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