BIJU K.K. versus COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI & ORS. on 11 July 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the High Court of Kerala atErnakulam in Writ Appeal No.1593 of 2014 by which the Division Benchof the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has not interferedwith the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissingthe writ petition preferred by the appellant herein – original writ petitioner,the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the appellant herein - original writ petitioner was servingas Technical Assistant Grade-II on daily wages in the School ofEngineering under the Cochin University of Science and Technology.That he was continued in service as daily wager by giving periodicalbreaks. Thereafter he applied for the post of Technical Assistant Grade– II in terms of Notification dated 24.07.2010 issued by the respondentUniversity. He was placed much below in the rank list as he was awardedless marks on experience ignoring his earlier services rendered as dailywagers. Therefore, he approached the High Court by way of WritPetition No.27538 of 2012. All the other employees in the rank list werealso made party to the writ petition.

2.1 By a detailed judgment and order the learned Single Judgespecifically observed and held that the original respondent no.5 was giventhe appointment, and was found at serial no.2 in the merit list, hisappointment was absolutely illegal as he was not having the requisitequalification and he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. So far as thecase of the writ petitioner is concerned, the learned Single Judge was ofthe opinion that as the Selection Committee has followed certain criteriaand forwarded the same in respect of all the candidates awarding themarks on experience, cannot be said to be arbitrary and it is not open forthe Court to exercise the power under judicial review and decide A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aotherwise. That it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner thateven the 6[th] respondent was not having the requisite qualification andwas not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as he was not having the experiencein the Computer Science Lab. The learned Single Judge again observedthat the Selection Committee found that the experience certificatesubmitted by respondent no.6 did satisfy the criteria, and there was noBreason to interfere with the same. Consequently, the learned Single Judgepartly allowed the said writ petition and set aside the appointment of the5[th] respondent and directed that the marks of the 5[th] respondent shall bedeleted and fresh rank list be finalized and it shall be open for therespondent to make appointments based on the modified rank list. AppealCagainst the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge hasbeen dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court, hence the present appeal at the instanceof the original writ petitioner.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesDand having gone through the judgment and order passed by the learnedSingle Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, it appearsthat when a specific plea was taken before the learned Single Judge thatthe appellant has been wrongly denied the marks on experience ignoringhis earlier service rendered as a daily wager and that the originalrespondent no.6 was also lacking the eligibility criteria as respondentEno.6 was not having the experience in a Computer Science Lab, thelearned Single Judge refused to consider the same on merits. This wasby observing that as the Selection Committee has taken the decisionawarding marks for experience and that the Selection Committee hasfound that the Experience Certificate produced by respondent no.6 wasFsufficient and no interference was called for. However, when theaforesaid plea was raised the High Court ought to have considered thesame on merits. It is required to be noted that what was challenged wasthe decision of the Selection Committee and therefore, the High Courtwas not justified in not deciding the same on merits on the ground that when the Selection Committee has taken a decision, in exercise of powersGunder judicial review, the High Court is not required to interfere with thesame. Under the circumstances to the aforesaid extent the matter hasto be remanded to the learned Single Judge.

4. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the presentappeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed byH

the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge are hereby quashedand set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge toconsider the writ petition afresh on whether the Selection Committeewas justified in awarding the marks on experience ignoring the servicesrendered by the appellant as daily wager and also whether the respondentno.6 was fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria as per the advertisementnamely “I Class Diploma in Computer Science and 3 years’ experiencein respective laboratories of Engineering Colleges/Universities”. Thelearned Single Judge to consider the same in accordance with law andon its own merits and to permit the parties to produce additionaldocuments, if they so choose to be filed within a period of four weeksfrom the date of the first hearing. The aforesaid exercise shall becompleted by the learned Single Judge within a period of six monthsfrom the date of issuance of present order.

Present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However,in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as tocosts.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by: Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

Appeal partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H