1. These writ petitions pertain to certain disputes regarding the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (English) at the All Saints’ College, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The college invited applications from female candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in various subjects, including English, as seen from the notification dated 26.09.2021. The norms for the selection as above are stated to be pursuant to the prescription issued by the University of Kerala. In response to the notification issued as above, various applications were received. The applications were considered by the scrutiny committee, leading to the preparation of a score sheet. In this score sheet, candidates were included under the open merit and community list. The petitioners in W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022 were included at Serial Nos.4 and 30 under open merit. The name of the 2nd petitioner also figures at serial No.4 in the community merit list. Respondents 6, 7, and 8 in the said writ petition were also included in the open merit; the 8th respondent also figuring in the community merit list. The petitioners state that for a candidate to be called for the interview, one should obtain at least 60 marks in the open merit quota and 55 marks under community quota. They further state that respondents 6, 7, and 8 had scored 60, 60, and 56 marks, respectively, and therefore, got included in the respective quotas. The petitioners state that the inclusion of respondents 6, 7, and 8 as above was incorrect and arbitrary since:

                  i. The 6th respondent was granted two marks each for the publication of three articles in journals, but one article was not published in a journal, but in a “textbook” and hence could not be considered to be “Peer Reviewed or UGC listed journal” as required under the norms referred to earlier produced along with W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022 as Ext.P2. Therefore, the petitioners state that as regards the 6th respondent, two marks have to be deducted, in which event, she only has 58 marks, on account of which, she is not at all to be interviewed.

                  ii. The 7th respondent was granted two marks each for two articles, published in the Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, which is only a “predatory journal”. Therefore, the six marks awarded to the 7th respondent also require to be deducted, in which event, her score would be 54.

                  iii. As regards the 8th respondent, since the article published is a “joint/co-authored one,” full marks could not be granted, and if at all, only 1.4 marks could be awarded.

Therefore, the petitioners have instituted W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022, seeking the following reliefs:

                  i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction, or order to call for the records leading to the interview, selection, and appointment of respondents 6 to 8 to the post of Assistant Professor (English) in the 4th respondent, All Saints’ College, Thiruvananthapuram, and quash the same.

                  ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to appoint petitioners or other eligible candidates from Ext.P3 on the basis of merit or else to conduct a fresh selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (English) in 4th respondent – All Saints’ College, Thiruvananthapuram.

The 8th respondent in W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022 was initially appointed by the college pursuant to an appointment order dated 01.06.2022, after successfully completing the selection process. However, a show cause memo dated 18.08.2022 is issued by the ‘Manager’ of the college informing that since one of the publications was a co-authored one, only 1.4 marks could be awarded, on account of which the total marks obtained by the said respondent could only be 53.4, which is below the cut off mark of 55, on account of which the interview and the subsequent appointment is null and void. The said respondent filed a detailed reply essentially admitting to the entitlement for 1.4 marks for the publication, however, stating that she was entitled to 4 marks for the “teaching experience” with reference to her experience in various colleges, and therefore, pointing out that the total score should be reckoned as 55.4. The said respondent had also sought to challenge the proceedings initiated as above by filing W.P(C) No.30112 of 2022 before this Court, and by judgment dated 19.10.2022, this Court found that if at all, it is only the duly constituted selection committee which could review the decision already taken and not the Manager of the college. Therefore, the explanation offered as above was directed to be considered by the management of the college and to forward the same to the committee concerned if found necessary, permitting the teacher to continue in her position. However, the selection committee decided to conduct a fresh interview so as to ensure “transparency, accountability and competence in the selection process” pursuant to a meeting held on 14.11.2022. The aforesaid decision of the management is sought to be challenged by the teacher concerned, by filing W.P(C) No. 5027 of 2023. Another applicant who had participated in the selection process has sought to challenge the appointment extended to the petitioner in W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023, seeking to rely on the mistake pointed out by the Manager referred to earlier and praying for a direction to appoint her instead, by filing W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023.

3. I have heard Sri.B.Raghunathan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022, Sri.Renjith Thampan, the learned senior counsel for the 6th respondent therein and Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel instructed by Smt.Silpa Sreekumar for the 7th and 8th respondents therein. I have also heard Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023, as well as Sri.A.S Shammy Raj, the learned counsel for the Manager of the college, Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, and Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

4. Sri. Raghunathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022, would contend with reference to the requirement under the norms referred to above, as well as the averments in the writ petition and the reply affidavit, that respondents 6, 7, and 8 ought not to have been called for the interview. He invites the attention of this Court to the averments in the reply affidavit, to contend that the publication by the 7th respondent was in a “predatory journal” as would be clear from the publication of the very same article offered for publication in the name of an imaginary person, getting published in the same journal. Therefore, according to him, the entire selection process was flawed, and the writ petition requires to be allowed.

5. Sri. Thampan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, submits that the writ petition itself is liable to be rejected, as it proceeds on the assumption that the minimum requirement of marks for being called for the interview is a statutory requirement. He relies on the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in University and Colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC Regulations’) pursuant to the notification dated 18.07.2018, and submits that the only requirement or qualification prescribed as per the Regulations is under Regulation 4.1. Since no minimum marks are prescribed anywhere therein, the issue does not require adjudication, according to him. He would also state that it is ultimately since the selection committee represented by the 4th respondent in the writ petition accepted the academic brilliance of the 6th respondent, she was considered, and the Court ought not interfere, as held by the Apex Court in B.C.Mylarappa Alias Dr.Chikkamylarappa v. Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah and Others [(2008) 14 SCC 306].

6. Sri. Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8, also relies on the UGC Regulations referred to above and submits that the subjective satisfaction of the 5th respondent is not liable to be tested by this Court. With reference to the writ petition filed by the 8th respondent, as noticed earlier – W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023, he states that the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment have not been acted upon by the committee, as evidenced by the impugned proceedings at Ext.P13, in the writ petition. He also relies on Exts.P15 and P16 notifications issued by Mahatma Gandhi University to contend that, with reference to the teaching experience claimed by the petitioner, as evidenced by the aforesaid notifications, the petitioner was entitled to 4 marks, in which event, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for the interview. For the very same reason, he says W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed.

7. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.13733 of 2023, would contend that the 4th respondent in the writ petition (the petitioner in W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023) was not entitled to be called for the interview for more than one reason. Apart from seeking to rely on the college’s finding that the 4th respondent was only entitled to 1.4 marks for the articles published, he would state that the contention in W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 that the petitioner therein (4th respondent in this case) was entitled for 4 marks as against her teaching experience is also incorrect. He would contend that the claim for 4 marks was raised with reference to the experience as a “Guest Lecturer” and, going by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vasundhara G. v. Dr. Sallas Benjamin and Others [2010 (1) KHC 514], the experience as a Guest Lecturer could not be reckoned for the purpose of considering the qualification in question. Without prejudice, he states that under the UGC Regulations (Ext.P8), marks for teaching experience are required to be awarded only on the basis of Table 3B under Regulation 6, according to which, where the experience is less than one year, the entitlement to marks shall be proportionate. Therefore, since the 4th respondent, even according to her, only had a claim for 17 months and 6 days experience disclosed in Ext.P9 application, was only entitled for 2.9 marks. He also relied on Section 2(1)(a) of the Kerala University First Statute, 1977 defining the term “academic year”, and Section 2(27) of the Kerala University Act,1974 defining the term “teacher”, as well as UGC Regulations, to contend that only a regular service can be reckoned and not the service as a Guest Lecturer. As regards Exts.P15 and P16 relied on in W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023, it is his submission that, in view of the separate treatment visualised under the UGC Regulations, it is the said Regulations that would prevail. He also relies on the judgment of this Court in P. V. Prakasini v. KPSC and Others [1993 (1) KLJ 632], as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 285] to contend that the rank list need not be set aside in total as proposed by the college, instead, the 4th respondent requires to be removed from the list and petitioner accommodated.

8. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. As regards W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022, the question of entertaining the afore writ petition arises only in a situation where Ext.P1 notification and Ext.P2 norms fixed a minimum cut-off mark in the initial selection process for being considered for the interview. A perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 does not indicate any requirement regarding a minimum cut-off mark for being considered for the interview. Even according to the learned counsel for the college, the cut-off mark is fixed internally. That being so, in my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the selection of respondents 6, 7, and 8 for interview. This is all the more so since the petitioners do not have a case that their candidature was more meritorious than the respondents and therefore, they require to be considered. Therefore, with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in B.C.Mylarappa Alias Dr.Chikkamylarappa (supra), the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the selection process. Therefore, W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022 would stand dismissed.

9. As regards W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023, the show cause notice at Ext.P9 was issued on the ground that the marks awarded for the two publications were incorrect, on account of which the petitioner therein would have only 53.4 marks, which is below the cut-off mark of 55. Sri.Shammi Raj, the learned counsel for the college, would argue that many candidates have secured marks between 50 and 54, and that is why the cut-off mark of 55 was fixed internally, and on account of the reasons stated in the show cause notice at Ext.P9, the petitioner was not eligible for being even interviewed. However, I notice that in the earlier round of litigation - W.P(C) No.30112 of 2022 – by Ext.P12 judgment, this Court had directed the management to consider Ext.P10 explanation and forward the same to the committee concerned, clarifying that it is for the selection committee to take a decision to review the marks earlier awarded. However, this Court notices that in the impugned Ext.P13 minutes, the matter has not been addressed with reference to the mandate under Ext.P12 judgment. This is especially since the petitioner had, in Ext.P10 explanation, pointed out that she was entitled to four marks under the head “teaching experience.” Though the petitioner also relied on Exts.P15 and P16 notifications issued by MG University, the committee did not consider the impact of the said notifications either. Even the contention raised regarding the entitlement to four marks towards teaching experience, as explained in Ext.P10, is not considered while issuing Ext.P13.

10. In this regard, this Court takes note of the contentions raised by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 13773 of 2023 that, with reference to Table 3B to Regulation 6 of the UGC Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to only 2.9 marks for teaching experience and not 4 marks and consequently, the total marks of the petitioner would be only 54.3.

11. Therefore, the issue arising for consideration as regards the claim made by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023 as against the 4th respondent therein is as to whether the 4th respondent therein is entitled to 4 marks towards teaching experience. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.13733 of 2023 would contend that the 4th respondent is not entitled for any marks since her service as a Guest Lecturer does not require counting and if at all, she is entitled for only 2.9 marks. Therefore, the first issue to be considered is as to whether the service as a Guest Lecturer requires to be reckoned.

12. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned senior counsel, relies on Regulation 10.0(e) under which the previous appointment as a Guest Lecturer is not to be reckoned. The provisions of Regulation 10.0, to the extent relevant herein reads as follows:

                  “10.0 Counting of Past Services for Direct Recruitment and Promotion under CAS

                  Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR and DBT, should count for the direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature, provided that:

                  ……….

                  (e) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration.”

                  (Underlining supplied)

                  Thus, on a reading of the afore clause, it is clear that the same applies to “direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS” of a teacher. Here, the dispute is not with reference to any appointment under the CAS. Direct recruitment is specifically dealt with under Regulation 4.1, and the limitation under Regulation 10.0(e) cannot be made applicable for direct recruitment, which is specifically dealt with under Regulation 4.1. At this juncture, the contentions raised by Sri.Elvin Peter, with reference to the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974 – Section 2(27) defining the term “teacher” and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vasundhara (supra), requires to be considered. True, Section 2(27) of the afore Act defines the term "teacher" as a principal, professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, etc., not providing for a “Guest Lecturer. It is with reference to the identical provisions under the Calicut University Act, 1975, that the Division Bench of this Court in Vasundhara (supra) held that experience as a Guest Lecturer could not be reckoned for calculating the qualification. At the same time, in the case at hand, the appointment is admittedly being governed by the provisions of the UGC Regulations. The exclusion of experience as a Guest Lecturer has been specifically provided for under Regulation 10.0, without extending such exclusion to other areas. In other words, the Regulation has been framed in such a way that the previous appointment as a Guest Lecturer requires exclusion only with reference to the appointments under the CAS. Insofar as this is not being specifically included under Regulation 4.1, in my opinion, the judgment of the Division Bench in Vasundhara (supra) cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.

13. In the light of the afore finding, the second challenge raised as above requires to be addressed. The 4th respondent contends that with reference to her experience as a Guest Lecturer, she was entitled for 4 marks. The experience of the 4th respondent is claimed with reference to Exts.P3, P4 and P5 certificates produced along with W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023. The afore certificates cover the following periods: -

                  Ext.P3 - 23.07.2018 to 17.09.2018,

                  Ext.P4 - September 2018 to March 2019 and

                  Ext.P5 - 24.06.2019 to 31.03.2020

14. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned senior counsel, on the face of the afore certificates would seek to rely on definition of the term “academic year” under Section 2(1)(a) of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 as well as the treatment provided under Table 3B of the UGC Regulations and state that the 4th respondent was not having “full academic year” experience and therefore, the marks requires to be reduced proportionately. According to him, if the proportionate marks alone are extended, the 4th respondent is only entitled to 2.9 marks. However, Sri.Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel, states that, as is evidenced by Exts.P15 and 16 academic calendar of the University, the 4th respondent had the experience that was required and hence, the 4th respondent should be extended with four marks.

15. For an evaluation of afore contentions, the definition of the term ‘academic year’, as well as the Table of the UGC Regulations requires to be noticed as under:

                  “‘2.(1)(a) Academic Year’ means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of June.

                  Provided that in the case of teachers who are granted extension of service till the end of the academic year, the academic year shall mean the period of ten months from the first day of June.

                 

                  True, the term ‘academic year’ means the period of twelve months commencing from the first day of June. However, what is required under Table 3B is “teaching experience”. Therefore, ultimately it is the period the candidate taught at an educational institution that requires to be considered. Otherwise, the requirement under Table 3B ought to have been with reference to teaching experience during an academic year. This Court is justified in arriving at this conclusion in view of the separate treatment provided at the footnote to the Table, which states that if the teaching experience is less than one year, the marks require to be reduced proportionately. With reference to this interpretation, the academic schedule of the MG University, Kottayam, under which the colleges in which the 4th respondent worked as a Guest Lecturer were functioning, requires to be noticed. The certificate at Ext. P15 states that the colleges reopened after the summer vacation on 04.06.2018 and that the undergraduate programmes commenced on 12.07.2018. With reference to the aforesaid, the 4th respondent had teaching experience from 23.07.2018 to 17.09.2018 at Vypin Government Arts and Science College, and thereafter at St. Paul's College till March 2019. Therefore, if at all, there can be any deficiency, that can be only from 12.07.2018 till 23.07.2018. So also, for the next year, the classes commenced from 24.06.2019 in the undergraduate stream, and the petitioner had experience from that date onwards till the very end up to 31.03.2020 as evidenced by Ext.P5 certificate. Hence, the reduction of marks under the note to Table 3B requires to be made only for the period from 12.07.2018 to 23.07.2018. If it is so reworked, the 4th respondent would be entitled for 3.9 marks towards her teaching experience, by dividing the entitlement of 2 marks for the period during which the college functioned, imparting teaching to the students, and reducing the entitlement for 12 days from the total entitlement of the petitioner as under:-

                  Entitlement for one year. = 2 marks

                  Entitlement for one month. = 0.2 marks

                  Entitlement for one day. = 0.006 marks

                  Entitlement for period of 12 days to be reduced in the year 2017-18 (12.07.2018- 23.07.2018) = 0.072

                  Marks for the period of entitlement claimed by the petitioner

                  (23.07.2018 to 31.03.2019 and 24.06.2019 to 31.03.2020) = 3.9(4-0.072)

                  If the marks are so reworked, the petitioner would be entitled for         55.3 marks, and since it is above the cut-off mark of 55, she was entitled to be selected for the interview.

16. In this connection, this Court also refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., [(1987) 1 SCC 424] wherein it is held as under:-

                  “33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It is by looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment and the reasons for it that the Court construed the expression “Prize Chit” in Srinivasa and we find no reason to depart from the Court's construction.”

                  Therefore, ultimately a statute requires to be provided with a purposive/contextual construction. If such an interpretation is not given, the teaching experience prescribed under Table 3B would also include the period during which the college was closed. Therefore, the definition of the term ‘academic year’ under Section 2(1)(a) of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 would also not apply.

                  In the light of the afore discussion, these writ petitions would stand disposed of as under: -

                  i. W.P.(C) Nos.36146 of 2022 and 13773 of 2023 are dismissed.

                  ii. W.P.(C) No.5027 of 2023 is allowed. Ext.P13 challenged therein is quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 to seek for approval of the petitioner’s appointment from the University and disburse the salary due to her as early as possible, at any rate, within twelve weeks from today.