Kerala High Court: In a writ appeal against decision of Single Judge in a writ challenging the provisional rank list for selection to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Malayalam of Kannur University on the ground of qualification of first rank holder questioning the years of experience, the Division Bench of A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar* and Mohammed Nias C.P., JJ. decided in favour of the appellant holding her entitled to candidature for the post of Associate Professor.
The respondent in the instant matter was an Assistant Professor in an autonomous college. Kannur University published the provisional rank list of candidates for selection to the post of Associate Professor through a notification, wherein, the respondent was ranked second after the appellant. The respondent challenged the qualification of first rank holder in the said rank list for the post of Associate Professor based on years of experience, disproportionate marks, etc.
The Single Judge held that the experience held by appellant while on deputation under Faculty Development Programme at Kannur University, and as the Director of Student Services at the Kannur University could not be treated as teaching/research experience as per Regulation 4.1.II of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The Court considered the following issues while deciding the instant matter:
• Non-Joinder of Parties as only University Registrar was impleaded
The Court explained that the rule on joinder of parties is to ensure presence of essential parties for complete resolution of dispute while adjudicating a matter. It relied on Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, which empowers the Court to add a party at any stage of proceedings or even dismiss the suit. The Court further relied on Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector, (2003) 3 SCC 472 regarding essentiality of suing the University in its own name and declared the instant writ petition bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
• Consideration of research period under Faculty Development Programme of the Kannur University as experience
The Court explained the close integration of teaching and research and analysed Regulations 17.0.I., 8 and 9. The Court expressed that the scheme clearly revealed about promotion of research among faculty members, and the University/College/Institution seek advantage by demanding continued service of the teacher. It further pointed towards Faculty Improvement Scheme, and the Faculty Development Scheme which replaced the previous scheme for promoting research, providing the procedure followed for selection of upto 20% regular faculty to confer research opportunities.
The Court held that period spent by appellant to pursue PhD under Faculty Development Programme could not be excluded while reckoning the teaching/research experience as Assistant Professor for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor through impugned notification of Kannur University.
• Consideration of deputation as Director of Student Services of the Kannur University as teaching experience for appointment for Associate Professor
The Court was of the view that “it must depend upon the nature of activities undertaken by the teacher in the post to which she is deputed and not merely by the classification – as teaching or non-teaching”. The Court further explained that “The scope of the phrase ‘teaching experience’ can be determined only through an understanding of the true nature and scope of the word ‘teaching’ or ‘pedagogy’ itself.” The Court rejected the contention that since the post of Director of Student Services/Programme Coordinator of NSS is classified as a non-teaching post, the person does not gain ‘teaching experience’ in the broader sense. It upheld the period spent by appellant on deputation as Director of Student Services/Programme Coordinator of NSS being rightly reckoned by the University as teaching experience while determining the appellant’s eligibility for the post of Assistant Professor.
• Consideration as Lecturer at the Teacher Education Centre at Kannur University on ad hoc/contract basis for teaching experience as Assistant Professor
The Single Judge rejected the consideration of service as Lecturer on ad hoc/contract basis as valid teaching experience for being years prior to the application, and the post not being of an ‘Assistant Professor’. The Court perused the impugned University notification and UGC Regulations and highlighted absence of any requirement of proximity in time in the application for qualifying experience for appointment as Associate Professor. It further pointed out that the post of Lecturer was merely re-designated as Assistant Professor, not being a qualitative change in duties.
• Teaching experience of 8 years as Assistant Professor to be gained before or after acquiring PhD qualification
The Single Judge on the said issue decided against the respondent, and the Court refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s finding on the said issue.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and decided in favour of the appellant regarding all the issues raised in the instant appeal except her ad hoc/contractual service at the Teacher Training Centre. The Court declared the appellant entitled for the candidature for the post of Associate Professor as per impugned notification of Kannur University.
Observations on Media Attention
The Court started with the expression that “We often encounter difficulties while trying to appreciate the true scope and ambit of provisions couched in academic jargon, as there are invariably different context-based perspectives that can be adopted in a given case. On such occasions, prudence dictates that during the adjudication process, we give due weightage to the views of the expert academic bodies and interfere with their decisions only when there is a clear violation of the statutory provisions or when their decision is vitiated on any of the grounds that justify the exercise of the power of judicial review.” In addition, attracting media attention on pending matters burden Courts to avoid any obstruction in the course of justice.
The Court sought support from the recent observations of Chief Justice of India on media reporting of interaction among judges and counsels and said that “the media cannot be unmindful of the harm that is caused to a litigant’s dignity and reputation through unjustified comments and remarks, often based on the oral remarks made by a judge during the adjudication proceedings, notwithstanding that the litigant ultimately succeeds in those proceedings.”
The Court further brought in the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution through K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, (1983) 1 SCC 124 and State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, (2003) 8 SCC 361.
The Court expressed that “On account of its nature as a right that is personal to an individual, we are of the view that the newly recognised fundamental right to privacy, which takes within its fold the right to protection of one’s reputation as well, would merit classification as a fundamental right that protects an individual, not only against arbitrary State action, but also against the actions of other private citizens, such as the press or media.” Thus, the Court left it to the media professionals to take note of Court’s observations for adopting a responsible journalistic conduct.
[Priya Varghese v. Dr. Joseph Skariah, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 4390, Judgment dated 22-06-2023]
Judgment by: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Senior Advocate Renjith Thampan, Advocate K.S. Arun Kumar, Advocate Amrutha P.S., Advocate Vijay Sankar V.H., Advocate Sruthy Unnikrishnan, Advocate Saqib Rizwan, Advocate Jerin Joseph;
For Respondents: Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocate Santharam P., Senior Advocate P. Ravindran, Senior Counsel I.V. Pramod, Senior Advocate S. Gopakumaran Nair, Special Government Pleader to Attorney General T.B. Hood, Additional Central Government Senior Counsel, Senior Counsel S. Krishna Moorthy, Senior Counsel Thomas Abraham, Advocate Rekha Aravind, Advocate P.G. Gokulnath.
I also favour this judgement of kerela high court that PhD pursuing candidate timing should be counted as teaching experience. Counting PhD duration as teaching experience can shape the future and helpful to became Assistant professor position. It should be mandatory in each and every institute/university of India.