Full Judgment Text
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
Signature Not Verified
order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.07.11
17:11:58 IST
Reason:
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
th
submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that even the 6
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
th th
the 5 respondent and directed that the marks of the 5
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