Judgment :- Petitioner and the third respondent applied for being considered for appointment to the post of Professor in Category ‘A’ of Ext.P3 notification issued by the first respondent University through its Registrar, the second respondent. 2. Going by the Recommendations of the Selection Committee, Statements of marks awarded to candidates, Norms for awarding Index marks to each candidate (provided to this Court in sealed cover), out of 13 candidates enlisted for consideration, six were absent and five were not ranked, while the third respondent and petitioner were ranked 1 and 2 respectively. The reason for not ranking the five candidates was that the Selection Committee decided to rank only those who scored above 30 marks. The petitioner scored 41.5 marks while the third respondent scored 43 marks. 3. This writ petition was filed before the appointment of the third respondent, but immediately after the interview, on the specific allegation that though the third respondent did not have the prescribed qualifications, he is about to be appointed. On 29-11-2006, this Court issued an interlocutory order that appointment, if any, will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Since the controversy revolved around the experience gained by the petitioner and the third respondent, the University authorities were directed to make available such materials. 4. Thereafter, following the selection, the third respondent was appointed, subject to the result of this writ petition. 5. The qualification and experience, going by Ext.P3, are as are prescribed by the UGC/AICTE, Information sheets containing details of the posts to be issued along with application form and could be downloaded from the website of the University. Ext.P3(a) is Notification No. Ad. D3/10121/04 dated 5-10-2005 issued by the University as Information sheet No.II. The minimum qualifications prescribed for Professor in Ext.P3(a) are as follows: “Professor: An eminent scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research, with 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level Institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level OR An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge.” 6. Going by Exts.P3 and P3(a), one has to possess 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, for being considered for appointment as Professor, unless a candidate is an outstanding scholar with established reputation, who has made significant contribution to knowledge. Going by Exts.P3 and P3(a), one has to possess 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, for being considered for appointment as Professor, unless a candidate is an outstanding scholar with established reputation, who has made significant contribution to knowledge. No candidate was considered as an outstanding scholar, to exclude the need of post graduate teaching experience. 7. Reading the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 and that of the third respondent, it appears that it is also their contention that as per the UGC Regulations, the qualification as to experience, as a further alternative, could also be fifteen years’ teaching at under graduate level. Since there is such a specific plea for the University, I deem it appropriate to decide that issue before proceeding further. 8. Ext.P3 notification was issued on 5-10-2005. That is the relevant date for deciding the qualifications and experience to be insisted upon. Ext.P3(a), of even date, states the qualifications which are quoted supra. As on that day, the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications required for the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 were the Regulations that contained the prescriptions by the UGC as to qualifications and experience. The qualifications prescribed in Ext.P3(a), quoted supra, are the verbatim reproduction of the qualifications prescribed in Regulations, 2000. The plea of the University and the contesting respondent that in Regulations, 1998 it was also provided that in exceptional cases, teachers with 15 years of UG teaching/research experience could also be considered, cannot be countenanced on the teeth of the fact that a prescription to that effect in the Regulations, 1998 does not survive Regulations 2000, in view of the fact that Regulations, 2000 were issued by the UGC in supersession of Regulations, 1998. So much so, unless the candidate satisfies the qualifications prescribed in Regulations, 2000, he would be incompetent and outside the field of choice for selection and appointment to the post of professor. 9. The petitioner and the third respondent were considered by the University as possessing 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching. A perusal of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, does not shoe that either of them was ranked on account of his being considered as an outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge, which is an alternate qualification prescribed. A perusal of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, does not shoe that either of them was ranked on account of his being considered as an outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge, which is an alternate qualification prescribed. The comparative evaluation between the petitioner and the third respondent as well as the other candidates has been made solely on the basis of the marks awarded to them on 10 identified norms for awarding Index marks, among which teaching/research experience is at Sl.No.2, providing a maximum of 10 marks with one mark per year. 10. No controversy being raised regarding the qualification of the petitioner, the only issue that arises for decision is as to whether the third respondent was qualified in terms of the prescribed qualifications and experience as regards 10 years’ experience in postgraduate teaching. 11. Exts.P13 and P14 are placed on record by the petitioner as information furnished by the Thangal Kunju Musaliar College of Engineering, Kollam. Ext.P14 shows that the third respondent has taught for 36 hours from February 1991 to July 1991 for the III Semester of MBA (PT), while Ext.P13 shows that the said person had worked as Lecturer in the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the T.K.M. College of Engineering for different periods from 30-7-1990 and that he has also handled the classes for MBA (Part time) of the Kerala University. To resolve the issues arising in this case, the Principal, Thangal Kunju Musaliar College of Engineering, was directed, as per order dated 30th July, 2007, to furnish a certificate before this Court showing whether the third respondent had taught in any post-graduate course, including MBA(PT) in the Thangal Kunju Musaliar College of Engineering for any period other than that shown in Ext.p14. The said certificate was required to show the actual teaching hours of the third respondent during his entire career with T.K.M. College of Engineering. Following that order, along with letter dated 14-8-2007 addressed to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, the Principal of the Thangal Kunju Musaliar College of Engineering, Kollam has furnished the employment details of the third respondent to the following effect: EMPLOYMENT DETAILS This is to certify that Dr. Jagathy Raj V.P., Lecturer-Selection Grade in Electrical & Electronics Engg., Dept of this Institution had worked as: 1. Lecturer from 30-07-1990 to 31-12-1995. 2. Jagathy Raj V.P., Lecturer-Selection Grade in Electrical & Electronics Engg., Dept of this Institution had worked as: 1. Lecturer from 30-07-1990 to 31-12-1995. 2. Lecturer – Senior Scale from 01-01-1996 to 31-12-2000. 3. Lecturer – Selection Grade from 01-01-2001 to 25-4-2001. Qualification at the time of entry into the service-M.Tech (Acquired MBA from CUSAT, Fourth (final) exam was held in November 1990 and Degree was awarded in October 1991) During the above period he had handled classes for 1. B.Tech 2. B.Tech (Part time) 3. MBA (Part time) He was sanctioned leave without allowance from 22-08-1990 to 10-12-1990. He was also sanctioned Deputation for doing Ph.D at IIT, Kharagpur (outside QIP) from 15-08-1996 to 14-08-1999. Classes for MBA (PT) He had served as Project Guide for the final MBA (PT) Project in 1993. He was also helping the co-ordinate or of the MBA (PT) program to arrange classes. That employment certificate dated 14-8-2007 is taken on record as Ext.X1. 12. As can be seen from Ext.X1, the third respondent taught for MBA (part time) from February, 1991 to July, 1991. The said certificate does not disclose that the third respondent had any other post graduate teaching experience in the Thangal Kunju Musaliar College of Engineering. It is also not shown that the said College imparts instructions for any other postgraduate course. I may at once notice that the petitioner has also a contention that MBA is not essentially a postgraduate course. That makes no difference because, the short tenure of teaching experience of the third respondent for the MBA course does not count up to the required number of years of teaching experience of the third respondent for the MBA course does not count up to the required number of years of teaching experience, going by the prescription as to qualifications for the post in issue. Similarly, the service as a Project Guide for the final MBA (part-time) Project in 1993 and help as a co-ordinate of the MBA (PT) program to arrange classes would also be insufficient because, going by Ext.X1, from 15-8-1996 to 14-8-1999 the third respondent was on deputation to IIT, Kharagpur for Ph.D and he appears to have left the service of the Thangal Kunju Musaliar College on 25-4-2001. 13. 13. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the conclusion is inescapable that the third respondent was unqualified to be considered for selection and appointment as professor in the school of Management Studies in the Cochin University of Science & Technology, while the petitioner, having been ranked second in the selection, next only to the third respondent, is the only candidate selected and is therefore entitled to be appointed in the notified vacancy. 14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the following terms: a) All proceedings by which the third respondent has been called for consideration for appointment to the post of Professor in Category ‘A’ of Ext.P3 notification, his selection and consequential appointment to that post are quashed. b) It is declared that the third respondent was unqualified to be considered to be selected and appointed as Professor in the School of Management Studies in the Cochin University of Science & Technology on the basis of Ext.P3 notification. c) It is further declared that the petitioner is the only candidate selected to the post of Professor in the School of Management Studies in the Cochin University of Science & Technology on the basis of Ext.P3 notification and he is therefore entitled to be appointed in the vacancy of that post, notified as per Ext.P3 notification, with effect from the date on which the third respondent was appointed. The petitioner is also entitled to all benefits and placements on account of such appointment. d) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to make the appointment of the petitioner in terms of the above declarations. e) The parties shall bear their respective costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/- On pronouncement of this judgment, the learned counsel for the third respondent requested that there may be a further clarification that the third respondent shall be treated as continuing as Reader in the post in which he was working before his impugned appointment. The clarification, as sought for, is granted.