IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1653 of 2006()
1. DR.A. SUDHARMA (READER, DIRECTOR-IN-
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM,
... Respondent
2. VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI
3. SELECTION COMMITTEE (PROFESSOR IN
4. SYNDICATE COMMITTEE, M.G. UNIVERSITY
5. DR. P.J. JACOB (READER)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 1653 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed by
her challenging the selection made to the post of Professor in Education in
the School of Pedagogical Sciences in the Mahatma Gandhi University.
Ext.P1 was the notification issued by the University inviting applications
to the post of Professor in four subjects, along with other posts. The
appellant was an applicant for the post of Professor in Education. In the
selection, the 5th respondent who was a Reader in Education, School of
Pedagogical Sciences was selected and appointed as Professor. Feeling
aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petition was filed.
2. The petitioner contended that the Selection Committee was not
constituted as per the relevant statute of the University, in as much as the
Dean of the Faculty concerned was not included as a member of the
W.A. NO. 1653/2006 2
Committee. Secondly, it was contended that the post was notified as open
competition vacancy, but it should have been notified as reserved for
Ezhava community. The University filed a statement and also a counter
affidavit. The University explained that since the appellant was the Dean
of the Faculty concerned, she could not be included in the Selection
Committee as she was also a candidate. Secondly, it is submitted that
Professors in the various departments of the University are taken as one
unit for the application of communal rotation. While applying the rules of
reservation, the post of Professor in Education came under the open
competition turn and, therefore, the notification itself provided that the
post will be an open competition vacancy. The learned Single Judge, after
hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the University and dismissed
the Writ Petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
constitution of the Selection Committee should have been made as
provided under the statute. The provisions of the statute are mandatory
and any deviation therefrom will vitiate the constitution of the Committee
and also the selection made by that Committee. When the statute says that
the Dean of the Faculty should be a member of the Selection Committee,
the Vice Chancellor could have made some alternative arrangements, in
W.A. NO. 1653/2006 3
view of the disability of the appellant to be a member of that Committee, it
is submitted.
4. No one else can be substituted for the Dean of the Faculty unless
the statute authorises such substitution. The Vice Chancellor cannot act
on his own in the absence of any enabling provision. If he does that, the
same will be taken as a ground to attack the constitution of the
Committee. Obviously, the appellant could not be included in the
Selection Committee as she was a candidate. So, we find nothing wrong
with the formation of the Selection Committee without nominating the
Dean as a member of that Committee. It is not proper to nominate a Dean
of some other Faculty as a member of the Selection Committee for
selection to the post of Professor in Education.
5. The contention of the appellant that the post of Professor in
Education should have been reserved for Ezhava community is also plainly
untenable in view of the facts disclosed in the statement filed by the
University. The University has explained that as per the communal
rotation, the first turn was for Scheduled Caste and, therefore, the post of
Professor in the School of Pure and Applied Physics was reserved for
Scheduled Caste. The next vacancy in the School of Gandhian Thought
W.A. NO. 1653/2006 4
and Development Studies was open competition, the third vacancy in the
School of Letters was for Muslim community and the fourth vacancy, that
is, Professor in Education in the School of Pedagogical Sciences was open
competition vacancy. So, we find nothing wrong with the application of
the principles of reservation to the selection concerned.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
W.A. NO. 1653/2006 5
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A. NO. 1653/2006
JUDGMENT
11th June, 2009
W.A. NO. 1653/2006 6