RAVEENDRAN Vs. REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us was a candidate for selection to the post of Lecturer in Sociology in the University of Kerala. He has resorted to this court before the selection was held by the Committee constituted for the purpose. The allegation of the petitioner by way of challenge to the selection process is that the second respondent in the Original Petition who is the Professor and Head of the Department of Sociology is biased against him and therefore he has no faith in a fair consideration of his case for selection by any Committee in which the second respondent participates as member. When he sought a stay of the selection proceedings in this Original Petition this court by its order dated 26th October 1979 directed that the interview which had already been fixed may be held but the recommendations which may be made by the Committee pursuant to such interview would be purely provisional and subject to the result of the Original Petition. It is said before us by counsel fur the first respondent that the Committee held the interview and submitted its recommendations to the Syndicate but the Syndicate has not taken any decision thereon in view of the interim order of this court. Of course, counsel is not in a position to enlighten us about the recommendations since he is not in possession of the report of the Committee placed before the Syndicate.

(2.) There arc several facts stated in the petition to support the plea of bias on the part of the second respondent. The long and short of it is that the second respondent Dr. Nayar is not well disposed towards the petitioner and the petitioner's chances of being selected for certain posts as well as selected for research have been prejudiced on previous occasions by the conduct of the second respondent. It is particularly mentioned that in the interview which was to be held pursuant to the invitation of applications by the University for the post of Lecturer in Sociology there was one Babu as a candidate and the said Babu is a very close relative of the second respondent. Of course, if this be true the second respondent would certainly be disqualified from participating in any deliberations as provided in R.4(2) of Chap.3 of the First Statute of the Kerala University. That provides that no member of the Committee who is an applicant for the post or is related to or interested in any of the applicants for the post shall take part in the deliberations of the Committee, so far as that post is concerned. If the second respondent was interested in Babu, a candidate, he could not have taken part ia the deliberations relating to the selection of the candidates at the interview concerned. But that ground need not be gone into here because it appears from the counter affidavit of the second respondent that he himself brought this to the notice of the University but before the University could pass any orders thereon Babu, the candidate concerned, had withdrawn his application with the result that thereafter there could be no bar in the participation of the second respondent as a member of the Committee. If these be the circumstances -- We see no reason to think otherwise -- We do not think that there is any disability on the part of the second respondent to sit in the Committee on this ground.

(3.) Though it is urged in the petition that the second respondent was only a Reader in Sociology in the University and his appointment as Professor was not an "appointment in accordance with the rules it is submitted at the hearing by petitioner's counsel that there. Is an Original Petition pending in this court, a petition by way of" quo warranto at the instance of a rival claimant, for the post of Professor and on this ground the petitioner is not seeking adjudication on this petition. We do not propose to go into this here.