ANTONY DOMINIC , J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C)No.30098/2013, challenging appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Reader(Political Science) under respondents 1 and 2. The Writ Petition having been dismissed by the learned Single, this Writ Appeal is filed.
2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
3. The issue that is raised by the appellant is that the 3rd respondent is ineligible for the post of Reader in Political Science in the 1st respondent-University. Exhibit P1 is the notification issued by the University inviting application for the said post. The qualification that was prescribed in the notification 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 upto 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 appellant admits that the 3rd respondent satisfied the educational qualification prescribed for the post in question. Contention raised is that the 3rd respondent did not satisfy the experience prescribed. Going by the notification, the experience prescribed is that the candidate should have eight years experience of teaching and/or research, including upto three years for research degree. The experience claimed by the 3rd respondent reads thus:
(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).”
Reading of the above shows that the 3rd respondent has more than eight years of teaching experience and if credit is given to the three years towards research degree also, he will have more than 12 years of teaching experience. Therefore, with the materials available in this case, we cannot accept the case of the appellant that the 3rd respondent lacked the experience prescribed for the post in question.
4. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the one year and 9 months of experience claimed by the 3rd respondent in the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady was as a Guest Lecturer and that the same cannot be treated as teaching experience, since that service was not an approved one. In our view, in the facts of this case, it is not necessary to probe deeper into these contentions, for the reason that even if the said experience is excluded, still the 3rd respondent is having more than eight years of teaching experience prescribed for the post.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the 3rd respondent had made a false declaration about his experience and that therefore, should not have been treated as an eligible candidate. In our view, eligibility is a matter to be examined with reference to the eligibility that is set out in the notification. In this case, the 3rd respondent has satisfied all those prescriptions in the notification and therefore, we cannot accept the case of the appellant that on the ground pointed out, the 3rd respondent should have been disqualified as an ineligible candidate.
6. For all these reasons, we are unable to accept the case of the appellant that the 3rd respondent was an ineligible candidate. The learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the Writ Petition.
The Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE