BIJU K.K.versusCOCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI & ORS.

596                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 596              [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A                                  BIJU K.K.
                                       v.
        COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
                        KOCHI & ORS.
B                       (Civil Appeal No. 4144 of 2022)
                                 JULY 11, 2022
              [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
              Service Law – Non-consideration of a specific plea by the
      High Court – Appellant was serving as Technical Assistant Grade -
C
      II on daily wages in school of Engineering – He applied for the
      post of Technical Assistant Grade -II in terms of notification issued
      by the respondent University – He was placed much below in the
      rank list by Selection Committee as he was awarded less marks on
      experience ignoring his earlier services rendered as daily wagers –
D     Decision of Selection Committee was challenged and plea was raised
      that the original respondent no.6 was also lacking the eligibility
      criteria – Single Judge of High Court held that Selection Committee
      decision is not arbitrary and Court cannot exercise power of judicial
      review – Appeal against the decision of Single Judge was dismissed
      by the Division Bench of the High Court – Held: The decision of
E
      the Selection Committee was challenged 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 – Specific plea raised by the
F     appellant ought to have been considered by the High Court –
      Decision of Division Bench and of Single Judge set aside – The
      matter remitted to the Single Judge of the High Court 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
G
      respondent no.6 was fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria as
      per the advertisement – Appeal partly allowed.
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4144
      of 2022.
H
                                      596
     BIJU K.K. v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND                                597
                TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI & ORS.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.06.2016 of the High Court              A
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1593 of 2014.
       Romy Chacko, Sudesh Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Mathai M. Paikaday, Sr. Adv., Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita
Sant, Sanjay Jain, Shishir Pinaki, Amit Singh, Alexander M. Paikaday,
Advs. for the Respondents.                                                        B

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       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                  C
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 order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing
the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein – original writ petitioner,
the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.                    D
        2. That the appellant herein - original writ petitioner was serving
as Technical Assistant Grade-II 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
                                                                                  E
– 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.                                             F
       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 was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. So far as the   G
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
                                                                                  H
598             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     otherwise. That it was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that
      even the 6th 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
B
      reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, the learned Single Judge
      partly allowed the said writ petition and set aside the appointment of the
      5th respondent and directed that the marks of the 5th 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
C     against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge has
      been 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
D     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
E     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
F     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 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
G     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
H
     BIJU K.K. v. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND                                 599
        TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge are hereby quashed                 A
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
                                                                                   B
namely “I Class Diploma in Computer Science and 3 years’ experience
in respective laboratories of Engineering Colleges/Universities”. 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                C
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.                                                                             D

Ankit Gyan                                                Appeal partly allowed.
(Assisted by: Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)


                                                                                   E




                                                                                   F




                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H