IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23019 of 2008(M)
1. DEEPA S. KUMAR, LECTURER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, CENTRE FOR
3. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,
4. DR. M.P. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, DEAN CUM
5. KRISHNAKUMAR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR
For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SC.,CCEK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.23019 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is now working as Lecturer in Computer
Science under the first respondent. In October, 2007,
applications are invited for the post of Assistant Professor.
Petitioner and another candidate had submitted their
applications. In terms of the Special Rules, Senior Staff
Section Committee should consist of 7 members including
the Principal Secretary, Higher Education as Chairman,
Director as the Member Secretary and nominees of AICTE
and CUSAT, expert members and Principal of the College.
According to the petitioner in the Selection Committee
there was no nominee of AICTE and CUSAT and the
Principal was also absent, besides an expert member.
2. Be that as it may, candidates including the
petitioner were interviewed on 3.11.2007 but however
WP(c).No.23019/08 2
none was selection. The list was published on 24.12.2007.
When the petitioner applied for copy of the proceedings, she
was issued Ext.P3 mark list indicating that out of the 100
marks she secured only 15. It was thereafter on 22.7.2008 this
writ petition was filed seeking to quash selection proceedings
and to direct that a fresh Senior Staff Selection Committee
shall be constituted in terms of the Special Rules and conduct
selection to the post notified. Subsequent to the filing of this
writ petition and pursuant to the orders, petitioner was
issued Ext.P4 showing the marks that she secured and also the
marks that the other candidate had secured.
3. The respondents also have filed counter affidavit. The
first respondent justifies the selection procedure by it. In so
far as the 4th respondent, a member of the selection
committee is concerned, personal allegations of mala fides
have been levelled on the basis that when he was the
Principal of the college, while granting maternity leave, the
petitioner was denied salary. It is also alleged that when the
WP(c).No.23019/08 3
petitioner availed leave under Qualification Improvement
Programme, she was denied study leave with salary. This
allegation has been denied in the counter affidavit filed.
4. As already stated, the prayer made in this writ petition
is to direct the respondents to initiate fresh process of
selection. In the counter affidavit filed, the first respondent
has no case that the post has been filled up. The first
respondent also has no case that the post of Assistant
Professors in Computer Science need not be filled. In such
circumstances the Selection Committee should be constituted
in terms of the provisions contained in the Special Rules and
steps shall be taken for filling up the post.
5. Petitioner submits that certain other posts were filled
pursuant to the interview that was held in November, 2007
and that the process as directed above should be concluded
with effect from that date and promotions given with
retrospective effect, as otherwise, even if selected, the
petitioner will be junior to the persons who got promoted
WP(c).No.23019/08 4
earlier.
6. First of all, the petitioner has no claim of seniority
over those persons selected in the interview. None of those
persons have been impleaded in the writ petition also.
Therefore no relief affecting the seniority or other rights of
those persons can be granted in this writ petition. In the
circumstances the only order that can be passed in this writ
petition is to direct the the first respondent to initiate a fresh
process of selection to the post of Assistant Professor, which
post is lying vacant even as of now.
7. The petitioner has raised several allegations of mala
fides against the 4th respondent. Those allegations are
relating to the grant of maternity leave and leave under the
Qualification Improvement Programme. According to the
petitioner admissible benefits available during that period
were denied by the 4th respondent. Therefore she filed
complaints and because of that the 4th respondent was
inimical towards her. For that reason, according to the
WP(c).No.23019/08 5
petitioner the 4th respondent shall not be a member of the
selection committee to be constituted. These allegations have
been answered by the 4th respondent by filing a counter
affidavit. Therefore the allegation made by the petitioner is
refuted by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit filed. In
the light of the allegations and counter allegations contained
in the writ petition and the counter affidavit and in the
absence of any further reliable materials, I am not in a
position to accept the plea of mala fides on the part of the 4th
respondent.
8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the first respondent to initiate selection to the post
of Assistant Professor, to which post the petitioner was also an
applicant, constituting Senior Staff Selection Committee in
accordance with the special rules which is applicable. This
shall be done as expeditiously as possible.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.23019/08 6