology."
12. From a reading of the certificate that has been issued as above, it is obvious that the CUSAT has done a scrutiny by a competent authority, on the basis of the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 10 certificates obtained by Dr.Baby Chakrapani and has found that it is in order for the purpose of employment in CUSAT.
13. That being said, the question before me is whether this certificate and the procedure followed by CUSAT would satisfy the rigorous mandate and prescriptions of the various UGC Regulations. That made it imperative to survey the various Regulations on this issue and I had, for such purpose, issued an interim order on 30.03.2017, under which the UGC was directed to place on record their views in the matter as to whether it is sufficient that the CUSAT grant a certificate of equivalency or whether it is required that the foreign Ph.D. held by persons like Dr.Baby Chakrapani would be required to be assessed on the touch stone of the Regulations of the UGC.
14. In obedience to these directions, the UGC has placed on record a counter affidavit dated 26.05.2017.
WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 11 They have produced Annexures R3(a) Regulations and R3
(b) Circular, which they say would operate on the field. I will come to those in a short while.
15. As regards the averments in the counter affidavit are concerned, UGC has taken a stand that it is left to the respective Universities/Colleges/Institutions, as an ad hoc measure, to decide whether the Ph.D. Degree awarded to various candidates is in compliance with the UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009. They have referred to Annexure R3(a) Regulations, which is the copy of the UGC Ph.D. Regulations 2009. Under these Regulations, the criterion for grant of a Ph.D. to a candidate by Indian Universities has been specifically mentioned. The method of allocation of supervisor, the nature of course of work and the evaluation and assessment methods are specifically enumerated therein. This being so, it is obvious that any Ph.D to be awarded by a University in India can be done only in the strictest conformity of these Regulations.
WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 12
16. A question appears to have arisen before the UGC thereafter, as to how the evaluation of the Ph.Ds granted by the various Universities in India and abroad will have to be made by the authorities and the institutions before whom such degrees are presented for the purpose of employment and appointment. That led to Annexure R3(b) circular being issued on 29.08.2009, wherein the UGC has ordered as under:
"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 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 Professors or equivalent positions in various WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 13 universities, colleges and institutions, the Commission has decided 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 positions in their universities, colleges and institutions."
The said circular also goes to say that the above procedure will apply in the case of candidates who have obtained Ph.D. Degree from Universities abroad.
17. The picture now becomes slightly clearer than when we started because the stand of the UGC appears to be that there is no blanket bar against a foreign Ph.D. in being considered for appointments to the various Universities/Colleges/Institutions in India. All that the UGC requires is that the process of grant of the Ph.D. will have to be assessed by it in terms of the criterion specified in Annexure R3(a) Regulations/UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009 and that since such process would consume a lot of time to be concluded by the UGC, they WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 14 left it to the respective Universities/Colleges/Institutions, before which these degrees were presented for employment by candidates, to assess it as an ad hoc measure and to decide whether such degrees are in compliance with the provisions of Annexure R3(a) Regulations/UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009. The question is whether the CUSAT has done so which I will deal with slightly lower in this judgment.
18. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, in answer to the counter affidavit filed by the UGC points out that the notification in question, namely Exhibit P1, is not based on Annexure R3(a)/UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009 but on Exhibit P11 Regulations/UGC on Minimum Qualifications Regulations, 2010. As per Exhibit P11, the minimum qualification, as I have already stated above, is NET/SLET/SET and Ph.D. is only an exemption granted therein. He points out that Exhibit P11, which was issued in the year 2010, is in supersession of the earlier Regulations of the UGC of the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 15 year 2000 relating to appointment and career advancement of teachers. He, therefore, says that Annexure R3(b) circular issued by the UGC would have no application to the assessment of Ph.D. under the provisions of Exhibit P11. It is his vehement contention that Annexure R3(b) circular applies only for assessment of Ph.D. in terms of Annexure R3(a) Regulations of the year 2009 and that it would have no application for the assessment relating to Exhibit P11 Regulations of the year 2010.
19. This submission may look lustrous at first glance. However, it has to be seen that Annexure R3(a) is the Regulation of the UGC providing minimum standards and procedure for award of M.Phil and Ph.D. Degrees of the year 2009. All that Annexure R3(b) says is that when a Ph.D. Degree is presented before an authority like the University they would, as an ad hoc measure, have the competence to evaluate and verify whether such degree WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 16 has been obtained by the candidate in compliance of the UGC Ph.D. Regulations 2009 relating to grant of Ph.D. As far as Exhibit P11 is concerned, this is the Regulation of the UGC of the year 2010 relating to minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan's submissions are hinged on the way Annexure R3(b) itself is worded. From the above extracted portion of Annexure R3(b) circular, it is clear that the Commission has initiated the process of identifying the candidates for various institutions for the purpose of the UGC (minimum qualifications required for the appointment and career advancement of teachers in University and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2009. Sri.Sasidharan asserts that the Regulations mentioned in Annexure R3(b) is not Exhibit P11 and, therefore, that the prescriptions in Annexure R3(b) would not apply to Exhibit P11 at all.
WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 17
20. Exhibit P11 is the Regulation undoubtedly relating to the qualifications of teachers and other staff. It does not mention anything about the career advancement of teachers. In that view it may appear that Exhibit P11 is completely a different Regulations from Annexure R3(a) Regulations/UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009. However, the learned Standing Counsel tells me that till the year 2009, the UGC Regulations were a composite one for both appointment and career advancement. He says that in the year 2010, the component of appointment of teachers and other academic staff was taken out and formulated into a fresh Regulation, namely Exhibit P11 and that the provisions relating to career advancement continued to hold the field as per Annexure R3(b) till about 2014 or so. In essence, what the learned Standing Counsel says is that while Annexure R3(b) Regulations is a composite one, Exhibit P11 is the specific Regulation relating to WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 18 appointment of teachers. He, therefore, asserts that everything in Annexure R3(b) circular would apply in its full force even to Exhibit P11 Regulations.
21. This being a view of the UGC in the matter, I am now required to consider the quality of the qualifications obtained by Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur. As regards these two candidates are concerned, they have obtained their Ph.D. from the University of Freiburg in Germany and Michigan State University in USA respectively. It would, therefore, appear that both of them are similarly situated and that they would both require an assessment of the quality of their Ph.D. However, as far as Dr.Ajith Vengellur is concerned, his case is different, as I have already noticed above, because he has already obtained the qualification of NET and, therefore, notwithstanding whether his Ph.D. is found to be unacceptable or otherwise, his position appears to be safe on this count. As regards as Dr.Baby WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 19 Chakrapani is concerned, it is the admitted case that he does not possess NET/SLET/SET and that he has only a Ph.D. Degree from Germany, Therefore, it becomes vital to assess as to whether the qualification of Dr.Baby Chakrapani is in terms of the UGC Ph.D. Regulations 2009.
22. As I have already mentioned above, it is not merely sufficient that the candidate show that his/her qualification of Ph.D. is equivalent to a Ph.D. obtained through an Indian University. The provisions of Exhibit P11 being so strict, and justifiably so, so as to ensure the highest standards in education, such Ph.D. will have to conform to the requirements under the UGC Ph.D. Regulations 2009, it is not enough that a mere equivalency is declared. Even if an equivalency is declared by the CUSAT or by the Indian Association of Universities, as they are empowered, I am certain that it will not suffice, since the Ph.D. held by Dr.Baby WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 20 Chakrapani, even if found to be equivalent, may not be in conformity with the Regulations mentioned above. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the CUSAT in terms of Annexure R3(b) circular to verify and assess whether the Ph.D. presented before them by Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur is in terms of the Regulations 2009 of the UGC relating to grant of Ph.D. Degree. To that extent the submissions of Sri.Sasidharan relating to equivalency is completely justified and I have no hesitation in accepting the same as being the correct position of law.
23. That having been said, the position is ineluctable, as I have already recorded above, that the UGC does not say that every Ph.D. from outside India is to be jettisoned. It only says that those degrees will also have to be assessed and evaluated in terms of the Regulations of the year 2009 relating to the award of Ph.D. Degree. Therefore, if a candidate produces the degree before the CUSAT and the CUSAT evaluates and WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 21 verifies it in terms of the relevant Regulations and finds it to be in conformity with those Regulations, I have no doubt in my mind that such Ph.D. can also be reckoned for the purpose of employment.
24. The question is whether the CUSAT has done so.
25. The certificate issued by the CUSAT to Dr.Baby Chakrapani, namely Exhibit P15 in W.P.(C)No. 33795/2015, which is extracted above in paragraph 11 of this judgment, certifies that the Ph.D. obtained by him has been found to be acceptable through a scrutiny by the competent authority for the purpose of employment in CUSAT. Sri.Sasidharan asserts vehemently that this is not a certificate as is required under Exhibit R3(b) circular. He says that all that the CUSAT is done is to say that the Ph.D. of Dr.Baby Chakrapani from the University of Freiburg, Germany has been recognised by the CUSAT after due scrutiny. According to him, this is not the manner in which Annexure R3(b) circular permits and WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 22 mandates the evaluation and scrutiny of the Ph.D. It is his specific case that the Ph.D. obtained by Dr.Baby Chakrapani ought to have been specifically assessed by the CUSAT in terms of Annexure R3(b) circular, which according to him, has not been done, thereby disentitling him to be included in the list. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan appearing for Dr.Baby Chakrapani, on the other hand, says that what is required under Annexure R3(b) is only that the University concerned, namely CUSAT, is to take a decision as to whether the Ph.D. obtained by his client was in compliance with the UGC Ph.D. Regulations 2009 relating to grant of Ph.D. Degree. He says that this scrutiny was done by the CUSAT and that it is on the basis of such scrutiny and on finding his Ph.D. to be in terms of the Regulations that Exhibit P15 certificate was issued to him. He says Exhibit P15 cannot have any other meaning attributed to it except that the Ph.D. had been found acceptable by the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 23 CUSAT in terms of Annexure R3(b) circular.
26. The learned Standing Counsel submits that none of the petitioners who are opposing the inclusion of Dr.Baby Chakrapani or Dr.Ajith Vengellur have a case that the CUSAT has not yet made a scrutiny of their qualifications in terms of Annexure R3(b). However, it is to be seen that Dr.Soorej M.Basheer has, in his writ petition, sought a declaration that Dr.Ajith Vengellur is not qualified and entitled to be considered for appointment because his Ph.D. is not in terms of the UGC Ph.D. Regulations, 2009. Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr.Soorej M.Basheer says that in the case of Dr.Ajith Vengallur, it is not merely that his Ph.D. has not been properly verified but also that his Post-graduate Degree, which concededly he obtained from GB Pant University in Uttarakhand, has not been properly verified by the CUSAT before including him. If that be so, and in any event of the matter, I am of the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 24 view that an assessment as to whether their respective qualifications have been properly verified by the CUSAT in this case would remain to be relevant and pertinent.
27. The inclusion of Dr.Ajith Vengellur and Dr.Baby Chaprani has also been impugned in these writ petitions, as I can see, on the allegation that the assessment of their experience and qualification has not been done in terms of the extant UGC Regulations. Even though Dr.Rehna Augustine refers to Exhibit P4, being the format of such evaluation prescribed by the UGC, the learned Standing Counsel says that Exhibit P4 does not really relate to the posts in question in these cases but only to the post of Humanities. According to him, the assessment made in these cases by the CUSAT, as per the evaluation sheets of the relevant candidates, had been done strictly in accordance with the provisions of the applicable UGC Regulations. He refers to the order of the CUSAT dated 01.07.2014, adopting the criterion for selection of WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 25 teachers in the University, under which the evaluation of the candidates was done strictly in terms of such Regulations.
28. I have referred to the above contentions also in this judgment because I see that there is an allegation made by Dr.Rehna Augustine that Dr.Baby Chakrapani has been granted additional marks in Exhibit P7 evaluation even though he is not entitled to such marks. She says that Dr.Baby Chakrapani did not undergo a course of more than four weeks in duration to entitle him to three points under the scheme of evaluation and that he did not undergo a course of five days to two weeks in duration entitling him to an additional mark under the evaluation, as has been done by the CUSAT. Unfortunately, the pleadings on record was amorphous in this issue and I was not able to find a definite answer for these asseverations looking at the pleadings. I had, therefore, directed the learned Standing Counsel to bring WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 26 the files relating to Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur including them in the rank list. This has been now done by the learned Standing Counsel and I had examined the same.
29. The files indicate that Dr.Baby Chakrapani had undergone an intensive imaging session at Hardward Centre for Biological Imaging during the period from 29.06.2014 to 09.07.2014. The CUSAT has found this session to be over a week in duration, entitling him to one mark under the evaluation. The files also show that Dr.Baby Chakrapani had completed a 'Graduate Level Professional Development in Winter 2014 Course' conducted by the Van Andel Institute, Germany for more than four weeks. The learned Standing Counsel says that the grant of three marks on this account was, therefore, justified in the case of Dr.Baby Chakrapani.
30. When I made an assessment of the files in this manner, Sri.Sasidharan objected to it because he says WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 27 that these assertions had not been made by the petitioner in the format of the application that he made before the CUSAT in terms of Exhibit P1 notification. He says that none of these qualifications have been pleaded by Dr.Baby Chakrapani at the time when he made the application for selection to the post. Sri.Sasidharan also says, which submission is supported by Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, that the last date for receipt of the application under Exhibit P1 was 24.05.2013 and the credentials shown by Dr.Baby Chakrapani, based on a training that he undertook in May 2014, could not have been and ought not to have been considered. They say that it is, therefore, that Dr.Baby Chakrapani had not claimed it along with his application which they say was done rightly.
31. The learned Standing Counsel refutes these submissions by pointing out Exhibit P1 notification, wherein there is no stipulation that the evaluation WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 28 credentials obtained by the candidates must be before the last date for submission of the application. He says that, as per the notification, it is only sufficient and necessary that the candidates produce all their certificates at the time of assessment and evaluation. According to him, the assessment and evaluation of the candidates were done on 11th and 12th of May, 2015 and that by then the certificates produced by Dr.Baby Chakrapani, relating to additional research sessions, had already been placed on record. He says that this is the same case with Dr.Rehna Augustine, whom Sri.Sasidharan is representing in this writ petitions, and that her certificates are also with respect to the periods post the last date of submission of the application under Exhibit P1, namely 24.04.2013. He has pointed out the certificates relating to Dr.Rehna Augustine from the files during hearing of the matter to me. I have verified the said certificates and found that these submissions are WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 29 well founded. In fact, the files would also show such instances have been allowed in the case of various other candidates also thereby fortifying the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the evaluation credentials of the candidates were reckoned on the date on which the evaluation was done and not on the date on which the applications were made.
32. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel for Dr.Rehna Augustine, however, affirms his submissions as above relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Chathurvedi v. University of Rajastan (1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 168) and contends rather vociferously that in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualification is to be judged, it will have to be reckoned as the last date for making the applications. He also cites other judgments, namely, Dr.M.V.Nair v. Union of India and Others ((1993) 2 WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 30 SCC 429), Mehaboob Razool v. Public Service Commission (1995 (2) KLT 718), Sadanandan V.T. v. State Bank of Travancore (1996 KHC 587), Sudeesh T.Balaraman v. State (1997 (1) KLT 837) and Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others v. Chander Shekhar and Another ((1997) 4 SCC 18) in support and strength of his contentions as above. There cannot be any difference of opinion in the proposition of law as stated by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan. All the judgments referred to above speak with one voice that a candidate, responding to a notification, should have acquired the essential qualification as on the date of application and not on the date of selection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.M.V.Nair (supra) has reaffirmed this principle in paragraph 9 that it is always the last date for receiving the application which is relevant unless the notification in question specifies a different date.
WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 31
33. The law is certainly so but I am afraid that the ratio of the above judgments may not apply to the specific facts of this case. This is because, the essential qualification for a candidate to respond to Exhibit P1 notification was that they either have NET/SLET/SET or a Ph.D. in lieu of the same. Since no specific date is mentioned in Exhibit P1, the relevant date on which the candidates must obtain the qualification as above would be the last date of submission of the application. There could be no question about this. The pleadings on record would indicate that all the candidates referred to in this judgment were qualified as on the date of submission of the application.
34. What is in question herein, however, is not the essential qualification but certain other criterion, with which each of those candidates, who already had the essential qualifications, were further evaluated for assessment of their academic excellence and experience.
WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 32 Exhibit P1 notification does not specify that such evaluation will be made only with respect to the experience and credentials obtained by the candidates at the time of application. Since the candidates had all obtained the essential qualifications at the time of submission of their applications, the ratio of the judgments referred to above have been fully satisfied and the fact that the evaluation criterion was considered later, at the time of such evaluation would not in any manner fall foul of the requirements of law.
35. In the present case, this is all the more pertinent because, as I have already indicated above, the benefit of the credentials obtained by the candidates even post the last date of submission of the application has been granted to all of them, including Dr.Rehna Augustine, as can be seen from the files.
36. In any event of the matter, since Exhibit P1 is conspicuously silent as to the date on which the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 33 candidates obtain the credentials required as per the Regulations, I do not think that the action of the CUSAT in accepting them even after the last of receipt of the application until the date on which the evaluation was made is not irregular or improper. I say this because what is required to be assessed is the excellence at the time of evaluation of the candidates. Exhibit P1 notification also does not say the date on which the candidates are to obtain such evaluation credentials. It only says that the evaluation will be based on the certificates to be presented by them at the time of such evaluation and it does not prescribe a cut off date to be the last date of application. In the absence of any such cut off date being fixed in the application, the CUSAT was justified in taking into account even the experience/ credentials obtained by the candidates post Exhibit P1 notification and after the last date of application since what was being assessed was the excellence of the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 34 candidates, without being manacled by a pedantic and formalistic approach. In such view of the matter, I have no doubt that the action of the CUSAT in making the assessment in terms of the credentials shown by the candidates at the time of evaluation would obtain sustenance in law and is for good reason.
37. Sri.John Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.36153/2015, Smt.Rohini P.C. began his contentions by saying that the acceptance of the qualifications of the candidates, namely Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur, are per se illegal because, according to him, as per the notification issued by CUSAT all such credentials and qualifications had to be accompanied by an Eligibility Certificate to be issued by the CUSAT. He says that both the candidates did not obtain such Eligibility Certificates from the CUAT and therefore, that their qualifications ought not to have been considered. I am afraid, I cannot find force in these WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 35 submissions for several reasons. For the first, the notification does not say what is meant by an Eligibility Certificate. For the second, the notification does not say that the Eligibility Certificate has to be obtained by the candidates and granted by the CUSAT in a particular manner. When these are completely unclear, it will be rather imprudent to say that the candidates ought to have obtained an Eligibility Certificate prior to their submissions of the certificates. Having said that, the reason that I find the most pertinent is that all these credentials and qualifications are to be presented by the candidates in terms of the relevant Regulations of the UGC and whatever be the terms of the notification issued by the CUSAT, such qualifications will only be required to be presented in terms of such Regulations and any dissonance from such would be impermissible and not condoned by this Court. Since there is no case that either Dr.Baby Chakrapani or Dr.Ajith Vengellur had not WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 36 presented their qualifications in terms of the UGC Regulations, such contention would find no vigour in law because these are issues which are squarely within the domain of the competent Regulations of the UGC.
38. For the above, I can only hold that the certificate issued by the CUSAT certifying that the qualifications are equivalent or recognised or accepted by the CUSAT would amount to be the Eligibility Certificate under this notification.
39. Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, at this time points out that even though the notification requires the grant of Eligibility Certificate/Equivalency Certificate/ Satisfaction Certificate, as stated above, to be produced along with the application, the files would show that such certificates were issued by the CUSAT only after the actual selection and after the rank list was created. He refers to paragraph 2 of the statement filed by the CUSAT in W.P.(C)No.23406/2015, which reads as under:
WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 37 "As per the University Order No.Ac.C1/Recog/2014 P.F. (I) dated 04.07.2015, "All requests for granting regulation of degrees awarded by the Universities/ Institutions outside India shall be placed before the Deans Committee for scrutiny and recommendations and the Vice Chancellor is authorized to grant approval for such recommendations, subject to placing it before the Academic Council for consideration and approval."
Accordingly both the Post Graduation awarded to Dr.Ajith Vengellur by the G.B.Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and the Ph.D. Awarded to him to the Michigan State University were recognized by the Deans Committee vide Certificate No.AC.C1/ Recogn./2015(PF) dated 15.07.2015 and No.AC.C1/ Recogn./Eleg.2015/(PF) dated 21.07.2015."
40. The averments in the statement as extracted above, would show undoubtedly that the recognition and acceptance of the degrees and the credentials submitted by the various candidates were only made on 21.07.2015, based on the University orders dated 04.07.2015 and 15.07.2015. The rank list was prepared on 02.07.2015. Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, says that the recognition and acceptance after the rank list was prepared is an ex post facto exercise by the CUSAT and that it cannot, therefore, hold good in law. These WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 38 submissions certainly are worthy of a second look and I, therefore, made an attempt as to find out why the University had not given the Eligibility Certificate or the Recognition Certificate until 21.07.2015. The learned Standing Counsel answers this issue by referring to Exhibit R4(h), which is a certificate issued by the CUSAT, produced in W.P.(C)No.36153/2015. The said certificate reads as under:
"This is to certify that all regular degrees/diplomas and other academic distinctions specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act, awarded nu Statutory Universities approved by the University Grants Commission, stand recognized by Cochin University of Science and Technology for the purpose of employment and higher educationa in the University.
Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Uttarakhand, is a State University recognized by the University Grants Commission. Hence it is certified that the M.Sc. Agriculture in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology stand recognized for the purpose of employment and higher educational in Cochin Unviersity of Science and Technology. This certificat is issued to dr.Ajith Vengellur, Vengellur Mana, Kalldipatta P.O., Pattambi, Kerala - 679 313 for the purpose of Higher Education in Cochin University of Science and Technology."
WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 39 This certificate is issued on 15.07.2015, which is also after the date on which the rank list came into effect. However, the certificate says that the CUSAT has certified that all regular degrees/diplomas and other academic distinctions specified by the UGC, under Section 22 of the UGC Act, that are awarded by the Statutory Universities and approved by the UGC, stand recognised by the CUSAT. The said document, namely Exhibit R4(h) from which the above extraction is done, also contains a list of institutions which are thus recgonised and accepted by the CUSAT and the same has been placed on record as Exhibit R4(g), along with the counter affidavit Dr.Ajith Vengellur in W.P.(C)No. 36153/2015. Since the qualifications in question relating to both Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur relate to those qualifciations which are specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act,it can only mean that the CUSAT had recognised such qualifications under the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 40 provisions of the UGC Act in the past also and hence that such qualifications are and were always accepted and recognised by it. In such view, even without a formal certificate being issued, it can only be construed that all these qualifications are accepted and recognised by the CUSAT at all times past after Exhibit R4(b) was issued by them and continues to be so in the present. The submissions of Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Senior Counsel, therefore, fails.
41. Various other contentions are also raised by Sri.John Joseph, learned counsel appearing for Smt.Rohini P.C., especially with respect to the fact that his client was found excellent during the preliminary screening process but eliminated in the final evaluation. He singularly makes the submissions on the fact that as per the evaluation criterion, no marks are awarded for NET even though eight marks are awarded for the Ph.D. I have no doubt that this submission is completely and totally WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 41 justified but unfortunately, even if his client is granted the eight marks for NET, as has been granted in the case of persons holding Ph.D., there would be no difference because even after such addition it is conceded by the learned counsel that his client would not make the rank above Dr.Baby Chakrapani or Dr.Ajith Vengellur. Hence, even though this submission, as I have already found above, is justified since the non grant of marks for NET, which is the essential qualification, when a mark of 8 is granted for a person who is holding a Ph.D., which is an alternative qualification, does not appear to be reasonable or rational at all. I do not, however, deem it necessary to conclude upon it affirmatively in this judgment, since it would only become an academic issue and I feel it apposite that I leave it for a better case in a later occation.
42. In a summation of the rather large amount of facts that I have recorded above and my observations as afore, I am of the view that the challenge mounted by the WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 42 petitioners against the selection of Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur cannot be allowed immediately and without further evaluation.
43. It is ineluctable, going by the various Regulations on record of the UGC, that Ph.D. of Dr.Baby Chakrapani could have been accepted by the CUSAT only after following the mandate of Annexure R3(b) circular issued by the UGC dated 27.08.2009. This obligates the University to decide as to whether the Ph.D. of Dr.Baby Chakrapani is in compliance with the provisons of the UGC Ph.D. Regulations 2009. The certificate issued by the CUSAT, namely Exhibit P15 in W.P.(C)No. 33795/2016, which is also extracted in paragraph 11 cannot be construed or reckoned to be one that has been issued after following the procedure under Annexure R3
(b). True, the learned Standing Counsel says that the scrutiny committee while issuing such certificate had followed the same procedure as is warranted under WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 43 Annexure R3(b) circular. However, nothing has been placed on record, even in the files produced, to show that this has been done in the manner as is mandated in the circular of the UGC.
44. In the case of Dr.Ajith Vengellur, this issue may not be so very relevant because he is already an NET qualified person. However, since the CUSAT has granted him an additional two marks for possessing a Ph.D. along with NET, it also becomes incumbent upon them to verify whether his Ph.D. answers the criterion as per Annexure R3(b) circular. This is not seen to have been done in the files maintained by the CUSAT even though I had verified it quite in detail.
45. As regards the marks awarded to the candidates are concerned, I do not find that it is dissonance with the mandate of the UGC relating to such grant. As I have already recorded above, the award of marks to Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Ajith Vengellur has WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 44 been given based on the relevant criterion and has been awarded correctly and without fault.
46. Therefore, the only issue that remains now is whether the Ph.D. obtained by these two candidates had been properly verified by the CUSAT. Since this has not seen to have been done, I am certain that their continuance in the list and their appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the respective departments would depend upon an evaluation of their Ph.D. by the CUSAT following the mandate under Annexure R3(b) circular.
47. In such view of the matter, I dispose of W.P.(C) Nos.23829/2015, 36153/2015, 23406/2015 and 33795/2016 directing the CUSAT to evaluate the Ph.D. obtained Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur in terms of Annexure R3(b) circular produced along with the statement filed by the UGC in W.P.(C)No.23829/2015 and then decide whether these two candidates could be WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 45 allowed to continue in the list and to be appointed as Assistant Professors in their respective departments.
48. I notice that as regards Dr.Baby Chakrapani is concerned, there is an interim order against his appointment pending the writ petition and therefore, obviously he has not been appointed. However, in the case of Dr.Ajith Vengellur, since there was no order of stay obtained from this Court, Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, submits that he has already been appointed.
49. At any rate and even if such appointment has been effected or otherwise, I am certainly of the view that if, for any reason, the CUSAT after an evaluation of the Ph.Ds, finds either of them to be not qualified in terms of the UGC Regulations 2009, they will not be entitled to continue in the post since it is a mandatory requirement under the notification and Exhibit P11 Regulations that only those candidates who are fully and explicitly WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 46 qualified by possessing a Ph.D. in lieu of an NET can be allowed to continue.
50. In the case of Dr.Ajith Vengellur, since he is already holding an NET, if his Ph.D. is not found to be in terms of the Regulations, the ten marks granted to him will have to be then withdrawn and his place in the rank list will have to be re-worked.
51. Needless to say, the exercise as above shall be done, notwithstanding the certificates issued by the CUSAT earlier declaring equivalency or recognition of the Ph.Ds obtained by Dr.Baby Chakrapani and Dr.Ajith Vengellur, since as I have already found earlier, such evaluation is not sufficient and a proper scrutiny of the Ph.Ds obtained by them in terms of Annexure R3(b) circular of the UGC is imperative and exigent.
52. The process of evaluation as has been ordered in this judgment shall be completed by the CUSAT without any further delay and as expeditiously as possible WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 47 but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the proceedings of such evaluation will be communicated by the CUSAT to Dr.Baby Chakrapani, Dr.Ajith Vengellur, Dr.Rehna Augustine and Dr.Soorej M.Basheer.
As regards W.P.(C)Nos.31040/2015 and 14287/2015 and 13668/2015 are concerned, they relate to a challenge against a screening test, that was notified to be done by the CUSAT, before the assessment of the candidates were done in terms of Exhibit P1 notification. However, I notice that by an interim order dated 04.08.2015, a learned Judge of this Court not only repelled their contentions against such screening test but also permitted the CUSAT to continue with such screening prior to the assessment to be made under the notification. It is conceded before me that the petitioners in these writ petitions have not challenged this interim order and that the same has now attained finality. Any way, the screening test was thus WPC 13668/15 & con. cases 48 conducted and it was after such that the candidates were included in the rank list. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 36153/2015, who also has a challenge on these lines, would not be prejudiced because after such screening test, she was included for the final evaluation but was found ineligible after such evaluation. I, therefore, find no reason to entertain any further prosecution in these writ petitions and therefore, close them in view of my observations in this judgment as above.
Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv