Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1112 (KER)

Mary Senteria P. S. v. Mahatma Gandhi University

2011-11-11

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

body2011
Judgment : 1. The rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of School of International Relations and Politics, by Ext.P3 communication issued by the University is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The rejection is mainly for the reason that the petitioner does not have the required number of publications as per the U.G.C. norms. The notification issued by the University is produced as Ext.P1. Under the category of Professor, the eligibility for applying shown as item 2, reads as follows: “2. An eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with 10 years experience in Post Graduate teaching, and/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 contributions to knowledge.” Condition No.1 under the General Conditions states as follows: “The appointment against the above vacancies will be made as per UGC norms and reservation principles according to Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes and Regulations Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules and Kerala Service Rules.” Therefore, the applicant should be an eminent scholar with published work of high quality, apart from satisfying other conditions. The UGC norms have also been made applicable. 3. In the notification, under Category A – Professor, against serial No.2 – School of International Relations and Politics, the subject/specialization is shown as “Science Technology and International Relations/Intellectual Property Rights.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the University. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the scrutiny committee has no power to reject the application. They can only place the matter before the selection committee and the ultimate decision will have to be taken by the selection committee after the selection process is completed. It is pointed out that the assumption made in Ext.P3 that the petitioner’s published works are not of high quality under the UGC norms, is also not correct. The petitioner’s specialization in the Doctoral work is International Relations with particular reference to Indo Soviet Relations in 1971-1980. The petitioner has two published works of high quality and she is engaged in research activity as approved Research Guide of M.G. University at Doctoral level. She has got 13 years of post graduate teaching experience as against 10 years required for submitting the application. The petitioner has two published works of high quality and she is engaged in research activity as approved Research Guide of M.G. University at Doctoral level. She has got 13 years of post graduate teaching experience as against 10 years required for submitting the application. Therefore, it is pointed out that she has satisfied all the prescriptions in Ext.P1 notification. What is projected in the argument is that the UGC norms have not prescribed any specified number as regards publications and the notification also does not stipulate any specified number of such publications. It is thus stated that the rejection of her application is totally arbitrary. It is also submitted that the post is reserved for Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian community. The petitioner belongs to Latin Catholic community and was the only candidate eligible. Therefore, the attempt is to deny appointment to her. 6. The University has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit. 7. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that the specialization prescribed for the post is “Science, Technology International Research/Intellectual property Rights.” The petitioner’s specialization in the doctoral work is international relations with particular reference to Indo Soviet Relations. In para 8 it is pointed out that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of specialization and the UGC stipulation regarding the quality of publication. She has two articles to her credit, but those were not in the referred journal. Those are not of the required standard and quality as contemplated in the notification. It is further submitted that what was intended in Ext.P3 was not at all the number of publications, but the quality of the publications which the screening committee assessed, which was not up to the standard. Thus, the apparent stand taken is that the published works are not satisfactory as found by the screening committee and it was not dependent upon the number of works and what is intended in Ext.P3 is the quality itself. 8. In the additional counter affidavit the various clauses of the relevant UGC regulations have been explained. A reading of the said regulations will show that the notification prescribing the qualification is in tune with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment, 1998. In para 12, it is pointed out that two publications of the petitioner appeared in a journal published by an affiliated college. A reading of the said regulations will show that the notification prescribing the qualification is in tune with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment, 1998. In para 12, it is pointed out that two publications of the petitioner appeared in a journal published by an affiliated college. It is also pointed out that even though the petitioner is a research guide, which was granted on the basis of these two publications, that will not entitle her to be appointed as a Professor unless she satisfies the qualification prescribed in the notification. 9. One of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the specialization made in Ext.P1 notification itself is without any specified object and has no real meaning at all. Evidently, the specialization is “Science, Technology International Relations/Intellectual Property Rights.” The petitioner’s specialization in Ph.D. is in International Relations with particular reference to Indo Soviet Relations in 1971-1980. According to the University, the specialization shown in Ext.P1 is an emerging area of the discipline and the petitioner’s area of specialization for Ph.D is Foreign Policy of India in relation to former Soviet Union. The two publications of the petitioner are in the area of terrorism as obvious from the title. 10. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the specialization itself has no real purpose and meaning, this Court cannot go into the said issue because Ext.P1 notification is not under challenge as regards the subject and specialization. The wisdom of the University in providing the specialization for the post of Professor cannot thus be gone into by this Court and this Court will not be justified in sitting in appeal over the same also. 11. We are only concerned with the plea raised by the petitioner that the screening committee has no power to reject an application. The relevant statute is one contained in the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. Statute 4 of Chapter 3 provides for “Selection Committee for appointment of teachers”. Statute 7(1)(a) reads as follows: “7. 11. We are only concerned with the plea raised by the petitioner that the screening committee has no power to reject an application. The relevant statute is one contained in the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. Statute 4 of Chapter 3 provides for “Selection Committee for appointment of teachers”. Statute 7(1)(a) reads as follows: “7. Short list of applicants: (1)(a) For the post of Professor: A Committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor the Syndicate member selected by the Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty concerned may screen the applications and prepare a short list based on relevant norms.” The constitution of the committee, therefore, is by inclusion of Vice Chancellor, or the Syndicate member selected by the Vice Chancellor and the Dean of the faculty concerned who will have to prepare a short list based on relevant norms. Herein, the copy of the proceedings placed before this Court for perusal shows that the members present in the screening committee held on 7.1.2010 included the Vice Chancellor, the Dean as well as a Syndicate member. Therefore, it is an expert body. What is recorded as against the petitioner, is that ‘she does not have the required publications as per the UGC norms.” The committee has chosen to reject all the three applications. There was another meeting of the committee on 23.2.2010 wherein, again the case of the petitioner was scrutinized and it is recorded that “she does not process the specialization and UGC stipulated quality of work nor she did produce high quality publications” and the committee therefore unanimously reaffirmed the earlier decision of rejecting the application. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the subsequent meeting was canvassed only because of the filing of the writ petition by the petitioner which was denied by the learned Standing Counsel for the University. 13. Statute 7 of Chapter 3 when it provides that there can be short listing of applications based on relevant norms, it can be easily seen that the committee is empowered to short list the candidates. Evidently, Statute 7(1)(a) empowers such a committee which is statutory in nature, to screen the applications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the function entrusted to them is so mechanical, that they can only scrutinize the application and place it before the selection committee. 14. In a similar case, viz. Evidently, Statute 7(1)(a) empowers such a committee which is statutory in nature, to screen the applications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the function entrusted to them is so mechanical, that they can only scrutinize the application and place it before the selection committee. 14. In a similar case, viz. in W.P.(C).No.9529/2009 concerning appointment in certain teaching posts in the very same University, with regard to the proceedings of the scrutiny committee, it was held thus in para 4: “I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P1 notification was issued on 11.9.2006. Pursuant to the said notification, 12 persons including the petitioner applied for the post of Reader in Human Resource management/Organizational Behaviour. Thereafter, a screening committee consisting of the Vice Chancellor, a member of the syndicate nominated by the Vice Chancellor and the head of the department scrutinized the applications. On such scrutiny, the screening committee found that none of the candidates possessed the qualifications prescribed for the post and therefore recommended re-notification of the post. Statute 7(1)(b) of Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes 1997 permits such screening. Therefore, it cannot be said that the University was not right in cancelling Ext.P1 notification and in re-notifying the post. The petitioner cannot therefore insist that the University should proceed with the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1. The petitioner who was not found eligible to apply, cannot in my opinion challenge Ext.P9 notification or the decision taken by the University to renotify the post. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.” I respectfully agree with the said view that the relevant statute, viz. Statute 7 permits such screening. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the screening committee has no power to assess the quality of the publications, cannot be accepted. 15. When the notification is read along with the relevant UGC norms, it can be seen that the eligibility prescribed under the notification is in tune with the UGC norms and in tune with condition No.1 which also stipulates that the appointment will be made as per the UGC norms and the applicability of the same cannot be disputed. 16. 15. When the notification is read along with the relevant UGC norms, it can be seen that the eligibility prescribed under the notification is in tune with the UGC norms and in tune with condition No.1 which also stipulates that the appointment will be made as per the UGC norms and the applicability of the same cannot be disputed. 16. Then the question is whether the assessment by the screening committee that the publications are not of high quality can be interfered with by this Court. The legal position in this regard is well settled. This Court cannot sit in appeal over such a decision of an academic body. There are no allegations of extraneous considerations or malafides against the members of the screening committee. In this context, the principles stated by the Apex Court in certain earlier decisions, viz. Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others ((1990) 2 SCC 746) and Osmania University represented by its Registrar, Hyderabad, A.P. v. Abdul Rayees Khan and another ((1997) 3 SCC 124), are relevant. With regard to the scope of interference with the decision of an academic body, in para 32 of Neelima Misra’s case ((1990) 2 SCC 746) the Apex Court has stated thus: “It is not unimportant to point out that in matters of appointment in the academic filed the court generally does not interfere. In the University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao – (1964) 4 SCR 575, this Court observed that the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts in the absence of mala fide alleged against the experts. When appointments are based on recommendations of experts nominated by the Universities, the High Court has got only to see whether the appointment had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance. The High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor has acted. See also the decisions in J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad Univeristy, Raj Bhavan – (1980) 3 SCC 418 and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunkev. B.S. Mahajan – (1990) 1 SCC 305. Therefore, the decision of academic bodies cannot be interfered lightly. No bias or malafies also could be established by the petitioner. 17. See also the decisions in J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad Univeristy, Raj Bhavan – (1980) 3 SCC 418 and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunkev. B.S. Mahajan – (1990) 1 SCC 305. Therefore, the decision of academic bodies cannot be interfered lightly. No bias or malafies also could be established by the petitioner. 17. In Usmania University’s case ((1997) 3 SCC 124) also the Apex Court in para 9 reiterated the principles thus: “We hold that generally the court may not interfere with the selection, relating to educational affairs, and academic matters may be left to the expert body to select best of the talent on objective criteria. What is the objective criteria is a question of fact in each case. Each case depends upon its own facts and the circumstances in which the respective claims of competing candidates has come up for consideration. No absolute rule in that behalf could be laid. Each case requires to be considered on its own merit and in its own setting, giving due consideration to the views expressed by the educational experts in the affairs of their administration or selection of the candidates.” Therein, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in J.P. Kulshretha (Dr) v. Chancellor, Allahabad University ((1980) 3 SCC 418) wherein the Apex Court held that “Ruling of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But University organs, for that matter any authority in our system, is bound by the rule of law and cannot be a law unto itself. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level decides an academic matter, or an educational question, the court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the court out.” 18. Judged in the light of the above decisions, it can be seen that the law is well settled that as regards the selection of candidates for manning a post in a University, a decision of the academic body unless it is in violation of a statute or tainted by malafides or biased, this Court will be loathe to interfere. Judged in the light of the above decisions, it can be seen that the law is well settled that as regards the selection of candidates for manning a post in a University, a decision of the academic body unless it is in violation of a statute or tainted by malafides or biased, this Court will be loathe to interfere. Herein, I have already held that the screening committee has got power under statute 7(1)(a) of Chapter 3 to screen the applications. The decision of the screening committee is not ultra vires. Bias or malafides could not be established by the petitioner, even though an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Whether the articles published were of high quality or not, or are sufficient or otherwise, are matters for consideration by the expert body itself which consisted of the Vice Chancellor and two other expert members. This Court cannot sit in appeal over those decisions or cannot evaluate the quality of articles in these proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner, even though vehemently argued that the counter affidavit has stated different reasons that shown in the minutes, the issue really centered around the sufficiency of the publications of the petitioner. Evidently, it is a matter wherein the screening committee had its own role. They have also stated that the specialization of the petitioner is different from the notified one. 19. It cannot therefore be said that relevant considerations were not made or irrelevant considerations have resulted in the issuance of Ext.P3. For all these reasons, there is no scope for interference on Ext.P3. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.