DR SAIFUL ISLAM Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the bone of contention as between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is the post of Reader in Political Science in the Kerala University, which vacancy was reserved to be filled up from among the candidates belonging to Muslim community, to satisfy the roster point applicable to that community. Both the petitioner and the 4th respondent applied for the post. The 4th respondent was selected. The petitioner is challenging the selection of the 4th respondent on four grounds. The first is that as on the last date for submitting applications, the 4th respondent did not have the qualification prescribed for the post. Secondly, the experience qualification prescribed, viz., 8 years teaching experience should have been one obtained after the acquisition of the basic qualification of Ph.D., which the 4th respondent did not possess at the relevant time. Thirdly, for the purpose of consideration for selection, the candidate was expected to produce anon-creamy layer certificate to prove their eligibility for reservation, which, the 4th respondent produced only on 1.9.2005, after the selection process was over. The last contention is that quality publications in the areas of scholarship is a necessary qualification prescribed, which also the 4th respondent did not possess.

(2.) The basic facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:- By Ext.P2 notification, the University invited applications for appointment to various posts including the post of Reader in Political Science reserved for Muslim candidates. The qualifications prescribed for the post were as follows:

(3.) The 1st contention of the petitioner is that on the last date for submitting applications, viz., 6.12.2004, the degree of Ph.D. was not awarded to the 4th respondent. The petitioner points out that even before this Court the 4th respondent has not chosen to produce the degree certificate of Ph.D. obtained by him. It is pointed out that the Syndicate recommended the 4th respondent for awarding Ph.D. degree only on 27.11.2004 and the degree was awarded only after the last date prescribed for submitting applications. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the 4th respondent did not possess the degree of Ph.D. as on the last date prescribed for submitting applications. The second contention is that the eight years' experience in teaching prescribed should have been one obtained by the candidates after obtaining the basic qualification prescribed viz., degree of Ph.D. In so far as the degree of Ph.D. was awarded to the 4th respondent subsequent to the last date prescribed for submitting applications, the 4th respondent did not possess the prescribed experience qualification also. In support of this contention, the petitioner relies on two decisions of this Court, viz., Dr. Vijayachandran Pillai and Anr. v. University of Calicut and Ors., 2009 3 KerLT 176 and Vasundhara G v. Dr. Sallas Benjamin and Ors., 2010 1 KerLT 533:, ILR 2010 Ker. 531. The third contention raised is that as per the notification itself the candidates were required to produce a certificate to the effect that they did not belong to the creamy layer as contemplated in G.O.(P). No. 36/2000/SC/ST dated 27.5.2000. Interview was held on 22.8.2005, on which date also, the 4th respondent had not produced the non-creamy layer certificate to prove his eligibility for reservation. He produced it only on 1.9.2005, much after the interview was over. Therefore, according to the petitioner, for that reason also, the 4th respondent could not have been considered for selection at all. The petitioner also raises a contention that the 4th respondent did not have any quality publication in the areas of scholarship, which is also one of the qualifications prescribed for the post.