MIDHUN M. Vs. VENU G. NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals have arisen from judgment dated 26/11/2018 in WP(C) No. 11281/2016 of the learned Single Judge. WA No.151/2019 has been filed by the 1st respondent, WA No. No.139/19 by the 2nd respondent and WA No.6/2019 has been filed by the 3rd respondent

(2.) The short facts of the case are as under and the parties are described as shown in the writ petition unless otherwise stated. The Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) invited applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the year 2009 as per notification dated 11/2/2009. An interview was held on 11/2/2016 and the petitioner was ranked 3rd in the order of merit. Ext.P2 is the ranked list dated 22/2/2016. The contention urged by the petitioner is that the selection was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC). It was contended that as per the Regulations, the marks for academic record and research performance was to be 50%, 30% should be allocated to assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills and 20% for the interview. However, the Selection Committee while evaluating the candidates had tinkered upon the assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills and 15% of marks were given to assessment of domain knowledge and 15% to teaching skills and thereby fixed a different criteria for selection which according to him is contrary to the UGC Guidelines. He also contended that he was entitled for 9 points taking into account his teaching experience whereas he was granted only 6 points. Petitioner therefore challenged Ext.P2 ranked list and prayed for a further direction to the University to publish fresh notification for selection to the aforesaid post.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, CUSAT, it is inter alia stated that petitioner got only 11 marks for evaluation of teaching skill whereas the 2nd respondent got 14 marks. In respect of teaching experience, petitioner got 6 marks and 2nd respondent only 0.5 marks. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had outnumbered the petitioner in the case of publications. It is taking into account all the parameters that the Selection Committee had evaluated the candidates. It is further stated that the marks were rightly awarded for his 3 years' experience in the Post Graduate level. The period he worked coincides with the period he worked as Research Scholar in which he was given 9 marks under para 2.2(a) and his research experience after Ph.D includes the said period also. It is stated that petitioner himself had verified the same and agreed to the same and having signed it, he cannot take a different approach in the matter.