Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 632 (KER)

Mini. B, D/o Babu . T v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-18

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH,J.) [W.P.(C) Nos.26405, 27655 and 28376 of 2024] The petitioners are aspirants for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Fathima Mata National College (Autonomous), Kollam. The petitioners state that after publishing a notification for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors in Hindi, Political Science and Commerce, respondents 6 and 7 conducted an interview and selection and appointments were made overlooking the superior merit and ability of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners state that all the petitioners are PhD holders and in spite of their superior educational qualification, they were not selected or appointed. The interview conducted at the instance of respondents 6 and 7 was not proper. The interview was manipulated in order to help the blue eyed boys of respondents 6 and 7. 3. The petitioners contended that the selection process should be based on awarding scores / marks as prescribed by the Rules. This was not done. Ext.P9 (in W.P.(C) No.26405/2024) has been issued without duly following the selection process. In the circumstances, Ext.P9 is liable to be quashed and directing respondents 1 to 5 to issue strict directions to respondents 6 and 7 to follow Ext.P10 Guidelines (in W.P.(C) No.26405/2024) while effecting the appointments. 4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 6 and 7 and resisted the writ petitions. The Standing Counsel submitted that the selection was conducted in strict compliance of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. As per the Regulations, 2018, the selection should be made on the basis of performance of the candidates in the interview only. This criteria has been followed by the University of Kerala which has issued order dated 09.09.2021, wherein also it has been stated that ranking / selection shall purely be on the basis of the marks obtained in the interview. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3, respective learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 4 to 7 and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that a selection has been conducted by the College Authorities, ignoring the superior educational qualification and eligibility of the petitioners. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that a selection has been conducted by the College Authorities, ignoring the superior educational qualification and eligibility of the petitioners. The petitioners would contend that they are all PhD holders and merit has been given a go-bye in the matter of selection. 7. Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.26405/2024 is the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. Clause 4 of the Regulations, 2018 provides for direct recruitment. Clause 4.1 is related to direct recruitment for the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Science, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education and Journalism and Mass Communication. Clause 4.1 reads as follows: “4.1 For the Disciplines of Arts, Commerce, Humanities, Education, Law, Social Science, Sciences, Languages, Library Science, Physical Education and Journalism and Mass Communication. I. Assistant Professor: Eligibility (A or B): A. i) A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. I. Assistant Professor: Eligibility (A or B): A. i) A Master’s degree with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point-scale wherever the grading system is followed) in a concerned/relevant/allied subject from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university. ii) Besides fulfilling the above qualifications, the candidates must have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the UGC or the CSIR, or a similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET or who are or have been awarded a Ph.D. Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009 or 2016 and their amendments from time to time as the case may be exempted from NET/SLET/SET: Provided, the candidates registered for the Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bye-laws/Regulations of the Institution awarding the degree and such Ph.D. candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:- a) The Ph.D. degree of the candidate has been awarded in a regular mode; b) The Ph.D. thesis has been evaluated by at least two external examiners; c) An open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate has been conducted: d) The Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work, out of which at least one is in a refereed journal; e) The candidate has presented at least two papers based on his/her Ph.D work in conferences /seminars sponsored/funded/supported by the UGC/ICSSR/CSIR or any similar agency. The fulfillment of these conditions is to be certified by the Registrar or the Dean (Academic Affairs) of the University concerned. Note: NET/SLET/SET shall also not be required for such Masters Programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLET/SET is not conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC, like SLET/SET. OR B. The Ph.D degree has been obtained from a foreign university/institution with a ranking among top 500 in the World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the following: (i) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) the Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai). OR B. The Ph.D degree has been obtained from a foreign university/institution with a ranking among top 500 in the World University Ranking (at any time) by any one of the following: (i) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) (ii) the Times Higher Education (THE) or (iii) the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Shanghai). Note: The Academic score as specified in Appendix II (Table 3A) for Universities, and Appendix II (Table 3B) for Colleges, shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only, and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview.” The Note below Regulation 4 would indicate that the Academic score as specified in Appendix II for Colleges shall be considered for short-listing of the candidates for interview only and the selections shall be based only on the performance in the interview. 8. As UGC Regulations are binding on the respondents, I do not find any fault with the respondents in conducting the selection on the basis of performance in the interview. 9. It is to be noted that the Selection Committee is also statutorily regulated. As per Regulation 5.0, the Selection Committee for Assistant Professor in Colleges including Private and Constituent Colleges is as follows: “V. Assistant Professor in Colleges, Including Private and Constituent Colleges: (a) The Selection Committee for the post of Assistant Professor in Colleges, including Private and constituent Colleges shall consist of the following persons: i) Chairperson of the Governing Body of the college or his/her nominee from amongst the members of the Governing body, who shall be the Chairperson of the Committee. ii) The Principal of the College. Iii) Head of the Department/Teacher-in-charge of the subject concerned in the College. iv) Two nominees of the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university, of whom one should be a subject-expert. In case of colleges notified/declared as a minority educational institution, two nominees of the Chairperson of the college from out of a panel of five names, preferably from the minority community, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university, from the list of experts suggested by the relevant statutory body of the college, of whom one should be a subject-expert. In case of colleges notified/declared as a minority educational institution, two nominees of the Chairperson of the college from out of a panel of five names, preferably from the minority community, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliating university, from the list of experts suggested by the relevant statutory body of the college, of whom one should be a subject-expert. v) Two subject-experts not connected with the college who shall be nominated by the Chairperson of the College governing body out of a panel of five names recommended by the Vice-Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the university concerned. In case of colleges notified/declared as minority educational Institutions, two subject experts not connected with the University nominated by the Chairperson of the Governing Body of the College out of the panel of five names, preferably from the minority communities, recommended by the Vice- Chancellor from the list of subject experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the College. vi) An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/ Minority/Women/Differently-abled categories, if any of candidates belonging to any of these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee does not belong to that category. Five members, including two outside subject experts, shall constitute the quorum.” The Selection Committee includes two nominees of the Vice Chancellor of the affiliating University, two nominees of the Chairperson of the College from out of a panel of five names, two subject experts not connected with the College and academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/ Differently abled categories. As there are independent persons in the Selection Board, I do not find any scope for manipulations in the interview. 10. It is to be noted that the University of Kerala has also followed the UGC Regulations, 2018. As per University Order dated 09.09.2021 also, ranking / selection shall be purely based on the marks obtained in the interview. 11. Clause 9 of Ext.P11 University Order (in W.P.(C) No.26405/2024) states that the academic score sheet containing the scores obtained by all the applicants before shortlisting for interview and the interview score sheet for shortlisted candidates, duly signed by all the members of the Selection Committee present shall be forwarded to the University along with the proposal for the approval of initial appointment of Assistant Professor. Ext.P11 has sufficient provisions to make any selection impartial. 12. Ext.P11 has sufficient provisions to make any selection impartial. 12. The counsel representing the College took me to the academic score sheet of the candidates. Going through the academic score sheet of the candidates, I find no illegality in the matter of selection. 13. It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [2023 SCC Online SC 344] held as follows: “12. Selection Process for Public Employment: Interference by Courts: Before proceeding further, it is necessary to preface our judgment with the view that Courts in India generally avoid interfering in the selection process of public employment, recognising the importance of maintaining the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. The Courts recognise that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion and that it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. It would be indeed, treading on thin ice for us if we were to venture into reviewing the decision of experts who form a part of a selection board. The law on the scope and extent of judicial review of a selection process and results thereof, may be understood on consideration of the following case law: i) In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B. S. Mahajan , AIR 1990 SC 434 , this Court clarified the scope of judicial review of a selection process, in the following words: "9…. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the selection committees and to scrutinise the relative mirits of the candidates. Whether the candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted selection committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc” ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. v. Dr. The decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc” ii) In a similar vein, in Secy. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. v. Dr. Anita Puri, 1996 (6) SCC 282 , this Court observed as under as regards the sanctity of a selection process and the grounds on which the results thereof may be interfered with: “9…. It is too well settled that when a selection is made by an expert body like the Public Service Commission which is also advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualification in the field for which the selection is to be made, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless allegations of mala fide are made and established. It would be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decisions on such matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts. If the expert body considers suitability of a candidate for a specified post after giving due consideration to all the relevant factors, then the court should not ordinarily interfere with such selection and evaluation” iii) This position was reiterated by this Court in M. V. Thimmaiah v. Union Public Service Commission , 2008 (2) SCC 119 , in the following words: “21. Now, comes the question with regard to the selection of the candidates. Normally, the recommendations of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged except on the ground of mala fides or serious violation of the statutory rules. The courts cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to examine the recommendations of the Selection Committee like the court of appeal. This discretion has been given to the Selection Committee only and courts rarely sit as a court of appeal to examine the selection of the candidates nor is the business of the court to examine each candidate and record its opinion... 30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. 30. We fail to understand how the Tribunal can sit as an Appellate Authority to call for the personal records and constitute Selection Committee to undertake this exercise. This power is not given to the Tribunal and it should be clearly understood that the assessment of the Selection Committee is not subject to appeal either before the Tribunal or by the courts. One has to give credit to the Selection Committee for making their assessment and it is not subject to appeal. Taking the overall view of ACRs of the candidates, one may be held to be very good and another may be held to be good. If this type of interference is permitted then it would virtually amount that the Tribunals and the High Courts have started sitting as Selection Committee or act as an Appellate Authority over the selection. It is not their domain, it should be clearly understood, as has been clearly held by this Court in a number of decisions” iv) Om Prakash Poplai and Rajesh Kumar Maheshwari v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. , 1994 (2) SCC 117 , was a case where an appeal was filed before this Court challenging the selection of members to the Delhi Stock Exchange on the ground that the Selection Committee formed for the aforesaid purpose, arbitrarily favoured some candidates and was thus, against Art. 14. This Court rejected the allegation of favouritism and bias by holding as under: "5…the selection of members by the Expert Committee had to be done on the basis of an objective criteria taking into consideration experience, professional qualifications and similar related factors. In the present cases, we find that certain percentage of marks were allocated for each of these factors, namely, educational qualifications, experience, financial background and knowledge of the relevant laws and procedures pertaining to public issues etc. Of the total marks allocated only 20 per cent were reserved for interviews. Therefore, the process of selection by the Expert Committee was not left entirely to the sweet will of the members of the Committee. The area of play was limited to 20 per cent and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion” 12.1. The area of play was limited to 20 per cent and having regard to the fact that the members of the Expert Committee comprised of two members nominated by the Central Government it is difficult to accept the contention that they acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary fashion” 12.1. Thus, the inexorable conclusion that can be drawn is that it is not within the domain of the Courts, exercising the power of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a Selection Committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules, only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene. Thus, Courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee / Interview Board should be best left to the members of the committee.” For all the afore facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with the selection process subjected to challenge in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are therefore dismissed.