Jitha G vs Cochin University Of Science And Technology South Kalamassery And Ors

The petitioner through the instant writ petition has laid challenge to the selection of the 2nd respondent as Assistant Professor under the 1st

respondent University (CUSAT). Vide notification Ext.P1 dated 17.8.2015, CUSAT invited application for filling up the post of Assistant Professor for

two subjects; Environmental Chemistry, SC category (relevant for the present case) and Environmental Microbiology open category.

The aforementioned applications were required to be submitted on 25.9.2015. It was made clear that persons with a Master's degree level in

Analytical Chemistry /Chemistry/Environmental Chemistry from an Indian University, or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign University

would be eligible to submit applications and should have cleared NET conducted by the UGC, CSIR or similar test accredited and the candidates, with

Ph.D. Degree would be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET. As per the certificate dated 9th

December 2016, Ext.P2, issued by the 1st respondent University, petitioner's M.Sc in Environmental Studies has been declared as equivalent to M.Sc

in Environmental Chemistry by Jiwaji University, Madhya Pradesh. Certain clarification, with regard to the subject of Environmental Studies, was

sought by the Academic Council. In the meeting held on 10.5.2016 , the Academic Council resolved, that a multi-disciplinary subject, Environmental

Studies will be taught only by those who are qualified in that subject ie., Master's Degree in Environmental Sciences / Studies/

Technology/Managment. The rank list, Ext.P13, shows that the respondent No.2 obtained 88 marks in SC category, whereas the petitioner obtained

76.1 marks. 3.

Ext.P14 also reveals that 2nd respondent did not have any research experience after Ph.D, for which had been awarded 10 marks as enumerated

under clauses 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) and awarded 4 marks for participation in Training Programmes / Workshop / Refresher Courses / Summer Winter-

Schools, which the petitioner lagged as evidenced from Ext.P9 as he had participated in a 'Field survey and sample collection' from Kavarathi and

Agathi â€" UT of Lakshadweep Islands. As per Ext.R2(b), respondent No.2 possesses a degree of Master Science in Hydrochemistry, which is not

the qualification required for selection for Assistant Professor in Environmental Chemistry.

As per clause 2.2(a), the 2nd respondent ought not to have been granted 10 marks under the head of 'Research Experience after Ph.D'. From

Ext.P7, only one candidate ie., the 2nd respondent appeared and he was selected for PDF ie., Post doctoral fellowship. Ext.P7(a) reflects that the n2d

respondent though did not claim any fellowship amount, whereas a sum of Rs.18,000/- was offered. All these facts would reveal that selection

committee erred in awarding 10 marks since there is a difference of 11.9 marks. By considering clauses 2.2(a) and 2.2(b), 2nd respondent would have

got less marks than the petitioner and he would have been selected for said post and urged this Court for allowing the writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the University submits that if at all the petitioner had any grievance against notification Ext.P1, it should

have challenged at time of promulgation, but, submitted application and participated in the selection process without any objection. The post advertised

was in Environmental Chemistry and not in Environmental Science. Hence the qualification fixed ie., Master's degree in Analytical

Chemistry/Chemistry/Environmental Chemistry was correct. The qualification was determined by the Academic council as per the provisions of

Section 24(g) of Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986. There is no allegation of biasness or malafide against the members of the

selection committee. The 2nd respondent was selected for the post after due process of selection being qualified for the post. Though petitioner scored

more marks in the categories of teaching skills and interview would not even prove the apparent biasness in the selection. The petitioner cannot rely

upon an order dated 12.8.2016, Ext.P5, as it was issued after the notification dated 17.8.2015. The 2nd respondent worked as a PDF from 21.8.2012

to 31.7.2013 and in that regard was issued certificate Ext.P8. There was no violation of any rules by the 3rd respondent in selecting the 2nd

respondent and nor any irregularity in issuing Exts.P9 and P10 certificates by the 3rd respondent. Experts in the field assessed the research and other

experience of the candidates. This Court cannot assume the role of an appellate authority to substitute the decision until and unless certain act of

malafides, biasness , gross illegality or irregularity in the selection process is found and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner. Ext.R2(b) Certificate proves that the 2nd respondent obtained M.Sc in Hydrochemistry. Hydro means water, which

would definitely be a part of environment. As far as awarding of marks for the PDF is concerned, if the 2nd respondent did not avail the benefit of

remuneration, would not be disqualification to obtain the marks under that head. As far as participation in training programme is concerned, 2nd

respondent participated in Field survey and Sample collection from Kavarathi and Agathi â€" UT of Lakshadweep Islands. The authenticity and

validity of the certificates have not been disproved. Nor there is any allegation of biasness or malafides against the selection committee. In fact the

petitioner was awarded more marks under the head “skill†thus, rules out any element of bias. In the absence of any core material this Court

cannot examine the veracity and genuineness of the selection committee and further assume the role of expert. The documents relied upon by the

petitioner in support of the submissions do not make out a case of any act of malafide or biasness on behalf of the selection committee in awarding

marks to the selected candidate. No ground for interference is made out.

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.