M.V. SUDHAKARAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Reader (Temporary) in the Academic Staff College of the 1st respondent University. Exhibit P1 is the notification dated 27.12.2002 to which he responded. In the writ petition, the petitioner essentially aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the said post pursuant to the selection procedure conducted by the University. Although the petitioner would impugn the selection of the 4th respondent on the grounds inter alia that (i) the 4th respondent did not have the essential qualification of 5 years subsequent to the obtaining of his PhD Degree, (ii) the 4th respondent did not have such teaching experience as was approved by the University and (iii) the 4th respondent was erroneously awarded marks at the selection process for papers submitted to research journals, in so far as those journals were not approved journals, he would primarily rely upon the first ground with regard to the non -possession by the 4th respondent of the necessary 5 years experience after attaining PhD Degree. It is pointed out that as per Exhibit P1 notification, the qualifications to be possessed by a person aspiring for the post of Reader are as follows:

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent had obtained his PhD from Calicut University only with effect from 15.09.2007 vide Exhibit P18 notification. The last date for receipt of applications as notified in Exhibit P1 was 28.01.2011. Thus, as on that date, the 4th respondent had only a post PhD teaching experience of 3 years 4 months and 13 days. As this fell short of the necessary 5 years teaching experience, the 4th respondent was not eligible to be considered for the post of Reader.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the writ petition was admitted on 10.01.2013 and notice was sent to the 4th respondent on 08.03.2013 and the said notice is seen to have been received by him on 11.06.2013, the response of the 4th respondent in these proceedings has been far from satisfactory. Although there was appearance for the 4th respondent through counsel, he has not chosen to file a counter affidavit despite specific directions to that effect from this Court on 03.10.2013 and 04.02.2014. A request was made for further time on 03.07.2014 and 2 weeks time was granted to the 4th respondent for filing the counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has however been filed till date. When the matter was posted for disposal on 23.07.2014, it was submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent that they were unable to get any instructions from the 4th respondent to represent him in the matter. The conduct of the 4th respondent, in not responding to a writ petition preferred by a rival candidate after being appointed to the post in respect of which the challenge is mounted, is far from satisfactory and at any rate cannot be countenanced by this Court. The 4th respondent cannot by his inaction thwart the attempts of the petitioner to establish his legal rights.