Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Reader under the first respondent University the petitioner submitted an application. The 3rd respondent was also an applicant. After conclusion of the selection process the third respondent was selected and appointed. The petitioner who is an unsuccessful candidate at the selection filed the captioned writ petition challenging the appointment of the third respondent. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayers:-
(a) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P8 order and quash the same to the effect it approved the appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Reader, Department of Political Science and to declare the selection process as illegal.
(b) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent No.1 to 3, to consider petitioner's name against one of the 2 open vacancies to the post of Reader, Department of Political Science and appoint him instead of 3rd respondent.
(c) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent No.1 to 3 to cancel the appointment of the 3rd respondent since the appointment is in violation of procedure, law and against the qualification prescribed in Exhibit P1 notification."
WP(C).No.30098/2013 2
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
3. A scanning of the contentions of the petitioner would reveal that the appointment of the third respondent is challenged on the ground that at the time of submission of the application she was lacking the prescribed minimum teaching experience. In the context of the said contention it is relevant to refer to the condition in Ext.P1 notification prescribing the experience in teaching. It reads thus:-
"Good academic record with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. Candidates from outside the University System in addition shall also possess at least 55% marks or an equivalent grade at the Masters Degree Level Eight years experience of teaching and/or research including up to 3 years for research degrees and has made some mark in the areas of scholarship as evidenced by quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula."
The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of a decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.13688 of 2010 the period spent for research should have been excluded for the purpose of reckoning the period of teaching experience. Obviously, as per the notification, minimum teaching WP(C).No.30098/2013 3 experience prescribed is 8 years. True that the contention of the petitioner is that for computing the 8 years' experience the period spent for research shall be excluded in the light of the decision referred above. I am of the view that the applicability of the said decision need be considered only if the third respondent was lacking the minimum teaching experience of 8 years as on the relevant date and the period spent for research is to be added to his teaching experience to treat him as a qualified candidate as on that day. In that context, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2. It is stated therein:-
"5. The said provision in the notification implies that in addition to the number of years of teaching, number of years spent for research including 3 years for Ph.D. will be taken into account for counting the qualifying minimum period of eight years for applying to the post of Reader. The experience of the 3rd respondent is as hereunder:
(i) 7 years and 1 month as Lecturer (7-9-2005 to 10-10-2012) in the Department of Political Science.
(ii) 9 months as Research Associate in the Department of Politics and Public Administration, University of Madras (January to September 2000).
(iii) 1 year and 9 months as Lecturer in Political Science in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady.
(iv) 3 years towards research degree (Ph.D)."
(emphasis added) WP(C).No.30098/2013 4
4. It is evident from the above extracted statements that excluding the research period the 3rd respondent got 8 years' and 10 months' teaching experience which is more than the prescribed minimum. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that this Court need not look into the applicability or otherwise of the decision in W.P.
(C)No.13688 of 2010. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that normally an unsuccessful candidate cannot be permitted to challenge a selection especially in the absence of any illegality vitiating the very selection process. In this case, having considered the ground upon which the petitioner raised challenge against the appointment of the third respondent and finding that the said ground is absolutely unfounded, for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS