Loading...

Dr. Johnson R vs University Of Calicut on 15 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dr. Johnson R vs University Of Calicut on 15 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36897 of 2008(P)


1. DR. JOHNSON R, AGED 41 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

4. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/12/2008

 O R D E R
                              ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                        --------------------------
                          W.P.(C) No.36897 of 2008
                -------------------------------------
                Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008

                                  J U D G M E N T

Ext.P1 is the notification issued by the Calicut University inviting

applications for various posts including the post of Lecturer (Psychology).

In so far as the Lecturer post is concerned, the eligibility criteria notified in

Ext.P1 is the following :-

“(i) Good academic record with at least 55% marks (without grace of

rounding off) or an equivalent grade at Master’s degree level in the

relevant subject of the University or of any Indian University/Foreign

University as equivalent thereto.

(ii) Clearance in the National Eligibility Test (NET) for Lecturers

conducted by UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC or Ph.D.

in the concerned subject or Completed M.Phil degree in the concerned

subject on or before 31st December, 1993.

Note : i) A relaxation of 5% marks at the Master’s level will

be provided for the SC/ST candidates who cleared the National Eligibility

Test (NET).

ii) A relaxation of 5% marks at the Masters level will

be provided to Ph.D. Degree holders who have passed their Masters

Degree prior to 19/09/1991 and cleared the National Eligibility Test

(NET).”

2. Responding to Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2. Along

with the application he also produced his certificates. Admittedly, the

petitioner did not secure 55% marks for the Masters Degree level

W.P.(C) No. 36897/2008
-2-

examination. In so far as his M.Phil degree is concerned, Ext.P2(b) is the

certificate. It is stated that the petitioner has passed in Grade B in the

Examination held in December, 1993. Prima facie, it would appear that he

is eligible in terms of Clause (ii) of the eligibility criteria extracted above.

3. However, as already noticed, he does not have 55% marks at

the Masters level degree examination. Here, the petitioner is claiming the

benefit of relaxation in terms of Note (ii) extracted above. Here again, the

petitioner does not satisfy the requirement that he should have acquired

National Eligibility Test. However, the petitioner refers to Exts.P5, P6 & P7.

Ext.P5 is the Special Rule framed for by the Government for appointments

in the Kerala Collegiate Education Service. Since the vacancies notified in

Ext.P1 are not in Collegiate Education Service, Ext.P5 is inapplicable.

Ext.P6 is the notification issued by the Government introducing UGC

scheme and Ext.P7 is the notification issued by the University of Kerala for

appointments in that University. Since the learned Standing Counsel for

the University confirms that the qualifications and the note incorporated in

Ext.P1 notification are consistent with the Regulations framed by the

University, even if Exts.P6 & P7 are at variance with Ext.P1, that is

inconsequential.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess 55% marks in the

Masters Degree level examination, and as he has not cleared National

W.P.(C) No. 36897/2008
-3-

Eligibility Test he is also not eligible for the relaxation provided. If that be

so, the rejection of the petitioner’s application by Ext.P3, at least on the

ground that he does not possess the 55% marks at masters level deserves

to be upheld.

The writ petition fails, and is dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information