Biju K.K. Versus Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi & Ors.

Biju K.K. Versus Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi & Ors. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4144 of 2022 
Biju K.K.              ...Appellant 
Versus
Cochin University of Science and Technology,
Kochi & Ors.          …Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No.1593 of 2014
by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed
the said appeal and has not interfered with the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
petition   preferred   by   the   appellant   herein   –   original   writ
1
petitioner,   the   original   writ   petitioner   has   preferred   the
present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein ­ original writ petitioner was
serving as Technical Assistant Grade­II on daily wages in the
School of Engineering under the Cochin University of Science
and Technology.   That he was continued in service as daily
wager by giving periodical breaks.   Thereafter he applied for
the   post   of   Technical   Assistant   Grade   –   II   in   terms   of
Notification   dated   24.07.2010   issued   by   the   respondent
University.  He was placed much below in the rank list as he
was awarded less marks on experience ignoring his earlier
services rendered as daily wagers.  Therefore, he approached
the High Court by way of Writ Petition No.27538 of 2012.  All
the other employees in the rank list were also made party to
the writ petition.
2.1 By  a  detailed  judgment   and   order   the  learned  Single
Judge   specifically   observed   and   held   that   the   original
respondent no.5 was given the appointment, and was found at
serial no.2 in the merit list, his appointment was absolutely
illegal as he was not having the requisite qualification and he
2
was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria.  So far as the case of
the writ petitioner is concerned, the learned Single Judge was
of the opinion that as the Selection Committee has followed
certain criteria and forwarded the same in respect of all the
candidates awarding the marks on experience, cannot be said
to be arbitrary and it is not open for the Court to exercise the
power under judicial review and decide otherwise.  That it was
submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that even the 6th
respondent was not having the requisite qualification and was
not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as he was not having the
experience in the Computer Science Lab.  The learned Single
Judge again observed that the Selection Committee found that
the experience certificate submitted by respondent no.6 did
satisfy the criteria, and there was no reason to interfere with
the   same.     Consequently,   the   learned   Single   Judge   partly
allowed the said writ petition and set aside the appointment of
the 5th  respondent and directed that the marks of the 5th
respondent shall be deleted and fresh rank list be finalized
and it shall be open for the respondent to make appointments
based on the modified rank list.  Appeal against the judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   been
3
dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order passed by
the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   hence   the   present
appeal at the instance of the original writ petitioner. 
3. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties   and   having   gone   through   the   judgment   and   order
passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the High Court, it appears that when a specific plea
was taken before the learned Single Judge that the appellant
has been wrongly denied the marks on experience ignoring his
earlier service rendered as a daily wager and that the original
respondent  no.6  was  also  lacking  the  eligibility  criteria  as
respondent no.6 was not having the experience in a Computer
Science Lab, the learned Single Judge refused to consider the
same on merits.  This was by observing that as the Selection
Committee   has   taken   the   decision   awarding   marks   for
experience and that the Selection Committee has found that
the Experience Certificate produced by respondent no.6 was
sufficient and no interference was called for.  However, when
the aforesaid plea was raised the High Court ought to have
considered the same on merits.  It is required to be noted that
4
what   was   challenged   was   the   decision   of   the   Selection
Committee and therefore, the High Court was not justified in
not deciding the same on merits on the ground that when the
Selection   Committee   has   taken   a   decision,   in   exercise   of
powers under judicial review, the High Court is not required to
interfere   with   the   same.     Under   the   circumstances   to   the
aforesaid extent the matter has to be remanded to the learned
Single Judge. 
4. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the
present appeal succeeds in part.  The impugned judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench and the learned Single
Judge   are   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.     The   matter   is
remitted   to   the   learned   Single   Judge   to   consider   the   writ
petition   afresh   on   whether   the   Selection   Committee   was
justified in awarding the marks on experience ignoring the
services rendered by the appellant as daily wager and also
whether   the   respondent   no.6   was   fulfilling   the   requisite
eligibility criteria as per the advertisement namely “I Class
Diploma   in   Computer   Science   and   3   years’   experience   in
respective laboratories of Engineering Colleges/Universities”.
5
The learned Single Judge to consider the same in accordance
with law and on its own merits and to permit the parties to
produce additional documents, if they so choose to be filed
within   a   period   of   four   weeks   from   the   date   of   the   first
hearing.   The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the
learned Single Judge within a period of six months from 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 to costs.
…………………………………J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July 11, 2022.
6

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर