T. ANITHAKUMARY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Associate Professor in the Department of Malayalam at the Sree Narayana College, Kollam. She was appointed as lecturer at Sree Narayana College, Cherthala, where she was given Grade promotions, to the Senior Scale and Selection Grade applicable to the post of Lecturer, on 12.05.1995 and 08.08.1998 respectively. Thereafter, she was appointed as Reader with effect from 30.09.2007. Still later, she was appointed as an Associate Professor.

(2.) BY Ext. P1 notification dated 19.04.2008, the respondent University called for applications for the post of Professor in the Department of Malayalam. The last date for receiving completed applications was shown as 18.05.2008 in the said notification. In Ext. P2 notification, that was issued by the respondent University, details pertaining to Ext. P1 notification were given and, apart from indicating the academic qualifications that had to be possessed by interested candidates, it was also indicated as follows:

(3.) PER contra, the respondent University would contend that the candidature of the 3rd respondent could not be called in question since, although the 3rd respondent had not produced the Non -Creamy Layer Certificate along with his application, the said certificate was produced on the date of interview namely, on 14.03.2011. It is contended that there was no illegality or irregularity in considering the said certificate produced by the 3rd respondent at the time of interview since the respondent University had adopted the provisions of Part II of the KS & SSR, including Rule 17(C) thereof, which enables the respondent University to consider certificates in support of the claim for reservation even if produced after the last date for receipt of applications, but before finalisation of the select list of candidates. As regards the appraisal of the candidates at the interview, the respondent University would rely on Ext. R1(a) statement which shows the marks obtained by the various candidates interviewed on 14.03.2011. In particular, it is pointed out that the marks awarded at the interview were under specified heads and taking into account various parameters as indicated in the said statement. It is contended therefore that there was no inherent arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the matter of assessment of the inter se merits of the various candidates and, therefore, the selection proceedings could not be legally assailed. It is also pointed out that from a perusal of Ext. R1(a) statement it would be clear that the 3rd respondent had secured considerably more marks than the petitioner at the interview and hence the petitioner could not claim any preferential right, over the 3rd respondent, in the matter of selection to the post in question. Counsel for the 3rd respondent, while adopting the said contentions, would in addition point to the existence of an alternate remedy in the petitioner under Section 73(3) of the Kerala University Act where an appeal is provided for before the University appellate Tribunal.