KESHAV MOHAN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that has been formulated for consideration of this bench is whether Antony p. A. v. Krishnadas M. N. (ILR 2007 (1) Ker. 244) lays down the correct legal position concerning the powers of the Selection Committee in evolving norms for a selection. The issue arises in the context of selection to the post of Controller of Examinations in the Kerala University. The committee is constituted in terms of the provisions of the kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and it should consist of the Vice Chancellor and two other Syndicate members. The Controller is to be appointed by the Syndicate of the university on the recommendation of the selection committee. The First Statutes also provide for the powers and duties of the Controller. The Statutes do not specifically provide for the norms that are to be adopted by the Selection Committee. The Syndicate also did not lay down the norms. Norms were evolved by the Selection Committee on their own, apparently in the course of conducting the selection and they proceeded to select the 4th respondent. Recommendations of the Selection Committee were accepted by the Syndicate and the 4th respondent was appointed as Controller of Examinations. This has been called in question in these Writ Petitions.

(2.) LEARNED single Judge, before whom the Writ Petition came up for consideration, referred to the stand taken by the University in their counter affidavit and observed that the Selection Committee had evolved their own norms for the selection. It was observed that the committee had arrogated to itself the power of framing the norms for selection. This, the learned Judge observed, was clearly inconsistent with the law laid down by the supreme Court in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa ( (1995) 6 SCC 1), where in the Supreme Court held that the Selection Committee does not have the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the norms for selection, nor can such power be assumed or inferred by implication. Learned single Judge observed that a contrary view has been taken by a bench of this court in Antony P. A. V. Krishnadas M. N. (ILR 2007 (1) Ker. 244 ). The bench in Antony held that where the Selection Committee is statutorily constituted, but the statute which provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee does not, at the same time, lay down any guidelines or norms to regulate the selection, then the committee is entitled to evolve its own norms, which have to be fair and reasonable. In other words, the Division Bench proceeded to uphold the power of the Selection committee to evolve their own norms in the absence of a specific prescription in that regard in the statute, which in the first place had provided for the constitution of the committee. Learned single Judge, after observing that the dictum in Antony was inconsistent with the principle laid down in Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa ( (1995) 6 SCC 1), adjourned the Writ Petitions to be heard by a Division Bench. The Division Bench felt that the matter, requires consideration by a Full Bench, so as to avoid conflicting decisions by co-ordinate benches. Accordingly, these cases as such have been referred to a Full Bench and essentially the point for consideration is whether antony lays down the correct legal position concerning the powers of the Selection committee to evolve the norms for selection.

(3.) REFERENCE to the facts in W. P. (C) No. 35595/05, would be comprehensive of W. P. (C)No. 33661/05 as well.