Guest Lecturer experience counts toward direct recruitment marks unless expressly excluded by specific service regulations.

In brief

The question

Whether the selection of candidates for interview can be challenged based on an internal cut-off mark not prescribed by statute or notification.

The court held

The Court dismissed W.P.(C) Nos. 36146/2022 and 13773/2023.

It also directed

It allowed W.P.(C) No. 5027/2023, quashing the college's minutes (Ext.P13) that had invalidated Jovita James’s appointment.

The Court held that James was eligible for the interview and subsequent appointment.

It directed the College to seek University approval for her appointment and disburse all pending salary within twelve weeks.

01Facts

All Saints’ College invited applications for Assistant Professor (English) in September 2021.

p. 8

Selection was governed by UGC Regulations 2018.

Petitioners in W.P(C) 36146/2022 challenged the shortlisting of respondents 6, 7, and 8, alleging they were awarded marks for articles in non-UGC listed or "predatory" journals.

p. 9

Jovita James (Petitioner in W.P(C) 5027/2023) was appointed on 01.06.2022 but later received a show-cause notice from the Manager alleging her marks fell below the internal cut-off of 55 due to a co-authored publication.

pp. 10-11

James contended she was entitled to 4 marks for teaching experience as a Guest Lecturer, which would keep her above the cut-off.

p. 11

Conversely, Reshma Ann Rollin (W.P(C) 13773/2023) argued Guest Lecturer service cannot be counted and marks must be reduced proportionately for periods less than a year.

pp. 15-16

02Issues

i.Whether the selection of candidates for interview can be challenged based on an internal cut-off mark not prescribed by statute or notification.

p. 17

ii.Whether previous service as a "Guest Lecturer" can be reckoned as teaching experience for direct recruitment under UGC Regulations 2018.

p. 20

iii.Whether teaching experience marks must be reduced proportionately based on the "academic year" (12 months) or the actual period of teaching during the college's functioning.

pp. 23-25

03Law Applied

The Court applied the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers...) Regulations, 2018, specifically Regulation 4.1 for direct recruitment and Table 3B for short-lising scores.

p. 13 · p. 24

It interpreted Regulation 10.0(e), which excludes Guest Lecturer service for Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) promotions.

p. 20

The Court also referenced Section 2(1)(a) of the Kerala University First Statute, 1977 regarding the definition of "academic year".

p. 23

The Apex Court's principle of purposive/contextual construction from Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.

p. 27

It distinguished the Division Bench ruling in Vasundhara G. v. Dr. Sallas Benjamin, which had excluded Guest Lecturers under specific University Acts but not under the 2018 UGC Regulations.

p. 21

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Kerala University First Statute, 1977 Section 2

Kerala University Act, 1974 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court first held that since the 55-mark cut-off was internal and not statutory, and petitioners in W.P(C) 36146/2022 did not prove they were more meritorious, their challenge to the shortlisting failed.

pp. 17-18

Regarding Guest Lecturers, the Court observed that Regulation 10.0(e) explicitly excludes such service only for "Counting of Past Services" for CAS, not for marks in direct recruitment under Table 3B.

pp. 21-22

Thus, the Vasundhara precedent was inapplicable.

p. 22

On the calculation of marks, the Court rejected a strict 12-month "academic year" definition for teaching experience.

pp. 25-27

It adopted a "purposive interpretation," holding that teaching experience should be calculated based on the months the college actually functioned and imparted instruction.

pp. 25-27

Applying this, James’s service at Vypin and St. Paul’s colleges was found to cover the functional teaching periods, barring a 12-day discrepancy.

p. 26

Reworking the score, the Court found she was entitled to 3.9 marks for experience, totaling 55.3, which placed her above the 55-mark threshold.

p. 26