IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 33231 of 2016 (D)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. ATHUL S,
CHERUVAYALIL KUNNATH VEEDU,
PATTATHANAM P.O,KOLLAM 691 021.
2. SHANTHINI DAS,
SATHYA MUNDAKKAL,KOLLAM691001.
3. SOUMAY V,
NANDANA KORANI.P.O,
ASSEMBLY MUKKU,TRIVANDRUM,695 104.
4. SUMITH S.S,
SUDHA BHAVAN KURIVIKKDU,
VATTIYOORKAVU,TRIVANDRUM,695013.
5. BINDU.P.O,
PALAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
THRITHALA PATTITHARA,PALAKAD 679 534.
6. VIRGIN M,
PUTHUVAL HOUSE,THUMBA ST.XAVIERS,
COLLEGE P.O,TRIVANDRUM,695 586.
7. H.AKSHAYA GOMATI,
QTR NO.C/3/25/RTTC CAMPUS,
KAIMANAM,TRIVANDRUM P.O,695 040.
8. ARCHANA A.G,
PULLIYIL HOUSE,MELMURI 27 P.O,
MALAPURAM 676 517.
BY ADVS.SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE KERALA UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OFFICE,PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
-2-
-2-
WPC NO 33231 OF 2016:
--------------------
2. THE REGISTRAR,THE KERALA UNIVERSITY,
UNIVERSITY OFFICE,PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
* ADDL R3 IMPLEADED
3. THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
BAHADUR SHAZ ZAFAR MARG,NEW DELHI 110 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
* ADDL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/11/2016 IN
IA NO 16982/2016.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-11-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 35574/2016, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WPC NO 33231 OF 2016:
--------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
-------------------
P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.3.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT.
P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR
M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
P3: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION
ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR
M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF 4TH PETITIONER.
P6: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION
ISSUED TO ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION ISSUED TO 5TH
PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
P7: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR ENTRANCE TEST FOR M.PHIL ADMISSION
ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER BY 1STRESPONDENT.
P8: COPY OF THE COMPETED APPLICATION FORM OF 7TH PETITIONER.
P9: COPY OF THE TIME TABLE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
P10: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR ISLAMIC
HISTORY,UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS.
P11: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR THEATRE ARTS AND FILM
AESTHETICS FOR EDUCATION,UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT.
P12: COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR HISTORY,UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT.
P13; COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 25.8.2016 FOR MUSIC,UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT.
P14: COPY OF THE PRESS NOTE DATED 17.9.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
P15: COPY OF THE SCHEDULE FOR INTERVIEW ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
P16: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.7.2016 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA
P17: COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENTS UNION (2015-16).
P18: COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY 1ST PETITIONER.
-2-
-2-
WPC 33231 OF 2016:
------------------
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
----------------------
R1(A): COPY OF THE NO.AC D/M.PHIL/2016-17 DATED 18.10.2016.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
KV.
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
===============
W.P. (C) Nos. 33231 & 35574 of 2016
=======================
Dated this, the 28th day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
These two writ petitions concern a common issue and therefore
heard and decided together. Petitioners are candidates who had
applied for admission to M.Phil Course pursuant to notification dated
11/3/2016. They participated in the entrance examination and are
also included in the rank list. But, in the meantime, University by
order dated 20/7/2016 accorded sanction to the University Grants
Commission Regulations of 2016 with effect from 5/7/2016 by which
certain restrictions have been imposed in respect of the number of
candidates to be attached under one Guide.
2. Petitioners therefore submit that their opportunity to be a
Research Scholar has considerably been reduced on account of the
restrictions imposed by the University based on UGC Regulations.
3. The common contention urged by the petitioners is that
as per the prospectus, it is indicated that the strength of M.Phil
students at the University Teaching and Research Departments shall
be in the ratio of two students per permanent qualified teacher in
W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16
-:2:-
the concerned subject, and in the University College,
Thiruvananthapuram, the total strength of each subject shall be 5
seats subject to usual rules of reservation for SC/ST and OBC
candidates. It is therefore contended that by virtue of the
University adopting the regulations by University order dated
20/7/2016, their right to become research scholars for M.Phil has
been considerably reduced. It is contended that since the
selection process has already been commenced by receiving
application, conducting entrance test and publishing the rank list,
no deviation can be made from Ext.P1 notification. Contention
urged by the petitioners is that the rights of the parties are to be
decided as per the notification and cannot be regulated by a
subsequent adoption of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures
for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2016 with effect
from 5/7/2016. In other words, the conditions in the regulation
cannot be made applicable to the selection process initiated
pursuant to Ext.P1 notification.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the University
inter alia stating that UGC notified the UGC Regulations of 2016
prescribing new criteria and procedures, which came into effect
W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16
-:3:-
from 5/7/2016. The rank list published in the website on
25/8/2016 was provisional as the University is bound to
implement the Regulation 2016 w.e.f. 5/7/2016. The procedure
for M.Phil admission also had to be adhered according to the
Regulation. Interview was conducted as part of the new UGC
guideline. It is further submitted that as per the Regulations, the
number of M.Phil seats for 2016 admission has been enhanced in
some departments whereas in some of the departments
University is forced to reduce the intake owing to the paucity of
qualified Research Supervisors. Since the admission procedures
are going on, memos were issued for first allotment and other
allotments are remaining. It cannot be stated that the petitioners
are denied admission at this point of time. It is further submitted
that University is bound to implement all conditions laid down by
UGC and accordingly, University has issued order dated
20/7/2016. In regard to the decrease in number of seats, it is
further submitted that University has decided to solve the
problem by allocating research supervisors duly approved by the
University from School of Distance Education, University of Kerala,
Affiliated Colleges, Research Laboratories in Geographical
W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16
-:4:-
jurisdiction of University of Kerala, strictly in accordance with
M.Phil Regulations and to maintain status quo of 2015-16.
Annexure R1(a) is the University order dated 18/10/2016 in that
regard.
5. Having regard to the University order dated
18/10/2016, according to the University, substantial grievance of
the petitioners have been taken care of. But the learned counsel
for the petitioners submits that the procedure that was
contemplated at the time when the prospectus had been issued
ought to have been continued during the present academic year.
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment
of the Apex Court in Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi
(AIR 2008 SC 2103). In the above case, the question concerned
was relating to the decision taken by the High Court to prescribe
cut off marks for viva voce test subsequent to the notification. It
was held that a prescription of cut off marks to viva voce test by
the respondent was not in accordance with the settled legal
position as held in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh
and another [(2008) 3 SCC 512].
6. Yet another judgment relied upon is P.Mahendran v.
W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16
-:5:-
State of Karnataka [(1990) 1 SCC 411]. That was a case
relating to appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspectors.
After the commencement of process of selection, Rule was
amended changing the eligibility criteria for selection and
appointment. It was held that the change in rule could not affect
the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and
appointment on the date they applied for the post. It was held
that the selection process is to be completed in accordance with
law as it stood at its commencement.
7. The case on hand does not call for a situation where
the concern is with regard to a selection process, as far as
appointment to a particular post is concerned. Here, the
notification has been issued for preparation of a rank list to be a
candidate for undertaking M.Phil Course. There is no change in
the selection process and there is no change in the eligibility
conditions also. The change effected by the 2016 UGC Regulation
is with reference to the number of candidates who can be
attached to the Research Supervisor/Guide. Such a change by
itself will not affect the candidate in any manner. Of course, as
contended by the petitioners, as per the prospectus, if two
W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16
-:6:-
students could be attached to a permanent qualified teacher and
in University college, the total strength in each subject could be 5
seats, as per the UGC Regulations, a Professor as Research
Supervisor at any given point of time shall not guide more than
three M.Phil Scholars, an Associate Professor a maximum of two
and an Assistant Professor only one M.Phil Scholar. This procedure
had been adopted by UGC to have a uniform standard of research
activity being undertaken by students. Comparing it with
prospectus condition, in the prospectus though it is mentioned
regarding the strength of M.Phil students, in comparison to the
present Regulations, it cannot be contended that it would affect
the candidates in any manner. UGC Regulations being statutory
in nature, before the completion of the selection process, Rules
have been amended. Necessarily, the said rules have to be
complied with by the University. The petitioners can insist for
implementation of the notification conditions only if they have a
vested legal right. Even before the selection process is
completed, the UGC Regulations are implemented by the
University and it will not affect the eligibility criteria as far as
selection is concerned. Hence, there is nothing wrong on the part
W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16
-:7:-
of the University in adopting the UGC Regulations, 2016.
8. As far the right of a candidate who finds a place in a
select list to get an appointment in a recruitment process is rather
well settled. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in
Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2016) 6 SCC 532], it was
held that merely for the reason that the name of a candidate finds
a place in the select list/merit list, it does not give him
indefeasible right to appointment as well and it is always open
for the Government not to fill up the vacancies, however, such
decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once it is found
that the decision is based on valid reasons, the Courts should not
interfere with the matter. However, in the matter relating to
admission based on a prospectus and a select list is prepared
based on such prospectus, it is not open to the State Government
to alter the terms of conditions as held by the Apex Court in
Parmender Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC 177].
There is no such situation in the present case. Here the change is
only in regard to the number of candidates who could be attached
to a Guide. In other words, it does not affect the select list in any
manner.
W.P(C) Nos.33231 & 35574/16
-:8:-
9. Even otherwise, the University is bound by the
Regulations framed by the UGC. Further, University having taken
note of the dearth in the number of Research Supervisors
available has taken preventive measures by issuing notification
dated 18/10/2016, which will substantially redress the grievance
of the persons who are in the ranked list.
In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the action taken by the University in this regard.
Writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp
//True Copy//
P.S to Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment