P. C. ABRAHAM v. UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN — 1972 DIGILAW 162 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. By this writ petition the petitioner has sought to quash an erratum notification dated 2 21972 (Ext. P2) issued by the University of Cochin (1st respondent) making certain modifications in regard to the qualifications and pay specified in an earlier notification dated the 12th January, 1972 (Ext. P1) issued by the 1st respondent whereby applications had been invited inter alia for appointment to one post of part time reader in law. The petitioner has also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents namely (1) the University of Cochin and (2) the Board of Appointments for the post of part time Reader in Law, University of Cochin respectively to forbear from making any selection to the post of part time Reader in Law on the basis of Ext. P2. Yet another relief sought by the petitioner is that the respondent should be compelled to consider the petitioner's application for the post of part time Reader in Law on its merits on the basis of the qualifications specified in Ext. P1. 2. The petitioner is a practising advocate of this court with a very impressive academic record. He took the M. A. Degree in International Relations from the Jadavpur University in 1961 standing first in the order of merit and thereby becoming the recipient of the Bepin Chandra Pal Memorial Medal for that year. Subsequently he passed the Master of Laws Degree examination of the Kerala University in 1967 with a second class and was first in the order of merit in the said examination in his Branch Constitutional Law and International Law. The petitioner was awarded the Sadasivan Pillay Law Prize for the year 1967 by the University of Kerala. He was also the recipient of the Nelluvai Neelakantier's Prize awarded by the Bar Council, Kerala for the year 1965. The petitioner got enrolled as an advocate on 12 61965. He worked as a part time lecturer in law in the Kerala Law Academy, Trivandrum during the academic year 1968-69. 3. Under the terms of the notification Ext. P1 originally published by the 1st respondent the qualifications specified for the post of part time Reader in Law were (i) A First or Second class Master's Degree of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign University in law and (ii) some experience in teaching in a college. 3. Under the terms of the notification Ext. P1 originally published by the 1st respondent the qualifications specified for the post of part time Reader in Law were (i) A First or Second class Master's Degree of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign University in law and (ii) some experience in teaching in a college. Since the petitioner was possessed of these qualifications he decided to apply for the appointment to the said post of part time Reader in Law and accordingly sent his application in the prescribed form by registered post on 12 21972. In the meantime, the erratum notification Ext. P2 dated the 2nd February, 1972 had been published by the Registrar of the University whereunder the qualifications for the post of part time Reader were modified as follows: "(i) First or Second Class Master's Degree of an Indian University or an equivalent qualification of a foreign University in law. (ii) Either a research degree of a Doctorate standard or published work of a high standard. (iii) About 5 years' experience of teaching at a University or a College and some experience of guiding research. Desirable: Not less than 5 years' practice at the bar." Since the petitioner does not possess the qualifications mentioned as items (ii) and (iii) extracted supra he has been rendered ineligible for appointment to the post of part time Reader as a result of the modifications introduced by the impugned erratum notification Ext. P2. The petitioner contends that Ext. P2 has been issued only by the Registrar of University and not by the academic council which is the competent authority to fix the qualifications of teachers and that hence it (Ext. P2) is wholly without jurisdiction and void. It is the further case of the petitioner that the qualifications mentioned in Ext. P2 are not the same as those prescribed by the Ordinances issued by the University of Kerala which are kept alive and made applicable to the University of Cochin by S.62 of the Cochin University Act, 1971 and that hence the action of the Registrar of the 1st respondent University in specifying different and higher qualifications is illegal. The petitioner has also alleged that Ext. P2 has been "issued mala fide to favour some one in whom one or other of the high officials of the University is interested." 4. The petitioner has also alleged that Ext. P2 has been "issued mala fide to favour some one in whom one or other of the high officials of the University is interested." 4. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Cochin University has filed a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of the first respondent. It has been submitted therein that the impugned erratum notification Ext. P2 was issued by the University and not by the Registrar acting on his own and that the said action was taken bona fide with a view to correct a mistake which had crept into Ext. P1 in the matter of specifying the qualifications required for the post of part time Reader in law. The qualifications mentioned in Ext. P2 are identical with those prescribed by the Kerala University Ordinances under Chapter XV for the post of Reader in the University. It is said that Ext. P1 had been issued on the basis of a mistaken assumption that for a part time reader's post it was not necessary to insist upon the same qualifications as were prescribed for the post of Reader. The respondent has stated in the counter-affidavit that after the publication of Ext. P1 the Head of the Department of Law of the 1st respondent University pointed out that the qualifications specified in the said notification for the post of part time Reader were not adequate and that thereupon the matter was reconsidered and the erratum notification Ext. P2 was issued incorporating the qualifications prescribed by the Ordinance for the post of Reader in the University. The allegation of mala fides is strongly repudiated by the 1st respondent as being devoid of any factual foundation. 5. By virtue of S.62 of the Cochin University Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations which were in force in the Kerala University on the date of commencement of the Act in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act are to continue in force in the area of the Cochin University until they are replaced by statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations made under the Act. It is common ground that the rules governing the qualifications of teachers that are now applicable is the University of Cochin are those contained in Chapter XV of the Kerala University Ordinances. It is common ground that the rules governing the qualifications of teachers that are now applicable is the University of Cochin are those contained in Chapter XV of the Kerala University Ordinances. On a reference to the provisions of the said Chapter it is seen that the qualifications required for "University teachers" are prescribed in part (a) of Clause.5 of the said chapter and those required to be possessed by teachers of Colleges and institutions affiliated to the University are laid down in parts (b) and (c) of the said Clause. Paragraphs (1) to (3) of part (a) of Clause.5 deal with the qualifications required for the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers respectively in subjects falling under the two-fold grouping namely, science and humanities. It is stated in paragraph (4) that for University Professors, Readers and Lecturers in other subjects the qualifications shall be those prescribed by the University Grants Commission or the University from time to time. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Readers in paragraph (2) of Clause.5 (a) of Chapter XV of the Ordinances will not apply to the post of Reader in Law since, according to the petitioner, the subject of law will not come under the category "humanities". Reference is made by the petitioner to paragraph (vii) of part (c) of Clause.5 wherein the qualifications for the post of Lecturers and Professors in law colleges have been laid down. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the academic qualification prescribed for the post of Professor is only the Degree of Master of Laws of the Kerala University or an equivalent degree recognised by the said University. The petitioner contends that in the absence of any specific provision in the ordinances laying down the qualifications for the post of Reader in Law the only reasonable course to be adopted by the respondent is to require that the candidates for the post of Reader should possess the qualifications prescribed under the Ordinances for appointment as Professor in the Law College and not any higher qualification. It is contended by the petitioner that there was no mistake whatever in the notification Ext. P-1 which called for correction and that the impugned action taken under Ext. P-2 cannot, therefore, be explained away as a mere correction of a mistake. 7. It is contended by the petitioner that there was no mistake whatever in the notification Ext. P-1 which called for correction and that the impugned action taken under Ext. P-2 cannot, therefore, be explained away as a mere correction of a mistake. 7. The petitioner has relied on the fact that the post of part time Reader in Law was previously held from January, 1964 till January, 1970 by a person who did not possess either the qualification of a research degree of a Doctorate standard or that of having published any work of a high standard. The petitioner has alleged that the only object of the respondents in insisting on the two aforesaid additional qualifications while filling up the vacancy that has arisen by reason of the expiry of the term of appointment of the previous incumbent is "to help some one in whom one or other of the high officials of the University is interested." 8. The first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Law is not a subject that falls within the scope of the expression "humanities" occurring in Clause.5 (a) of Chapter XV of the Ordinances. Even if it is assumed that the said contention of the petitioner is correct and tenable the resultant position is only that the provisions of paragraph (4) of the said Clause will be applicable to the case. By that sub-clause the University is endowed with the power to lay down from time to time the qualifications required for the post of Readers and Lecturers in subjects other than Science and humanities. Though the said function will normally have to be exercised by the academic council, under S.59 (4) (f) of the Act the Vice-chancellor is empowered generally to exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the statutory bodies by or under the provisions of the Act till the Syndicate commences to exercise its functions. It is amply established by the file produced in the case that the erratum notification Ext. P-2 has been published by the Registrar only as per the specific directions given to him by the Vice-Chancellor who had approved the proposal to insist upon the additional qualifications specified therein for the post of part time Reader in Law. On the date when Ext. P-2 has been published by the Registrar only as per the specific directions given to him by the Vice-Chancellor who had approved the proposal to insist upon the additional qualifications specified therein for the post of part time Reader in Law. On the date when Ext. P-2 was issued it was fully within the competence of the Vice-chancellor to take such action for laying down the qualifications required for the said post of part-time Reader in Law. 9. The qualifications prescribed for the posts of Lecturers and Professors of Law Colleges as per paragraph (vii) of Clause.5(c) of Chapter XV of the Ordinances cannot govern the recruitment to the post of Reader in the University Department of Law and I find no merit in the petitioner's argument that it is not reasonable on the part of the University to insist for the post of a Reader qualifications higher than those required for the post of Professor in the Law College. The circumstance that the previous incumbent who had been appointed to the post in question by the Kerala University in 1969 did not possess either of the two additional qualifications specified in Ext. P-2 has little relevancy or bearing in determining the question of the competence of the Cochin University, to lay down the said additional qualifications also as mandatory requirements for eligibility for appointment Co the post of Reader in its service. Subject to any statutory limitation placed on its powers in that regard, it is as much open to the University as to any other employer to decide from time to time, as and when it makes a recruitment to its service, what qualifications should be insisted on in respect of the post to which recruitment is being made. No statutory provision imposing any restrictions on the said power in relation to the post of Reader have been brought to my notice by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, I do not, therefore, see my way to accept the petitioner's contention that the 1st respondent University acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notification Ext. P-2. The plea of mala fides put forward by the petitioner is extremely vague and no materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate the contention that the additional qualifications have been introduced as per Ext. P-2 in order to help any particular individual. The said contention will, therefore, stand rejected. 10. P-2. The plea of mala fides put forward by the petitioner is extremely vague and no materials have been placed before this Court to substantiate the contention that the additional qualifications have been introduced as per Ext. P-2 in order to help any particular individual. The said contention will, therefore, stand rejected. 10. The original petition therefore fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.