Kerala High Court
University Of Kerala vs Dr.B.Beena on 28 January, 2021
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WA.No.121 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-11-2020 IN WP(C) 22005/2020(A) OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034
2 THE CHAIRPERSON,
BOARD OF SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN CHEMISTRY,
TEACHING DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034
BY ADV. SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
DR.B.BEENA
AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. R. RAVEENDRAN,
G.G.I SIVAGANGA, KAVANADU P.O, RAMANKULANGARA,
KOLLAM-691 003 (WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
CHEMISTRY IN KSM DB COLLEGE, SASTHAMKOTTAH).
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021,
ALONG WITH WA.198/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.121 & 198/2021 -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
WA.No.198 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-11-2020 IN WP(C) 22005/2020(A) OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR. BEENA,
AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. R. RAVEENDRAN, G.G. I
SIVAGANGA, KAVANADU P.O. RAMANKULANGARA, KOLLAM,
691 003, (WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, OF
CHEMISTRY IN KSM DB COLEGE, SASTHAMKOTTAH).
BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNIVRSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.
2 THE CHAIRPERSON,
BARD OF SELECTION COMMITTEE
FOR APPOINTMENT OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
CHEMISTRY, TEACHING DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 034.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021,
ALONG WITH WA.121/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA Nos.121 & 198/2021 -3-
JUDGMENT
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 Shaffique, J:
Both the parties have come up in appeal challenging judgment dated 10-11-2020 in W.P (C) No.22005/2020. The writ petition was filed by Dr. B. Beena being dissatisfied with the action of the University of Kerala in rejecting her application for want of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the employer. The University, by Ex.P1 had issued notification for appointment to the post of various disciplines in different Departments. The writ petitioner applied for the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry. One of the requirement for submission of application was that the applicants who are employed should forward hard copies of application 'through proper channel or enclose NOC of the employer'. Even according to the petitioner the NOC could not be given along with hard copy of the application. However, the petitioner has a case that it was sent through proper channel as her PBAS score sheet had been counter signed by the Principal. Though the petitioner was called for interview, her candidature was rejected on account of the fact that the application was not forwarded through proper WA Nos.121 & 198/2021 -4- channel and NOC from the employer had not been produced. The petitioner initially approached this court by filing W.P (C) No.5023/2020 and the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 01-07-2020 disposed of the same directing the University to re- consider the claim of the petitioner for selection. It is pointed out that 3, 4 other candidates had also produced NOC on the date of interview the University was directed to consider their claim as well. The Syndicate of the University after considering the respective claims, issued Ext.P9 order dated 07-10-2020 informing the petitioner that since she had not fulfilled the relevant condition as per the notification and NOC had not been produced along with the application nor she applied through proper channel, her application cannot be considered for selection. Exhibit P9 was challenged before this court by filing the above writ petition. Learned Single Judge observed that the Syndicate of the University did not understand the spirit of Ext.P8 judgment in its entirety and has rejected the petitioner's claim. Accordingly Ext.P9 was quashed and the University was directed to re-consider the petitioner's claim as directed in the judgment in W.P (C) No.5023/2020.
2. The learned counsel for University submits that there are other instances where the applications were rejected for not WA Nos.121 & 198/2021 -5- being submitted through proper channel and for non production of NOC from the employer and the petitioner herself cannot be given any such benefit.
3. On the other hand, appeal is filed by the petitioner as WA No.198/2021 and it is inter alia contended by learned counsel that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the petitioner to be considered for selection taking a view that the petitioner's application was proper. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Screening Committee did not find any irregularity in the application and the petitioner was called for interview. It is at the time of interview that the defect in the application was pointed out. However, at the time of interview, NOC was produced and that would have been sufficient for conducting the selection process.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the University however would submit that the Screening Committee and the Selection Committee was common.
5. Reference is made by learned counsel for the petitioner to Statute 4 of Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statute, 1977 which would indicate that the Screening Committee and the Selection Committee are separate bodies. As Screening Committee did not find non production of NOC as an WA Nos.121 & 198/2021 -6- irregularity, there was no reason for the Selection Committee to have rejected her application.
6. But the fact remains that one of the conditions stated in Ext.P1 is that application of a person employed in an establishment should be sent either through proper channel through employer or the Head of the Department where the candidate was working or the NOC, which ought to be produced along with the application. Though a contention had been raised by the petitioner that the Principal had counter signed the PBAS score sheet, we don't think it amounts to submission of application through proper channel. If the application is submitted through proper channel, the application has to be submitted by the Principal of the institution directly to the University, which apparently was not done in the case on hand. Even according to the petitioner NOC was produced only at the time when she was called for interview. Therefore the application was apparently defective. If the University had rejected many applications on this ground, it may not be proper for this court to direct the University to permit defective applications to be considered. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was not justified in further directing re-consideration of the claim of the petitioner.
WA Nos.121 & 198/2021 -7-
7. Learned counsel appearing for the University submits that though notification was issued as per Ext.P1, no candidates were available for interview and re-notification will be issued immediately. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's application had been rejected for non-compliance of the procedure prescribed in Ext.P1, petitioner will get a further opportunity, if the posts are re-notified and of-course if she satisfies the conditions specified as per the procedure. Taking into consideration all these facts, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the University is directed to re- notify the post, as expeditiously as possible, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Writ appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Sd/-) A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
(Sd/-) GOPINATH P., JUDGE.
AMG