V.SASIDHARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appointment of the 4th respondent as Registrar in the Central University of Kerala is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P1 notification dated 15.01.2015 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Registrar, in the scale of pay of Rs.37400-67000 with grade pay (GP) of 10000. The qualifications prescribed were the following:

(3.) Referring to Exts.P4 and P5, it is stated that the 4th respondent was awarded 67 marks. Respondents 5 to 7 were included in the waiting list at sl.nos.1 to 3, with marks 60, 58 and 66 respectively. It is stated that the petitioner was given only 53 marks. He alleges that he was awarded only 16 marks for experience; whereas respondents 4 to 7 were given 20 marks. The petitioner collected the copies of Ext.P3 application of the 4th respondent along with the documents produced by him, on application under Right to Information Act. According to the petitioner, there is no justification in limiting his marks towards experience at 16 and that he was entitled to 20 marks out of 20; according to him the 4th respondent was not entitled to 20 marks as he was having only 7 years and 8 months' experience. He alleged that respondents 5 to 7 also did not have the requisite experience as prescribed in Ext.P1 notification and therefore the marks assigned to respondents 4 to 7 towards experience is erroneous. Pointing out the experience certificate dated 14.10.2016, which was given to him along with Ext.P3 application of the 4th respondent, he pointed out that the 4th respondent produced his experience certificate only after 14.10.2016; whereas the interview was on 29.08.2016 and 30.8.2016. Pointing out these illegalities in the selection, the petitioner submitted representations before the University as well as the President of India, who is the visitor of the University. However, his representation was rejected by the University as per Ext.P8 letter. In this Writ Petition the main allegation of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has got only 7 years and 8 months of experience in the cadre with a grade pay of Rs.7,600/- and above as evident from Ext.P9 details he collected under the RTI Act. It is his further contention that 4 marks per year is awarded towards experience and therefore the petitioner, who was having the requisite experience, was entitled to full marks; whereas others who were ineligible for full marks were given the same. Relying on Exts.P9 to P11 answers given to him under the Right to Information Act from the Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, the petitioner alleged that the 4th respondent was drawing the grade pay of Rs.6,600/- only as a Deputy Director and he has got only 7 years and 8 months' experience in the grade pay of Rs.7,600/- and above and therefore he was not having the requisite experience and hence he was not qualified. It is also his contention that the production of experience certificate after the selection was over, has also vitiated the selection.