{"id":102232,"date":"2009-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-23T04:25:43","modified_gmt":"2017-10-22T22:55:43","slug":"dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 33661 of 2005(G)\n\n\n1. DR. CYRIL JOHNSON,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,\n\n3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,\n\n4. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR\n\n5. M.T. SULEKHA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC KERALA UTY.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :07\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n           K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, V.GIRI &\n                    C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n            ----------------------------------------\n           W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005\n            ----------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009.\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Giri, J.\n<\/p>\n
         The    point   that    has   been     formulated   for<\/p>\n
consideration of this bench is whether Antony P.A. V.<\/p>\n
Krishnadas M.N. {ILR 2007(1) Kerala 244} lays down<\/p>\n
the correct legal position concerning the powers of the<\/p>\n
selection committee in evolving norms for a selection. The<\/p>\n
issue arises in the context of selection to the post of<\/p>\n
Controller of Examinations in the Kerala University.       The<\/p>\n
committee is constituted in terms of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 and it should consist of<\/p>\n
the Vice Chancellor and two other Syndicate members. The<\/p>\n
Controller is to be appointed by the Syndicate of the<\/p>\n
University   on  the    recommendation      of   the  selection<\/p>\n
committee. The First Statutes also provide for the powers<\/p>\n
and duties of the Controller. The Statutes do not specifically<\/p>\n
provide for the norms that are to be adopted by the Selection<\/p>\n
Committee. The Syndicate also did not lay down the norms.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
Norms were evolved by the selection committee on their own,<\/p>\n
apparently in the course of conducting the selection and they<\/p>\n
proceeded to select the 4th respondent. Recommendations of<\/p>\n
the selection committee were accepted by the Syndicate and<\/p>\n
the   4th  respondent   was    appointed  as   Controller  of<\/p>\n
Examinations. This has been called in question in these writ<\/p>\n
petitions.\n<\/p>\n
          2.  Learned single Judge, before whom the writ<\/p>\n
petition came up for consideration, referred to the stand<\/p>\n
taken by the University in their counter affidavit and<\/p>\n
observed that the selection committee had evolved their own<\/p>\n
norms for the selection. It was observed that the committee<\/p>\n
had arrogated to itself the power of framing the norms for<\/p>\n
selection.  This, the learned Judge observed, was clearly<\/p>\n
inconsistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu and others v. State of Orissa<\/a><\/p>\n
{1995(6) SCC 1}, wherein the Supreme Court held that the<\/p>\n
selection committee does not have the inherent jurisdiction<\/p>\n
to lay down the norms for selection, nor can such power be<\/p>\n
assumed or inferred by implication.    Learned single Judge<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                             :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
observed that a contrary view has been taken by a bench of<\/p>\n
this court in Antony P.A. V. Krishnadas M.N. {ILR 2007<\/p>\n
(1) Kerala 244}. The Bench in Antony held that where the<\/p>\n
selection committee is statutorily constituted, but the statute<\/p>\n
which provides for the constitution of the selection committee<\/p>\n
does not, at the same time, lay down any guidelines or norms<\/p>\n
to regulate the selection, then the committee is entitled to<\/p>\n
evolve its own norms, which have to be fair and reasonable.<\/p>\n
In other words, the Division Bench proceeded to uphold the<\/p>\n
power of the selection committee to evolve their own norms<\/p>\n
in the absence of a specific prescription in that regard in the<\/p>\n
statute, which in the first place had provided for the<\/p>\n
constitution of the committee. Learned single Judge, after<\/p>\n
observing that the dictum in Antony was inconsistent with<\/p>\n
the principle laid down in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu and<\/p>\n
others v. State of Orissa<\/a> {1995(6) SCC 1}, adjourned the<\/p>\n
writ petitions to be heard by a Division Bench. The Division<\/p>\n
Bench felt that the matter, requires consideration by a Full<\/p>\n
Bench, so as to avoid conflicting decisions by co-ordinate<\/p>\n
benches.     Accordingly, these cases as such have been<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
referred to a Full Bench and essentially the point for<\/p>\n
consideration is whether Antony lays down the correct legal<\/p>\n
position concerning the powers of the selection committee to<\/p>\n
evolve the norms for selection.\n<\/p>\n
           3. Reference to the facts in W.P.(C)No.35595\/05,<\/p>\n
would be comprehensive of W.P.(C)No.33661\/05 as well.<\/p>\n
           4.   By Ext.P1 notification dated 25.7.2005, the<\/p>\n
University of Kerala invited applications for appointment to<\/p>\n
the post of Controller of Examinations.      Copy of the said<\/p>\n
notification reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “The qualifications prescribed are as<\/p>\n
             follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          “A first or second class Masters Degree or<\/p>\n
          equivalent    qualification,  about 5   years<\/p>\n
          teaching experience at University level and<\/p>\n
          about 5 years administrative experience in a<\/p>\n
          responsible post, including management of<\/p>\n
          staff in a University or College or Education<\/p>\n
          Department or similar Institutions (Academic<\/p>\n
          qualification, age and experience relaxable in<\/p>\n
          the case of candidates otherwise highly<\/p>\n
          qualified).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          5. It seems that 35 persons applied and 21 persons<\/p>\n
appeared for the interview.          The selection committee<\/p>\n
consisted of the Vice Chancellor and two members of the<\/p>\n
Syndicate of the University.\n<\/p>\n
          6. It is common case that the criteria for selection<\/p>\n
are not either prescribed in the statute or otherwise laid down<\/p>\n
by the appointing authority viz., Syndicate of the University.<\/p>\n
It is also common case that the selection committee did not<\/p>\n
evolve the norms or publish the same, prior to the interview.<\/p>\n
The selection committee formulated their criteria for selection<\/p>\n
on the date of interview. It was further contended that the<\/p>\n
4th respondent did not have 5 years              administrative<\/p>\n
experience.   She was also a member of the Syndicate till<\/p>\n
26.11.2005, just three days prior to the interview. In fact,<\/p>\n
she   resigned   from    the  Syndicate    vide  letter   dated<\/p>\n
24.11.2005, which was accepted on 26.11.2005.           The 4th<\/p>\n
respondent was able to influence the constitution of the<\/p>\n
selection committee, it is contended by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
          7. It was further contended by the petitioners that<\/p>\n
the criteria for assessing the comparative merits of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                             :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
candidates were formulated by the selection committee only<\/p>\n
on 29.11.2005, i.e. the date on which they conducted the<\/p>\n
interview. One aspect, which has been pointed out relates to<\/p>\n
the awarding of 8 marks to the 4th respondent for guiding<\/p>\n
P.Hd students at the rate of 2 marks for each P.Hd students.<\/p>\n
But the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.33661\/05 was not awarded<\/p>\n
any marks for guiding M.Phil Research Scholars.            The<\/p>\n
petitioner further contends that the selection committee had<\/p>\n
erred in awarding equal marks to him as also to the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent for administrative experience, since the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent had only two years and 6 months period of actual<\/p>\n
experience. Two tabular statements have been given by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35595\/05 in an attempt to graphically<\/p>\n
illustrate the impact of the contention that the selection<\/p>\n
committee had formulated norms, on the date of the<\/p>\n
interview with the clear intention of facilitating the award of<\/p>\n
higher    marks  in favour   of the     4th respondent     and<\/p>\n
consequently, ensuring her selection. The following is the<\/p>\n
statement showing the marks actually awarded to the<\/p>\n
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.35595\/05 and the 4th respondent.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                                 :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
                               Dr.Keshav Mohan   Dr.M.T.Sulekha<\/p>\n
                                   (Petitioner)  (3rd respondent)<\/p>\n
Academic qualification                  30               30<\/span><\/p>\n
Addl. Qualification- Ph.D.              10               10<\/span><\/p>\n
Teaching Experience                     10               10<\/span><\/p>\n
Administrative Experience                7                7<\/span><\/p>\n
Publication                              5                5<\/span><\/p>\n
For producing Ph.D.                      –                8<\/span><\/p>\n
Interview                               20               20<\/span><\/p>\n
Total                                   82               90<\/span><\/p>\n
          8.    If marks were awarded to the petitioner for<\/p>\n
guiding M.Phil students and if the 4th respondent is awarded<\/p>\n
marks only for the actual administrative experience which she<\/p>\n
had acquired, then the statement of marks, according to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, would read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                          Dr.Keshav Mohan       Dr.M.T.Sulekha\n\n                             (Petitioner)       (3rd respondent)\n\nAcademic qualification            30                  30<\/span>\n\nAddl.    Qualification-\nPh.D.                             10                   10<\/span>\n\nTeaching Experience               10                   10<\/span>\n\nAdministrative\nExperience                          7                   2<\/span>\n\nPublication                         5                   5<\/span>\n\nFor producing Ph.D.               10                   10<\/span>\n\nInterview                         20                   20<\/span>\n\nTotal                             92                   85<\/span>\n\nW.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005\n\n                               :: 8 ::\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
         9.    It was inter alia on these premises that the<\/p>\n
selection, as such, has been impugned in the writ petition.<\/p>\n
         10. Similar contentions have been taken up by<\/p>\n
another candidate, who had participated in the interview, in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.33661\/05 as well.\n<\/p>\n
         11. Per contra, the University, as also the selected<\/p>\n
candidate   contend that the selection          committee   was<\/p>\n
constituted by the Syndicate in terms of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Act and the first statutes. The fact that the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
was a member of the Syndicate till 24.11.2005 is of no<\/p>\n
consequence as she had ceased to be a member on<\/p>\n
26.11.2005,     well  before    the    interview  was   actually<\/p>\n
conducted.     Neither the Act, nor the statutes specifically<\/p>\n
provide for any criteria that have to be adopted by the<\/p>\n
selection committee, called upon to assess the comparative<\/p>\n
merits of the rival candidates, who participate in the selection<\/p>\n
to the post of Controller of Examinations.         The body is<\/p>\n
constituted in terms of the statutes. Since the statutes do<\/p>\n
not specifically provide for the criteria and the Syndicate, the<\/p>\n
appointing authority also did not lay down the guidelines on<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n
its own, the selection committee was perfectly competent to<\/p>\n
adopt such criteria as are reasonable and fair. The allegation<\/p>\n
that the 4th respondent did not have adequate administrative<\/p>\n
experience, as prescribed in the notification is also denied. It<\/p>\n
was further contended that once the criteria are found to be<\/p>\n
fair and reasonable, going by the parameters normally<\/p>\n
adopted in cases of judicial review, there is no vitiating factor<\/p>\n
in the selection, which would warrant interference by this<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
         12. We heard Mr.N.Sugathan, Mr.P.C.Sasidharan,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Rajagopalan Nair,<\/p>\n
learned   counsel    for  the     University  and     Mr.George<\/p>\n
Poonthottam, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the<\/p>\n
selected candidate.\n<\/p>\n
         13. As we indicated at the outset, the main issue<\/p>\n
that has been posited for consideration by the Full Bench is<\/p>\n
whether the selection committee constituted under the<\/p>\n
Statutes would be competent to evolve and adopt its own<\/p>\n
criteria for assessing the comparative merits of the<\/p>\n
candidates. The correctness of the dictum laid down by the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
Division Bench in Antony {ILR 2007(1) Kerala 244} also<\/p>\n
comes up for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
          14. Before we deal with this main issue, we would<\/p>\n
like to refer to the contention raised by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioners that the selection as such is vitiated since<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent was a member of the Syndicate till<\/p>\n
26.11.2005 and it was the Syndicate which had constituted<\/p>\n
the selection committee. We do not find any force in this<\/p>\n
submission. True, the 4th respondent was a member of the<\/p>\n
Syndicate.     But she had tendered her resignation on<\/p>\n
24.11.2005 and it was accepted and the factum relating to<\/p>\n
the resignation was also notified on 26.11.2005.            The<\/p>\n
selection committee had met only on 29.11.2005. There was<\/p>\n
no statutory bar which stood in the way of the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
appearing before the selection committee or aspiring for the<\/p>\n
post of Controller of Examinations.    No statutory provision<\/p>\n
has been brought to our notice which provides that<\/p>\n
membership of the Syndicate will act as a disqualification to<\/p>\n
seek appointment under the University.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          15. The fact that the 4th respondent was a member<\/p>\n
of the Syndicate when the selection committee was actually<\/p>\n
constituted is also of no consequence as such in the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case. The constitution of the selection<\/p>\n
committee is governed by the provisions of the University Act<\/p>\n
or the First Statutes. The selection committee could not have<\/p>\n
been constituted otherwise than in the manner prescribed in<\/p>\n
the statute. There are no allegations of any personal bias<\/p>\n
against the individual members of the selection committee<\/p>\n
and such persons are not eo-nominee parties to the writ<\/p>\n
petition as well.\n<\/p>\n
          16. We do not find any substance in the<\/p>\n
aforementioned contention taken up by the petitioners.<\/p>\n
          17. The main issue, which has been debated upon,<\/p>\n
relates to the competence of the selection committee,<\/p>\n
constituted by the Syndicate of the University to evolve its<\/p>\n
own norms for the selection. It is appropriate to refer to the<\/p>\n
relevant provisions in the statutes at this juncture.<\/p>\n
          18. Section 9 the University Act provides for the<\/p>\n
officers of the University and Controller of Examinations is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                             :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n
one of the officers so enumerated. Section 13 of the Act<\/p>\n
provides that the Controller of Examinations is a whole time<\/p>\n
salaried officer appointed in this regard by the Syndicate.<\/p>\n
Clause 25 of Chapter II of the Kerala University First<\/p>\n
Statutes, 1977 {hereinafter referred to as the “First<\/p>\n
Statutes”} provides for the mode of appointment of the<\/p>\n
Controller of Examinations. Clause 25(1) being relevant is<\/p>\n
extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
        “25. Mode of appointment of the Controller of<\/p>\n
      Examinations: (1)      The      Controller     of<\/p>\n
      Examinations shall be appointed by the Syndicate<\/p>\n
      on the recommendation of Selection Committee<\/p>\n
      consisting of the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman<\/p>\n
      and two other Syndicate members, for a period<\/p>\n
      of one year in the first instance. He shall be a<\/p>\n
      whole time salaried officer of the University and<\/p>\n
      be appointed by a written order. In case his<\/p>\n
      appointment has been continued for over a<\/p>\n
      period of one year, he shall be deemed to be on<\/p>\n
      probation for a period of one year (Commencing<\/p>\n
      from the date of is first appointment) within a<\/p>\n
      continuous period of two years. The written<\/p>\n
      order of his appointment shall be lodged with the<\/p>\n
      Vice-Chancellor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 13 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         19. The qualifications for the post of Controller of<\/p>\n
Examinations is prescribed in the schedule to the Kerala<\/p>\n
University First Ordinances and it is prescribed as the same<\/p>\n
as that of a Registrar. It is this qualification which has been<\/p>\n
noted in Ext.P1 notification as well.<\/p>\n
         20.     It cannot be gainsaid that the statutory<\/p>\n
provisions which provide for the post of Controller of<\/p>\n
Examinations, and that which provides for the method of<\/p>\n
appointment to the said post (Clause 25 Chapter II of the<\/p>\n
First Statutes) do not lay down the criteria that have to be<\/p>\n
adopted by the selection committee while conducting the<\/p>\n
selection. It also cannot be gainsaid that in the instant case,<\/p>\n
the selection committee evolved their own criteria, without<\/p>\n
being guided by either any statutory prescription or any<\/p>\n
guidelines laid down by the appointing authority in that<\/p>\n
behalf.  Such criteria adopted by the selection committee<\/p>\n
were not mentioned in the notification. In fact, they were not<\/p>\n
even published at any point of time, prior to the interview<\/p>\n
held on 29.11.2005. The criteria, as such, adopted by the<\/p>\n
selection committee are discernible only from the minutes of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 14 ::\n<\/p>\n
the selection committee held on 29.11.2005. Those minutes<\/p>\n
have been produced as Ext.R2(d), along with the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit filed by the University in W.P.(C)No.33661\/05. It<\/p>\n
would be appropriate to extract the minutes of the meeting of<\/p>\n
the selection committee so held on 29.11.2005 in its entirety.<\/p>\n
             “Minutes of the Meeting of the Selection<\/p>\n
      Committee constituted to interview candidates<\/p>\n
      for the post of Controller of Examinations in the<\/p>\n
      University of Kerala.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Venue        : VC's Chamber\n                Time         : 10.30 AM\n                Date         : 29.11.2005\n\n                Members present:\n\n          1. Dr.M.K.Ramachandran Nair,\n              Vice-Chancellor.                      Sd\/-\n          2. Dr.V.P.Mohammed Kunju Metharu,\n              Member, Syndicate.                    Sd\/-\n          3. Dr.Varghese Perayil,\n              Member, Syndicate.                    Sd\/-\n\n<\/pre>\n
                At the outset the Committee discussed<\/p>\n
      in detail the various aspects to be considered<\/p>\n
      while considering the applications for the post<\/p>\n
      of Controller of Examinations and resolved<\/p>\n
      that:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         1.     Weightage at the rate of 25 and 30 be<\/p>\n
                awarded respectively to candidates<\/p>\n
                who secured II class and I class in<\/p>\n
                their PG Exams.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                            :: 15 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.    A weightage of 10 marks be awarded<\/p>\n
              to candidates possessing Ph.D Degree.<\/p>\n
        3.    A weightage of 1 mark be awarded for<\/p>\n
              each year of teaching experience<\/p>\n
              subject to a maximum of 10 marks.\n<\/p>\n
        4.    The   weightage       for administrative<\/p>\n
              experience be @ 1 mark for one year<\/p>\n
              of service subject to a maximum of 10<\/p>\n
              marks.\n<\/p>\n
        5.    To award 1 mark for each research<\/p>\n
              paper\/book published limiting the<\/p>\n
              maximum to 5 marks.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    To award 2 marks for each Ph.D<\/p>\n
              produced, the maximum of which is<\/p>\n
              limited to 10 marks.\n<\/p>\n
              And<\/p>\n
        7.    The maximum marks for the interview<\/p>\n
              be 25 marks, so that the total marks<\/p>\n
              come to 100.\n<\/p>\n
              Also resolved that while awarding<\/p>\n
     marks for the interview proper weightage be<\/p>\n
     given for the candidate’s academic excellence,<\/p>\n
     his\/her exposure to and awareness of the<\/p>\n
     University administrative systems in general<\/p>\n
     and the University examination systems in<\/p>\n
     particular  and   their    performance  in   the<\/p>\n
     interview.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                               :: 16 ::\n<\/p>\n
                The process of interview commenced<\/p>\n
       at 11.00 AM. Out of the 35 candidates called for<\/p>\n
       interview, only 21 candidates appeared before<\/p>\n
       the Selection Committee.\n<\/p>\n
                After assessing the relative merits of<\/p>\n
       the candidates according to the stipulations<\/p>\n
       above,     the      Committee        unanimously<\/p>\n
       recommended that the post of Controller of<\/p>\n
       Examinations be offered to:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                Dr.M.T.Sulekha,
\n                B21, Abhayam,
\n                Sreerangam Lane,
\n                Sasthamangalam,
\n                Thiruvananthapuram-10.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                The whole process of interview came<\/p>\n
       to an end at 5 PM.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          21.   It is also not in dispute that the selection<\/p>\n
committee had met for the first time on 29.11.2005 and the<\/p>\n
criteria for assessing the merits of the candidates were<\/p>\n
apparently evolved by the selection committee on the same<\/p>\n
day. It is also not in dispute that the candidates including the<\/p>\n
petitioners and the 4th respondent were also interviewed on<\/p>\n
29.11.2005.    We find it difficult to brand as fanciful, the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 17 ::\n<\/p>\n
contention that the selection committee decided to select the<\/p>\n
4th respondent and then evolved the criteria for assessing the<\/p>\n
comparative merits of the candidates. In other words, it is<\/p>\n
contended that, after having decided to select the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent, the criteria, the adoption of which would justify<\/p>\n
her selection, as such, were evolved by the selection<\/p>\n
committee.    When the selection committee commenced its<\/p>\n
proceedings, the curriculum vitae of the candidates were<\/p>\n
before it.   If it wanted to favour a candidate, norms for<\/p>\n
awarding marks could be modulated accordingly. Experience<\/p>\n
in teaching and administrative experience are notified<\/p>\n
qualifications. If a candidate is having longer experience in<\/p>\n
teaching and lesser in administration, he can be superseded<\/p>\n
by lowering the rate of marks per year for teaching and<\/p>\n
increasing the rate for administrative experience.      Ext.P1<\/p>\n
notification, which we have already extracted in para 4, does<\/p>\n
not mention either about publication of research paper\/book<\/p>\n
or production of Ph.D, as desirable qualifications or grounds<\/p>\n
for preference. Possibility of some candidates not furnishing<\/p>\n
those details in their curriculum vitae, as they are not<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 18 ::\n<\/p>\n
relevant in terms of Ext.P1, cannot be ruled out. Thus, the<\/p>\n
above    two  parameters fixed by the Committee are<\/p>\n
susceptible to the charge of being tailor-made to suit a<\/p>\n
particular candidate. This brings us to the question that has<\/p>\n
to be considered by the Full Bench viz., whether the selection<\/p>\n
committee, constituted as per the statutory provisions, can<\/p>\n
evolve its own norms for conducting the selection?<\/p>\n
          22. There are two facets to this contention. The<\/p>\n
first would arise in cases where the statutory provisions<\/p>\n
providing for the constitution of the selection committee by<\/p>\n
themselves, also lay down the criteria to be followed by the<\/p>\n
selection committee. It has been the consistent view taken<\/p>\n
by the Supreme Court that in such cases, the selection<\/p>\n
committee has no jurisdiction to either relax any of the<\/p>\n
qualifications laid down by the statutory requirements or<\/p>\n
follow any method, which is strictly not in terms of the<\/p>\n
statutory prescriptions. There is neither power of relaxation<\/p>\n
nor the power to vary, available in this regard to the selection<\/p>\n
committee [see the decisions in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v.<\/p>\n
Union of India<\/a> [1984(1) SCC 141],            Umesh Chandra<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 19 ::\n<\/p>\n
Shukla v. Union of India [1985(3) SCC 721] and<\/p>\n
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa & others<\/a> [1987(4)<\/p>\n
SCC 646]}. Any such action taken by the selection<\/p>\n
committee would be clearly ultra vires, thereby vitiating the<\/p>\n
selection as such.\n<\/p>\n
          23.  But, the second facet of the aforementioned<\/p>\n
contention arises in cases where the statutory provisions<\/p>\n
providing for the constitution of the selection committee are<\/p>\n
sub-silentio as regards the criteria to be adopted by the<\/p>\n
selection committee, while assessing the comparative merits<\/p>\n
of the candidates. It is contended that in the present case,<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Act and the first statutes provide for the<\/p>\n
constitution of a selection committee. But, they are silent as<\/p>\n
regards the criteria to be evolved by the selection committee.<\/p>\n
There is no dispute that the Syndicate is the appointing<\/p>\n
authority and so constituted by the statutory provisions as<\/p>\n
such. The petitioners contend that since the statutory<\/p>\n
provisions providing for the constitution of the selection<\/p>\n
committee are silent as regards the criteria to be adopted by<\/p>\n
the selection committee, subject to the criteria being fair,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                               :: 20 ::\n<\/p>\n
reasonable and transparent, it will be open to the committee<\/p>\n
to evolve its own criteria. Is this so?<\/p>\n
         24.   The petitioners rely on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu {1995(6)<\/p>\n
SCC 1} to contend for the position that the selection<\/p>\n
committee has no jurisdiction in this regard. The Supreme<\/p>\n
Court was, in the said case, concerned with appointment to<\/p>\n
the post of Junior Teachers in a College affiliated to the<\/p>\n
University. Selection was to be done by a Board constituted<\/p>\n
in accordance with the statutory rules framed in that regard.<\/p>\n
The criteria or the norms for selection were not statutorily<\/p>\n
prescribed.   It seems that the members of the selection<\/p>\n
board decided to adopt the confidential reports of the<\/p>\n
candidates, who were already employed as a Homoeopathic<\/p>\n
Medical Officers, as the basis for determining their suitability.<\/p>\n
This, the Supreme Court held, was impermissible and was<\/p>\n
ultra vires the powers conferred on the selection board.<\/p>\n
Paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 36 of the said judgment contain<\/p>\n
the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.<\/p>\n
They read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                            :: 21 ::\n<\/p>\n
     “32. The members of the Selection Board or for<\/p>\n
           that matter, any other Selection Committee,<\/p>\n
           do not have the jurisdiction to lay down the<\/p>\n
           criteria for   selection   unless  they   are<\/p>\n
           authorised specifically in that regard by the<\/p>\n
           Rules made under Article 309. It is basically<\/p>\n
           the function of the rule-making authority to<\/p>\n
           provide the basis for selection. This Court in<\/p>\n
           State of A.P. v. V.Sadanandam observed as<\/p>\n
           under: (SCC PP.583-84, para 17)<\/p>\n
               ‘We are now only left with the<\/p>\n
               reasoning of the Tribunal that there<\/p>\n
               is   no     justification   for   the<\/p>\n
               continuance of the old rule and for<\/p>\n
               personnel belonging to other zones<\/p>\n
               being transferred on promotion to<\/p>\n
               offices in other zones. In drawing<\/p>\n
               such conclusions, the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
               travelled beyond the limits of its<\/p>\n
               jurisdiction. We need only point out<\/p>\n
               that the mode of recruitment and<\/p>\n
               the   category      from  which   the<\/p>\n
               recruitment to a service should be<\/p>\n
               made are all matters which are<\/p>\n
               exclusively within the domain of the<\/p>\n
               executive.    It is not for judicial<\/p>\n
               bodies to sit in judgment over the<\/p>\n
               wisdom of the executive in choosing<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                            :: 22 ::<\/p>\n
               the mode of recruitment or the<\/p>\n
               categories      from     which    the<\/p>\n
               recruitment should be made as they<\/p>\n
               are matters of policy decision falling<\/p>\n
               exclusively within the purview of the<\/p>\n
               executive.’<\/p>\n
     34.   The Selection Committee does not even have<\/p>\n
           the inherent jurisdiction to lay down the<\/p>\n
           norms for selection nor can such power be<\/p>\n
           assumed by necessary implication.         In<\/p>\n
           P.K.Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India,<\/a> it<\/p>\n
           was observed (SCC PP.180-81, para 44)<\/p>\n
                ‘By necessary inference, there<\/p>\n
                was no such power in the ASRB to<\/p>\n
                add to the required qualifications.<\/p>\n
\n\n                In such power is claimed, it has to\n\n                be explicit and cannot be read by\n\n                necessary    implication    for the\n\n                obvious     reason      that   such\n\n                deviation from the rules is likely\n\n                to     cause      irreparable  and\n\n                irreversible harm.'\n\n<\/pre>\n
     35.   Similarly, in Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union<\/p>\n
           of India,<\/a> it was observed that the Selection<\/p>\n
           Committee does not possess any inherent<\/p>\n
           power to lay down its own standards in<\/p>\n
           addition to what is prescribed under the<\/p>\n
           Rules. Both these decisions were followed<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 23 ::\n<\/p>\n
            in Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, and<\/p>\n
            the<\/a> limitation of the Selection Committee<\/p>\n
            were pointed out that it had no jurisdiction<\/p>\n
            to prescribe the minimum marks which a<\/p>\n
            candidate had to secure at the viva voce.<\/p>\n
      36.   It may be pointed out that rule-making<\/p>\n
            function under Article 309 is legislative and<\/p>\n
            not executive as was laid down by this Court<\/p>\n
            in B.S.Yadav v. State of Haryana. For this<\/p>\n
            reason also, the Selection Committee or the<\/p>\n
            Selection Board cannot be held to have<\/p>\n
            jurisdiction to lay down any standard or<\/p>\n
            basis for selection as it would amount to<\/p>\n
            legislating a rule of selection.”\n<\/p>\n
          25.   After having observed as above, and after<\/p>\n
considering the case law on the point, the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
held, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, as follows:<\/p>\n
      “39. On the basis of these decisions, we are<\/p>\n
            inclined to say that in order to assess the<\/p>\n
            suitability or real worth of a candidate for<\/p>\n
            the post of junior teacher in the college,<\/p>\n
            the basis, namely, the character rolls,<\/p>\n
            adopted by the Selection Board was wholly<\/p>\n
            arbitrary besides being without authority<\/p>\n
            or jurisdiction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                               :: 24 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          26. Thereafter the Government was directed to<\/p>\n
suitably    amend      the    rule      or  issue    necessary<\/p>\n
administrative\/executive instructions laying down the basis<\/p>\n
on which the suitability of the candidates shall be determined,<\/p>\n
before requiring the Selection Board to hold a fresh selection.<\/p>\n
          27. The principles in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu<\/p>\n
{1995(6) SCC 1} were adopted and followed by the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in a later decision also {Secretary, A.P.<\/p>\n
Public Service Commission v. B.Swapna,<\/a> (2005) 4 SCC<\/p>\n
154}. Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu {1995(6) SCC 1}<\/p>\n
should have been treated as an authority for the proposition<\/p>\n
that a selection committee statutorily constituted has no<\/p>\n
authority or jurisdiction to lay down the norms for the<\/p>\n
selection. Such norms should be either statutorily prescribed<\/p>\n
or in the absence of the same, the norms forming the basis of<\/p>\n
the selection could be laid down by the appointing authority<\/p>\n
by means of administrative instructions. But, a Bench of this<\/p>\n
court in Antony {ILR 2007(1) Kerala 244} took a view<\/p>\n
that when a selection committee is statutorily constituted, but<\/p>\n
the Statute does not lay down the manner for selection,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 25 ::\n<\/p>\n
necessarily, the selection committee shall have the authority<\/p>\n
to adopt reasonable and fair norms.\n<\/p>\n
          28. Antony was concerned with selection to the<\/p>\n
post of Section Officer in the Sree Sankaracharya University.<\/p>\n
The selection committee was constituted in terms of the<\/p>\n
University First Statutes. Qualifications were also prescribed<\/p>\n
in the statutes. But the basis for the selection or the criteria<\/p>\n
to be followed were not either prescribed in the statute or laid<\/p>\n
down by the Syndicate, the appointing authority. Taking note<\/p>\n
of these aspects, the Division Bench in Antony in paragraph<\/p>\n
27 held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “Statute 8 of Chapter IV provides that the<\/p>\n
      recruitment to posts shall be made on the basis<\/p>\n
      of the recommendations made by a Selection<\/p>\n
      Committee consisting of Vice Chancellor as<\/p>\n
      Chairman, Convener of the Standing Committee<\/p>\n
      of the Syndicate on Staff and the Registrar, who<\/p>\n
      shall be the Member Secretary of the Committee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      There is no contention from the writ petitioners<\/p>\n
      that constitution of the Selection Committee was<\/p>\n
      in any way vitiated.     Therefore, the Selection<\/p>\n
      Committee was competently constituted to<\/p>\n
      conduct selection.     The short listing of the<\/p>\n
      candidates is provided for in Statute 9. That<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                            :: 26 ::\n<\/p>\n
     provision did not contain any specific norms<\/p>\n
     regarding selection except to direct that the<\/p>\n
     rules of reservation as provided in Rules 14 to<\/p>\n
     17 of the General Rules in KS & SSR as amended<\/p>\n
     from time to time shall be followed or that the<\/p>\n
     University can also set apart certain number of<\/p>\n
     posts for Special Recruitment confining to the<\/p>\n
     members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled<\/p>\n
     Tribe.    At the same time, the Selection<\/p>\n
     Committee is empowered to prepare a short list<\/p>\n
     as if 5 candidates are included for one vacancy<\/p>\n
     notified. Apart from this no norms regarding<\/p>\n
     selection are provided in the Statute. True, if<\/p>\n
     the statute provides any norms, the Selection<\/p>\n
     Committee is bound to follow the said norms. It<\/p>\n
     cannot vary such norms.        When a Selection<\/p>\n
     Committee is statutorily constituted, but the<\/p>\n
     Statute which empowers constitution of a<\/p>\n
     Selection Committee does not give any manner<\/p>\n
     for   selection,   necessarily   the   Selection<\/p>\n
     Committee shall have to select candidates<\/p>\n
     following reasonable and fair norms ordinarily to<\/p>\n
     be followed for selection. When the University is<\/p>\n
     a statutory creation and comes within the term<\/p>\n
     State under Article 12 of the Constitution, the<\/p>\n
     norms so followed shall be fair, just and<\/p>\n
     reasonable.”\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                               :: 27 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          29.   With regard to the dictum laid down by the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu {1995(6)<\/p>\n
SCC 1}, the Division Bench went on to observe and find that<\/p>\n
the selection committee in the case of Antony had not<\/p>\n
decided to look into the reports of the erstwhile employer,<\/p>\n
about the incumbent concerned, nor had it decided to look<\/p>\n
into their confidential reports, as in the case of Dr.Krushna<\/p>\n
Chandra Sahu {1995(6) SCC 1}. They only devised a<\/p>\n
method of awarding marks to the candidates and for this<\/p>\n
purpose, according to the Bench, the method of segmenting<\/p>\n
the marks into 5 different segments with certain guidelines<\/p>\n
alone had been adopted by the Selection Committee as a<\/p>\n
guideline for themselves. The Division Bench thereafter went<\/p>\n
on to observe that Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu {1995(6)<\/p>\n
SCC 1}, therefore, cannot have any relevance.<\/p>\n
          30. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended<\/p>\n
that the dictum in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu was relatable<\/p>\n
to a case where the statute providing for the selection<\/p>\n
committee was silent regarding the norms that had to be<\/p>\n
adopted by the committee, nor were there any administrative<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 28 ::\n<\/p>\n
instructions issued, so as to lay down guidelines for<\/p>\n
conducting the selection.     It was in the aforementioned<\/p>\n
context, the Supreme Court held in categoric terms that the<\/p>\n
norms adopted by the selection committee in the said case<\/p>\n
were not only not fair and reasonable, but also without<\/p>\n
authority and jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
          31.  We find force in this submission and having<\/p>\n
gone through the judgment in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu,<\/p>\n
as also in Antony, we are of the view that the dictum in<\/p>\n
Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu            as regards the power and<\/p>\n
authority of the selection committee, did not admit of any<\/p>\n
distinguishing feature, as attempted to be delineated by the<\/p>\n
Bench in Antony v. Krishnadas. The dictum laid down in<\/p>\n
Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu is squarely applicable to a case<\/p>\n
where a statutorily constituted selection committee evolves<\/p>\n
and adopts its own guidelines for conducting a selection, on<\/p>\n
the premise that there is neither a statutorily prescribed<\/p>\n
guideline nor any administrative instructions issued by the<\/p>\n
appointing authority in that regard.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 29 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          32. If there are no statutory instructions as regards<\/p>\n
the criteria to be followed by the selection committee, then it<\/p>\n
is open to the appointing authority to lay down administrative<\/p>\n
instructions in this regard.          But, if there are any<\/p>\n
administrative instructions, laying down the guidelines, then<\/p>\n
absence of such administrative guidelines or instructions will<\/p>\n
not empower the selection committee to lay down its own<\/p>\n
norms and then conduct the selection. This, as has been held<\/p>\n
in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu, would be without jurisdiction<\/p>\n
and authority.\n<\/p>\n
          33. Mr.Poonthottam placed reliance on the dictum<\/p>\n
laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr.J.P.Kulshrestha and<\/p>\n
others v. Chancellor, Allahabad University<\/a> {1980 (3)<\/p>\n
SCC 418} to contend that the selection committee has<\/p>\n
inherent jurisdiction to adopt criteria, which is fair and<\/p>\n
reasonable; in the absence of statutorily prescribed guidelines<\/p>\n
in   that  behalf.    We   have    perused   the  decision   in<\/p>\n
Dr.J.P.Kulshrestha. The same dealt with selection to the<\/p>\n
post of a reader. The selection committee, in the said case,<\/p>\n
was constituted as per the Allahabad University Act and the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 30 ::\n<\/p>\n
statutes framed therein.     The Supreme Court noted that<\/p>\n
“there are statutory provisions regulating the functions of<\/p>\n
the selection committee”. Ordinances prescribed qualifications<\/p>\n
for the appointment of teachers. The Supreme Court made<\/p>\n
particular reference to Ordinance No.9 and it is significant to<\/p>\n
note the proviso to Ordinance 9(2)(iv), which provides that<\/p>\n
the selection committee may relax the qualifications<\/p>\n
contained in Clause 3 for the post of reader in the case of<\/p>\n
candidate whose total length of service as teachers in the<\/p>\n
University is not less than the period required to teach the<\/p>\n
maximum of the Lecturer’s Grade and who shall have<\/p>\n
established a reputation as teachers.     The Supreme Court<\/p>\n
then further held in paragraph 5 of the judgment that the<\/p>\n
statutory exercise of choosing the best among the applicants<\/p>\n
in conformity with the minimum qualifications is done by the<\/p>\n
selection committee which recommends to the executive<\/p>\n
council its panel. After observing so, the Supreme Court took<\/p>\n
note of the fact that though there is no specific legislative<\/p>\n
provision regarding the procedure to be adopted by the<\/p>\n
selection committee, there can be no doubt that self-created<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 31 ::\n<\/p>\n
rules, flexible and pragmatic, fair and functionally viable, may<\/p>\n
well be fashioned by the selection committee.                This<\/p>\n
observation was made in the context of the fact that the<\/p>\n
committee had, in the case, adopted the mode of<\/p>\n
interviewing the candidates.\n<\/p>\n
          34. The aforementioned observations were made by<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court in determining whether the procedure<\/p>\n
adopted in the said case by the selection committee was fair<\/p>\n
and reasonable.     In fact, major portion of the discussion<\/p>\n
related to the contention that some of the selected<\/p>\n
candidates were not qualified. The point which actually came<\/p>\n
up for consideration in Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu viz.,<\/p>\n
whether a statutorily constituted selection committee had the<\/p>\n
inherent jurisdiction to evolve its own norms, in the absence<\/p>\n
of statutory prescriptions in that regard, was not really<\/p>\n
posited     for     consideration,     nor     considered     in<\/p>\n
Dr.J.P.Kulshrestha by the Supreme Court. That the proviso<\/p>\n
to Ordinance 9(2)(iv), as mentioned above, even conferred<\/p>\n
power on the selection committee to relax the qualifications<\/p>\n
mentioned in Clause 9(2)(iii), is also noteworthy.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                               :: 32 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          35.   Mr.Poonthottam further contended that the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court had considered the aspect regarding the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Selection Committee to evolve its own<\/p>\n
norms in K.K.Parmar and others v. High Court of Gujarat<\/p>\n
Through Registrar and others<\/a> {2006(5) SCC 789}. In<\/p>\n
Parmar, the Supreme Court was concerned with the<\/p>\n
challenge to the promotion to the post of Section Officers in<\/p>\n
the High Court of Gujarat.             The rules regulating the<\/p>\n
recruitment and conditions of service of the staff were framed<\/p>\n
by the Chief Justice. Rule 47(2)(a) of the Rules specifically<\/p>\n
provided that promotion to the post of Section Officer from<\/p>\n
Assistant will be effected strictly on consideration of efficiency<\/p>\n
and proof of merits. Merit was to be determined on the basis<\/p>\n
of the past performance and performance of the written and<\/p>\n
oral examination to be held by the selection committee, as<\/p>\n
may be appointed by the Chief Justice. One of the grounds of<\/p>\n
challenge made by the writ petitioners before the High Court<\/p>\n
was that the selection committee had not followed Sub-Rule<\/p>\n
(2) of Rule 47 of the Rules. The challenge was upheld by the<\/p>\n
learned single Judge. The Supreme Court referred to Rule 47<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                             :: 33 ::\n<\/p>\n
(2) of the Rules and observed that the rules provide for the<\/p>\n
mode and manner in which the merit should be determined<\/p>\n
and found that past performance and performance in the<\/p>\n
written test and performance in the oral test were to be<\/p>\n
considered by the selection committee. It was further found<\/p>\n
that the High Court or for that matter, the selection<\/p>\n
committee could not have ignored the mandate of the Rules.<\/p>\n
Thereafter it was observed in paragraph 25 of the judgment,<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “25. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 47 of the Rules<\/p>\n
      specifies the mode and         manner in which<\/p>\n
      respective merit of the candidate is to be<\/p>\n
      determined. The High Court or for that matter the<\/p>\n
      Selection Committee could not have ignored the<\/p>\n
      same. In any event, it was for the members of the<\/p>\n
      Selection Committee, in absence of any marks<\/p>\n
      having been allotted under the Rules for judging<\/p>\n
      the past performance of the candidates, to devise<\/p>\n
      a mode therefor. The candidates had no say in<\/p>\n
      the matter.   Annual confidential reports of the<\/p>\n
      employees concerned must have been placed<\/p>\n
      before the Selection Committee with a view to<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                               :: 34 ::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      enable it to prepare a select list. If they had not<\/p>\n
      adopted any criteria in that regard, the employees<\/p>\n
      concerned cannot be blamed therefor.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         36. The observation that it was for the members of<\/p>\n
the selection committee to have devised a mode for judging<\/p>\n
the past performance of the candidate was made in the<\/p>\n
context of the fact that the rules had provided the mode and<\/p>\n
manner in which merits should have been determined and<\/p>\n
past performance was one of the criteria that was laid down<\/p>\n
by the rules itself. Apparently, past performance was kept<\/p>\n
out of consideration by the selection committee and it was in<\/p>\n
this context, the aforementioned observations were made by<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court.       It is also significant to note that<\/p>\n
Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu            was not considered by the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Parmar’s case.\n<\/p>\n
         37. Parmar was, therefore, a case where there<\/p>\n
was a statutory prescription providing the mode and manner<\/p>\n
in which merit had to be assessed by the selection<\/p>\n
committee. In fact, Parmar in one sense supports the view in<\/p>\n
Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu. If the statute provides the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                             :: 35 ::\n<\/p>\n
mode and manner in which merit is to be assessed by the<\/p>\n
selection committee, the committee cannot deviate from the<\/p>\n
same. At any rate, Parmar does not take a view different<\/p>\n
from Dr.Krushna Chandra Sahu.\n<\/p>\n
         38.   Mr.Poonthottam       referred to   two other<\/p>\n
judgments in Inderjeet Khurana v. State of Haryana and<\/p>\n
others {2007(3) SCC 102} and M.V.Thimmaiah and<\/p>\n
others v. Union Public Service Commission and others<\/a><\/p>\n
{2008(2) SCC 119}.          We are afraid that these two<\/p>\n
decisions have no application to the present case.<\/p>\n
         39.    Since we have undertaken an elaborate<\/p>\n
discussion, we consider it appropriate to encapsulate our<\/p>\n
conclusions:\n<\/p>\n
       (1) The selection committee, which has<\/p>\n
            been statutorily constituted, should<\/p>\n
            follow the norms for assessing the<\/p>\n
            merit of rival candidates, if such<\/p>\n
            norms are laid down in the statute.<\/p>\n
            The selection committee has no<\/p>\n
            jurisdiction or authority to either<\/p>\n
            relax any of the norms or vary the<\/p>\n
            same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                          :: 36 ::\n<\/p>\n
      (2) If the statute which provides for the<\/p>\n
           constitution    of     the    selection<\/p>\n
           committee does not provide for the<\/p>\n
           norms for the selection committee,<\/p>\n
           then it is open to the appointing<\/p>\n
           authority to lay down instructions<\/p>\n
           and guidelines providing for such<\/p>\n
           norms. In such a case, the selection<\/p>\n
           committee is bound to follow such<\/p>\n
           administrative       instructions    in<\/p>\n
           conducting selection.\n<\/p>\n
      (3) In     cases   where       the   norms<\/p>\n
           governing the selection are not laid<\/p>\n
           down    either    in    the   statutory<\/p>\n
           provisions   or    in   administrative<\/p>\n
           instructions,        the      selection<\/p>\n
           committee constituted to conduct<\/p>\n
           selection  would       not  have   any<\/p>\n
           inherent jurisdiction or authority to<\/p>\n
           evolve its own norms for conducting<\/p>\n
           the selection. If it evolves its own<\/p>\n
           norms, then its action will be<\/p>\n
           without authority and jurisdiction<\/p>\n
           and selection would be vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
      (4) The dictum laid in Antony P.A. V.\n<\/p>\n
           Krishnadas    M.N.     {ILR    2007(1)<\/p>\n
           Kerala 244}, which upholds the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                              :: 37 ::\n<\/p>\n
             contrary position does not lay down<\/p>\n
             the correct law and it is hereby<\/p>\n
             overruled.\n<\/p>\n
          For all these reasons, we are of the view that the<\/p>\n
petitioners are entitled to succeed. It is declared that the<\/p>\n
proceedings of the selection committee constituted by the<\/p>\n
Syndicate of the Kerala University for conducting selection to<\/p>\n
the post of Controller of Examinations in the University of<\/p>\n
Kerala, held on 29.11.2005, as evidenced by Ext.R2(d)<\/p>\n
produced in W.P.(C)No.33661\/05 are illegal and vitiated. So<\/p>\n
also the selection and consequent appointment of the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent as Controller of Examinations of the University of<\/p>\n
Kerala, are declared to be illegal. We have not gone into the<\/p>\n
question as to whether the 4th respondent possesses the<\/p>\n
requisite administrative experience for selection to the post of<\/p>\n
Controller of Examinations and that question is left open for<\/p>\n
consideration of the selection committee. The Syndicate of<\/p>\n
the University shall within one month from the date of receipt<\/p>\n
of a copy of this judgment, evolve the norms for selection to<\/p>\n
the post of Controller of Examinations and such norms shall<\/p>\n
govern – award of marks for academic qualifications and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)Nos.33661 & 35595 of 2005<\/p>\n
                               :: 38 ::\n<\/p>\n
experience – as they are the only qualifications, notified for<\/p>\n
selection. For example; if a candidate has only the minimum<\/p>\n
marks necessary for second class and another has first class<\/p>\n
with 90% marks, the latter has to be awarded higher marks.<\/p>\n
Same should be the case for experience also.         A fresh<\/p>\n
selection to the post of Controller of Examinations from<\/p>\n
among the candidates, who applied pursuant to Ext.P1 shall<\/p>\n
be conducted, as early as possible, and shall be completed at<\/p>\n
any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a<\/p>\n
copy of this judgment. Needless to say, qualifications on the<\/p>\n
last date for receipt of application as per Ext.P1 alone are<\/p>\n
relevant.\n<\/p>\n
         Writ petitions are allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                         Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                           (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                          Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                       (V.GIRI)
\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                         Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                  (C.T.RAVIKUMAR)
\n                                        JUDGE
\nsk\/
\n                 \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 33661 of 2005(G) 1. DR. CYRIL JOHNSON, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, 4. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-22T22:55:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T22:55:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6593,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T22:55:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-22T22:55:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T22:55:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009"},"wordCount":6593,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009","name":"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T22:55:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-cyril-johnson-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Cyril Johnson vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102232","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}