PURUSHOTHAMAN V M Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ext. P1 notification, the Mahatma Gandhi University invited applications for selection to the post of lecturer in School of Management and Business Studies. The notified post was Lecturer (Finance) reserved for scheduled castes. The petitioner applied pursuant to the said notification, as also the 2nd respondent and others. An interview was held on 03/11/2006. All of them were interviewed. Before the publication of rank list, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the whole proceedings on the ground that there is no post of Lecturer (Finance) sanctioned by the Government and the qualifications prescribed are also not in accordance with the regulations applicable. According to the petitioner, the notified qualifications were Post-graduate degree in Commerce and Management with a pass in National Eligibility Test, whereas as per the University Regulations applicable the candidate should have a Post-graduate degree in Management in the concerned subject. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, a rank list was published, in which the 2nd respondent, whose qualification was only M.Com., was ranked No. 1. The petitioner has subsequently got the writ petition amended including a challenge against the selection also. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter-affidavit and an additional counter-affidavit have been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein the stand taken is that by Ext. R1(a), the University has fixed the qualifications in the newly created post of Lecturer (Finance) as per which Post-graduate in the concerned subject alone was the requirement along with other qualifications prescribed by the UGC. According to University, Ext. R1(a) decision was taken by the Academic Council in view of the fact that the University was bound to comply with the UGC Regulations in that regard. They would submit that this was done because the Kerala University Regulations did not conform to the UGC Regulations in that regard. It is further submitted that although there is a slight difference between the nomenclature adopted by the Government while sanctioning the post and the Government in their order has sanctioned the post of Lecturer in Finance Management, there is no essential difference between the post of Lecturer (Finance) and Lecturer in Finance Management. According to them, the allegations of mala fides have no basis whatsoever insofar as the qualifications were fixed by Ext. R1(a) minutes of the meetings of the Academic Council held on 21/03/2003, much before the University contemplated selection to the said post. Therefore, according to them, the allegation that the University wanted to favour the 2nd respondent is totally unfounded.

(3.) Regarding the necessity to have a scheduled caste member in the selection committee, they would contend that insofar as the selection was only for scheduled caste candidates, it was not necessary to include a scheduled caste member separately since a scheduled caste member is necessary only when scheduled caste candidates are interviewed along with open category candidates. Regarding the third contention of the petitioner, they would contend that no person who has not been recognized as a scheduled caste in Kerala has been included in the ranked list.