M. Ramachandran, J.
1. The Kerala University had invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to various posts in the teaching departments of the University. Among them, two posts of Lectures in Sociology had been included, one of them was reserved for Scheduled Castes and other was notified as an open vacancy.
2. As per the notification, qualification for appointment as Lecturer was 'good academic record with at least 55% marks OP an equivalent grade at Master's Degree level'. The candidate also should have cleared the eligibility test for lectureship as required by the University Grants Commission. The notification was dated 28.1.1999. But, no immediate follow up action had been there though petitioner had applied. Again, the posts were notified along with other posts on 28.9.2002. The earlier applications also were to be treated as valid. In due course, the petitioner had been directed to appear before the Interview Committee on 24.6.2003. Thirty two candidates appears to have attended the interview. Unanimously, according to the petitioner, the Committee had decided to recommend her to the open vacancy. Smt. M. Pushpam had been selected for appointed to the reserved vacancy.
3. The concerned records had been made available, and in respect of the factual positions stated by the parties, there appears to be no error.
4. The recommendations of the Selection Committee had been placed before the Syndicate as per the Rules, but it was kept off on the first occasion. Petitioner refers to the minutes of the Syndicate held on 1.8.2003. The Minutes show that even at that time the Vice Chancellor had explained that the selection had been carried out strictly as per the norms and taking note of the merits of the candidates. The decision of the Selection Committee was unanimous. Vice Chancellor had recorded his opinion that there was no justification in not approving the minutes.
5. In the meeting of the Syndicate held thereafter on 16.8.2003, the said body by a majority had decided to reject the report of the Selection Committee. The reasons given for rejection had been separately shown as Appendix 1(A) of the Minutes. This was to the following effect:-
'Appendix 1(A)
(To Item No. 1)
Syndicate meeting held on 1.8.2003
SPECIAL ITEM 2
The members, who have taken the stand not to approve the minutes of the Selection Committee, have registered their opinion that the index rate calculated based on the academic merit for the finalisation of select list is not strictly on the basis of the norms prescribed for the appointment of teachers in University. The Vice-Chancellor (The Chairman of the Selection Committee) has not considered to place the distribution of marks of the various candidates who have appeared for the interview, even though these member have demanded repeatedly in the Syndicate meeting. In this context, it is pertinent to be noted that Smt. Sobha B. Nair, the candidate who has been selected by the Selection Committee, is the daughter of Dr. P.K.B. Nair, former head of the Department of Sociology. Therefore, the Selection Committee might have been biased for selecting Smt. Sobha B. Nair for the appointment to the post of teacher in the Department of Sociology in the open merit, ignoring the merit of other candidates.
We, sincerely feel that some of the candidates who have got First Rank in the M.A. examination were not included in the rank list. But, at the same time, the candidate selected in the open merit has got only second class marks in the M.A. examination. Therefore, we cannot accept the statement in the minutes of the Selection Committee that Smt. Sobha B. Nair has been unanimously selected after 'considering relative merit', is not correct. We have also came across in dailies that such a complaint has also been submitted to Hon. Chancellor by some of the candidates appeared for interview. We are, thus fully convinced that the selection is irregular. Hence, it is decided not to approve the decision of Selection Committee.
1. Shri. Koliakode Krishnan Nair Sd/-
2. Dr. K. Sasikumar Sd/-
3. Shri. R. Mohankumar Sd/-
4. Shri. K. Jacob Mathew Sd/-
5. Shri. Thoppil Gopalakrishnan Sd/-
6. Shri. P.A. Hilal Babu Sd/-
7. Dr. V. Thankamani Sd/-
8. Dr. Rani Bhaskaran Sd/-
9. Shri. D.K. John Sd/-'
Appendix B produced by the petitioner along with Ext.P4 shows the views of the Vice Chancellor as following:-
'Appendix B
The Vice Chancellor stated that the selection was done strictly as per norms and on the basis of the merit of the candidates. All the members of the Selection Committee approved the selection and signed the minutes, and hence there is no justification in not approving the minutes.'
The selection process however thus came to a full stop.
6. Petitioner submits that this step of non-approval which amounted virtually to a cancellation/rejection was unprecedented and perhaps motivated. It is also submitted that the Syndicate had no jurisdiction for deciding on such a rejection. By the Writ Petition, the petitioner has requested that Ext.P4 Minutes so far as it relates to her selection has to be set aside and there should be a declaration that petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Lecturer in Sociology as per the recommendation made by the Selection Committee.
7. When the matter came up for admission on 27.11.2003, the Standing Counsel had taken notice on behalf of three respondents, namely the University represented by the Registrar, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala as also the Syndicate of the University represented by the Secretary (Registrar of the University). The ease had been posted on 16.12.2003, since the Standing Counsel requested that time was required for filing an affidavit. A counter affidavit by the Joint Registrar in charge had come to be filed on 9.1.2004. It is stated to be a joint counter affidavit of all the three respondents, (including the Vice Chancellor) but there is no explanation as to the conflicting stand of the Syndicate and the Vice Chancellor. A reading of the affidavit would indicate that it reflects the stand of the Syndicate, than that of the Vice Chancellor.
8. The admitted position is that the Committee had 'decided to recommend the petitioner to the open vacancy', after the interview. But, the Syndicate rejected the minutes, since 'index rate calculated based on academic merit' was not as per norms, and since there was nepotism. Reference is also made to complaints of candidates, and media reports about the selection. Though the Vice Chancellor explained that norms had been followed, according to them, the Syndicate had such powers under Section 23 of the University Act. It was beyond challenge, as the Syndicate had decided the matter by a majority.
9. The further contention raised was that the petitioner had no legal rights for insisting for appointment, as the inclusion of the name alone would not have conferred on a candidate rights for appointment in absolute terms.
10. The question to be decided is as to whether the Syndicate was within its right and absolute discretion in recording Ext.P4 Minutes, resolving not to approve the decision of the Selection Committee and for the further reasons now disclosed. The observations made about the selection of the petitioner also would have to be examined, standing in the shoes of the Syndicate. The other question is about the right of the petitioner for enforcement of a claim for appointment, i.e. even if it is found that the Syndicate decision was not warranted, does it necessarily lead to grant of reliefs, viz., a right to be got appointed.
11. Chapter 3 of the Kerala University First Statutes could be adverted now. It principally deals with teachers of the University. The Senate is the competent body to institute Professorships, Readerships, Lectureships and other teaching and research posts required by the University on the motion of the Syndicate and/or on the proposals of the Academic Council endorsed by the Syndicate. Rule 3 provides that teachers of the University shall be appointed by the Syndicate after advertisement inviting applications. In exceptional cases, it is competent for the Syndicate to appoint Professors and Readers without advertisements, if it is satisfied that persons already in the service are suitable for the post; but that issue is not here.
12. Rule 4 refers to the requirement for constituting a Selection Committee. When posts are to be filled up, after inviting applications, they are first to be screened by a Committee. The applications which are found in order are to be referred to a Selection Committee. The Committee is to consist of the Vice-chancellor, (who is the ex-officio Chairman of the Committee), one Syndicate member to be nominated by the Vice- Chancellor, two outside experts chosen by the Syndicate and the Head of the concerned Department. Rule 4(3) provides that the recommendations of the Selection Committee shall be placed before the Syndicate which shall make the appointments. Sri. Kelu Nambiar, Senior Counsel, on instructions, asserts that every one of the pre-conditions for a valid selection had been complied with, and therefore the Syndicate was in error in not accepting the recommendation. He says it is astounding to suggest that the petitioner was preferred for the reason that a decade ago petitioner's father was Head of the Department of Sociology. The Committee constituted, he submits, was above board and the insinuation shows only bad taste by slinging mud on the eminent personalities. Presence of other candidates, who might have secured first class in the degree examination, also automatically would not have made the selection irregular. The very purpose of the interview was to find out the most suitable and the Syndicate was going round beating about the bush. He says that a member of the Selection Committee, who was member of the Senate, had become the laughing stock of all. After being party to a unanimous decision, the political allegiance compelled him, in the Syndicate meeting to eat his own words and had decried the selection.
13. From the records of selection, that have been made available by the Standing Counsel, it is evident that there was good response for the notifications. After the preliminary screening, fifty two candidates had been issued with memos of interview. The Interview Committee consisted of the Vice Chancellor as Chairman and Sri. B. Satyan who was the member of the Syndicate. There were also two outside experts chosen by the Syndicate, namely Dr. R. Sankar, Professor and Head of the Department of Sociology, Bharatidasan University and Dr. R. Kannan, Professor and Head of the Department of Madurai Kamaraj University. They are from Tamil Nadu. The Head of the Department of Sociology of the Kerala University Dr. M. Indukumari was also with them. The petitioner had good track records; she possessed M.A. Degree in Sociology with 58% marks and had acquired Doctorate in Sociology. She had teaching experience and had functioned as Research Officer for 12 years in the University Centre for Women's studies. She had worked as Project Director and Project Monitor of Various studies conducted by International and National agencies and had to her credit publications of a sizable number. It is seen that she has secured the maximum marks in interview, and in assessment of the rest of the attainments, only one candidate had scored a slightly better mark than her, but the said person had apparently fared poorly in the interview.
14. It is difficult to endorse reasoning given in Appendix 1(A). That the petitioner was the daughter of a former Professor is no reason for the Syndicate to conclude that the Selection Committee 'might have been biased for selecting her ignoring the merit of other candidates.' There might have been first rank holders, who were aspirants, but that will not militate against the petitioner's selection when there was no difference of opinion as to the fact that the petitioner possessed the required minimum of the qualification. The reasoning that there were complaints from persons who did not get selection, or that there were reports in newspapers is irrelevant for the Syndicate to assess. If they are the accepted reasons, it is arbitrary. Mr. Nambiar referred to a decision of this Court in O.P. No. 2123 of 1989, which is on all fours with the case highlighted. The court held that the Syndicate cannot be considered as an expert body in selection, and was ill equipped to sit in judgment over a selection made by a competent Committee. It was also a case of unanimous selection by the Committee and the Vice Chancellor had maintained that selection was held with reference to relevant parameters. The court had therefore directed that the petitioner be conferred with appointment, and the objection raised by the Syndicate was not sustainable.
15. The next aspect also could be considered now, as to whether the Syndicate has the right of rejection at all. In view of Rules 1, 3 and 4 of Chapter 3 of the First Statute, the selection is to be deemed as carried out by the Syndicate itself, as the power is delegated to a statutorily formed Committee under the University Act. Syndicate has the executive power of the University and powers for appointing teachers and employees of the University. The manner in which the provisions had been incorporated in the statute do indicate that once the selection is made by the Committee, the Syndicate has to take follow up steps for appointing the persons concerned and has no residuary or other powers to reject the recommendation. If that was the position, the Statute would have made explicit provision for them. The reasons given by Justice Smt. Usha (as she then was) about the absence of expertise of the Syndicate in the matter of selection in the decision cited supra, is very much relevant here to be noticed. I hold that the selection was held validly and properly, and the Syndicate could not have nullified the steps. They were expected to accept and endorse the selection made by the statutory Committee.
16. The next contention of Mr. Chandramohan Das is with reference to decided case of the Supreme Court, as well as this Court, on the proposition that the candidate, who is included in the select list, has no legal right for enforcing appointments for such reason. Reliance is made to the decisions reported in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India ((1991) 3 SCC 47), Union of India v. Tarun K. Singh (2001 AIR SCW 1928) and Kerala Agricultural University v. Gopinathan Unnithan (1996 (1) KLT 344). The principle is that mere selection cannot tantamount to appointment and unless there is a selection letter by the appointing authorities, such rights are not enforceable. Counsel had also referred to a decision reported in State of Kerala v. Lakshmikutty and Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 331), pointing out that what could be issued was only a writ for enforcement of rights when such jurisdiction was being exercised as a discretionary measure. Of course, principle as above is settled, but we are also to take notice of the statutory provision which governs the issue. Senior counsel points out that under Statute 4(3) Chapter 3, the recommendation of the Selection Committee is mandatorily to be placed before the Syndicate and Syndicate is to make appointment. There is no scope for deliberation or interpolation of opinions. A discretion also has not been conferred on them, according to the counsel, for very relevant reasons.
17. It is not disputed that only the name of the petitioner had been recommended. We have to take that the Selection Committee's decision has to be treated as a decision of the Syndicate as the expert Committee had been nominated by the Syndicate, to evaluate the candidature and the various applicants. Therefore, the general principles which had been relied on by the Standing Counsel for the University can have little application. Also it may be relevant to note that the Supreme Court had in Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir ((1993) 2 SCC 573) held that though inclusion in the rank list by itself did not confer any right, it is not as if that does not result in anything worthwhile. The court had drawn sustenance from the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India ((1991) 3 SCC 47), earlier referred to by the respondent. The court had held that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. The emphasis was that unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. Precisely, the court was having in its mind the provisions analogous to those contained in the Kerala University Act and Statutes. The provisions relied on by the petitioner, appear to make all the difference. The court had further held that the right of the State to refrain from appointing the candidates did not mean that State has the licence to act in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, according to me, the petitioner's rights for demanding an appointment is not amorphous, it has been crystallized, and cannot be side tracked.
18. I hold that the petitioner has been successful in canvassing for the position that the impugned resolution not to accept the recommendation of the Committee, was one recorded by the Syndicate, without legal authority. Consequently, it is directed that within two months from today, a formal appointment order as is required is to be issued to the petitioner, and she permitted to join duty without further delay.
The Writ Petition therefore stands allowed.