NISHA T.S. Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the actions of the Selection Committee constituted by the 1st respondent - Mahatma Gandhi University ("University" for short), in making selection to the post of Assistant Professor in Behavioral Sciences, primarily on the ground that the marks awarded to her by them are wholly in error since it has denied her the eligible ones for no tangible reason.

(2.) Sri.Raman Kartha - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client has been awarded only 20.43 marks by the Selection Committee; while the 4th respondent has been awarded 36.5, thus manifesting a difference of 16 marks between them. He argued that the 4th respondent has been offered the appointment though, when their credentials are properly evaluated, his client would be entitled to a minimum of 23.84 marks additionally than what has been now granted, thus being found more meritorious and eligible for being appointed. He explained his case by saying that, his client has been denied marks under the heads 'PhD', 'UGC Scholarship' and 'Teaching Experience'; while she has been awarded only two out of twelve marks for 'Publications'. He asserted that, as per the judgment of this Court in Nisha Vellapan Nair & another v. MG University Kottayam & another [(2022) 5 KHC 609], the six marks for 'PhD' becomes indubitably eligible to his client; while further five marks become entitled under the head 'UGC Scholarship', since she has obtained UGC - BSR Research Scholarship, which is even more valuable than the Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) offered by the CSIR and which alone has been reckoned by the Selection Committee.

(3.) Sri.Raman Kartha then proceeded to his next limb of argument to assert that, even though his client had presented several publications, both in national books as well as in UGC listed journals before the Selection Committee, only two marks have been awarded out of a maximum of twelve, thus unfairly denying her the selection. He then conceded that none of the candidates have been given any marks under the head 'Teaching Experience' because, the Selection Committee appears to have taken the view that only those candidates who worked on permanent posts would be entitled to it. He argued that, nevertheless, since his client had teaching experience after she had obtained her PhD, atleast 2.84 marks ought to have been granted to her. He thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the appointment of the 4th respondent be set aside; with a consequential direction to the University to appoint his client as Assistant Professor in Behavioural Sciences.