GIRISH M.C. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Assistant Professor in Commerce presently working in Panampilly Memorial Government College, Chalakkudy in Thrissur District. For better prospects in his career he applied for permission to go for conducting a research work under the Teacher Fellowship Scheme. Ext.P1 is the guidelines for the Scheme in the matter of Faculty Development Programme for Colleges for the Eleventh Plan (2007 -2012). Clause 4 thereunder deals with the procedures for applying under the Scheme. It is made clear therein that any application for the award of Teacher Fellowship under the Faculty Development Programme in respect of a teacher would not be considered unless it is recommended by a Selection Committee. The constitution of the Selection Committee is also prescribed thereunder. In this case, in terms of Clause 4 of Ext.P1 a committee was constituted and it convened on 19.3.2013. Obviously, they have conducted a selection from among the applicants and prepared Ext.P2. A bare perusal of the same would reveal that it is the minutes of the selection committee for recommending teachers for FDP (M.Phil & Ph.D) selection XIth Plan in respect of P.M.Govt. College, Chalakudy. It is stated thereunder as follows:- The Selection Committee approved the applications and recommended in the order of merit, as detailed below: - 1. Sri.Girish.M.C., Assistant Professor of Commerce (Ph.D) 2. Smt.Suja Mathew, Assistant Professor of English (M.Phil) 3. Smt.Jayasree Paul, Assistant Professor of Economics (Ph.D) 4. Smt.Jeepamol.J.Palathingal, Assistant Professor of Mathematics"; Further it is stated therein as follows: - ";We certify that the candidates are recommended for selection as they satisfy all the conditions laid down by the UGC. Also certify that we observed the selection criteria stipulated in UGC guidelines.";

(2.) IT is thus obvious that Ext.P2 is a select list and duly constituted Selection Committee approved the applications and recommended four persons in the order of merit. Subsequently, one of the persons who included in Ext.P2 raised some grievances with respect to the selection and approached the third respondent. It is to be noted that in the meanwhile, a change in person occurred in the office of Principal of P.M.Govt. College, Chalakudy. The present incumbent thereupon forwarded the said complaint received from one Jayasree Paul who was placed third in the said list and forwarded it to the second respondent as per Ext.P3. After its consideration Ext.P4 was issued by the second respondent. Evidently, as per Ext.P4, the second respondent returned the applications for doing Ph.D/M.Phil under FIP submitted by all the four persons whose names were figured in Ext.P2 to place it before the Selection Committee for final decision and to re -submit it separately. Subsequent to Ext.P4, the Selection Committee met again on 17.6.2013 and resolved to withdraw the earlier decision. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a direction to the second respondent to approve the Selection Committee minutes as is evident from Ext.P2 and consequential reliefs.

(3.) THE third respondent is the Principal of P.M.Govt. College, Chalakkudy and obviously, the third respondent was also one of the members of the Selection Committee constituted for the selection and that made the selection. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that he cannot make any grievance with respect to the said selection. In this context, it is relevant to refer to Ext.P2. A bare perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that all the members of the committee duly constituted in terms of Clause 4 of Ext.P1 after preparing a list as per Ext.P2 certified that all the candidates are recommended for selection as they satisfied all the conditions laid down by the UGC. Evidently, they had also certified that they observed the selection criteria stipulated in UGC guidelines. When that be so, the third respondent cannot legally make any grievance against the selection. There is no case for the respondents that the committee which considered the cases of teachers for FDP and prepared Ext.P2 was not constituted in terms of Clause 4 of Ext.P1. It is also evident from Ext.P2 that the Selection Committee duly constituted convened a meeting and considered all the applications and thereafter in the order of merit prepared a list and Ext.P2 contains the names of such candidates recommended for selection. When that be so, I am at a loss to understand as to why such applications were sent before the Selection Committee for final decision. No provision has been brought to my notice casting a duty to the duly constituted Selection Committee to prepare a list provisionally and then forward it to the second respondent and after obtaining the remarks to finalise the list. Going by Ext.P1, the Selection Committee is to prepare a list and in fact, it is for that precise purpose that such a committee is duly constituted. As noticed hereinbefore, there is nothing on record to show that there is any complaint regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee. Thus a committee which is duly constituted prepared a list. In the absence of any provision requiring them to prepare a provisional list, any list prepared by such duly constituted committee shall only be a final list. After preparing such a final list it cannot be toppled in any manner. No enabling provision is brought to my notice empowering the committee to review its decision in preparing such a list. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent is not having any power to look into the correctness or otherwise of the list.