BINU K D Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P4 order of the Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 02.07.2016, on the ground that the same is passed in absolute violation of the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 issued by the Director of Collegiate Education dated 22.12.2015. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor of English in the Collegiate Education Department and now working in Sri. C.Achutha Menon Government College, Thrissur. Second respondent invited application for State sponsored, post doctoral research programmes outside the State, as per Ext.P2. Petitioner who is qualified in terms of Ext.P2 applied and participated in the selection process. Ext.P2 envisages two stages of selection by committee/expert panel. However, the 2 nd respondent abandoned the 1 st stage and the 2 nd stage interview was conducted by a single person, instead of an expert panel. The said person made assessment of the 1 st stage as well. The entire process was conducted in an illegal manner and the selection process is vitiated for the violation of mandatory provisions of Ext.P2. As a result of the said selection process, ineligible candidates and candidates ranked below the petitioner, were selected. Even though petitioner has submitted a representation, the same was not considered. Thereupon, petitioner has approached this Court and secured Ext.P7 judgment to consider and pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner within ten days from the date of the said judgment. In spite of the direction so issued, the subject issue was not considered by the 2 nd respondent, and the representation submitted by the petitioner was not allowed, evident from Ext.P9 order. Petitioner has produced certain additional documents viz., Exts.P10 to P12 to substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition.

(3.) Second respondent has filed a statement and a counter affidavit also to the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, the contentions raised by the petitioner with respect to the violation of the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 are clearly admitted. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the personal interview was conducted by an individual person selected from a panel of experts, moreover, the said person who conducted the interview itself awarded marks for the 1 st stage of the selection process.