ANUPRIYA SAMUEL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Zoology at the Saint John's College, Anchal on 22.09.2015. The appointment was made by the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext.P1 notification and on the basis of a selection process conducted by a Staff Selection Committee. On the petitioner's appointment being forwarded for approval to the 1st respondent University, a doubt arose as to whether the petitioner had acquired the requisite qualification of Ph.D as on the date of submission of application. This was for the reason that the date of submission of application was 22.6.2015 and the Syndicate's decision to award Ph.D degree to the petitioner was taken in the Syndicate meeting held on 9.7.2015. According to the petitioner, the University had sought legal opinion on the issue and opinion was to the effect that the petitioner was fully qualified to apply for the post and that her appointment can be approved, considering her to have been qualified on the last date fixed for the receipt of application. It is submitted that the Standing Committee on Teaching and Non-teaching Staff of the University, which is a Statutory Committee of the Syndicate, had, in the 27th meeting of the Syndicate held on 12.5.2017, resolved to accept the legal opinion and had placed the matter in the next meeting of the Committee. The Vice-Chancellor did not agree with the decision of the Syndicate and thereupon the matter was considered in the 28th Syndicate meeting held on 13.6.2017, wherein an objection was raised that the Vice- Chancellor can only express his dissent on the resolution of the Syndicate and cannot record the same as 'not agreed to'. The 3rd respondent was thereafter served with Ext.P13 communication issued by the Registrar of the University stating that the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment is rejected. The reasons stated in Ext.P13 communication was that (i) the Full Bench of the High Court, in its judgment dated 23.2.2016 in W.P.(C) No.15739 of 2013, had declared that all selections made after 18.9.2010 have to be in compliance with the U.G.C Regulations, 2010 and (ii) that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for the post at the time of the vacancy. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P13 and to direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology from the date of her appointment.

(2.) With respect to the statement in Ext.P13, based on the Full Bench judgment in W.P.(C) No.15739 of 2013, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Syndicate of the University, as per its decision dated 11.8.2017, had resolved that the directions of the Full Bench can be ignored in respect of appointments in the post of Assistant Professors in all colleges affiliated to the University, effected prior to 23.2.2016. It is submitted that the Full Bench decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as per order dated 17.7.2018 in Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos.18938 - 18942 of 2017, the Apex Court had declared that the judgment of the Full Bench in W.P. (C) No.15739 of 2013 would be applicable only from the date of the judgment, i.e, 23.2.2016. It is hence submitted that, the petitioner having been appointed prior to 23.2.2016, the decision of the Full Bench regarding adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2010 would have no adverse impact on the appointment.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the second reason stated in Ext.P13 is also unsustainable. It is submitted that the petitioner had registered for Ph.D on 30.12.2009 and had submitted her thesis on 22.11.2014, the open defence was conducted on 19.6.2015 and Ext.P9 certificate, certifying that the petitioner had completed all the formalities for award of the Ph.D degree was issued on 20.6.2015. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the delay in the Syndicate holding its meeting and awarding Ph.D degree to the petitioner, cannot be to her detriment, especially in the light of Ext.P9 certificate. Therefore, it is contended that the Syndicate decision dated 9.7.2015 awarding Ph.D to the petitioner is not of much consequence. Placing reliance on Exts.P6, P7and P8, it is submitted that in the regulations of other Universities, the day from which the Ph.D degree would come into effect has been specified. It is submitted that the 1st respondent University having failed to specify as to when the Ph.D degree would come into effect, the only presumption that can be drawn is that the petitioner had acquired Ph.D qualification on the strength of Ext.P9 certificate.