MANAGER, MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGES Vs. RESHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are against the judgment dtd. 18/12/2020 in W.P. (C)No.15666/2020. W.A.No.271/2021 has been filed by the petitioner; W.A.No.236/2021 by respondents 5 to 8, additional respondents 10 to 13, 15 and 16 and W.A.No.491/2021 by the 9th respondent in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed by the unsuccessful candidate to the post of Assistant Professor, St.Johns College, Anchal, Kollam. The 9th respondent is the successful candidate. Respondents 5 and 6 are the Manager and the Principal respectively of the aforesaid college. The 7th respondent is the Chairman of the Selection Committee and the additional 8th respondent and additional respondents 10 to 15 are the members of the Selection Committee. According to the petitioner, the Selection Committee has not awarded the actual marks due to her. On the other hand, she was intentionally awarded quite low marks with the deliberate intention to achieve their object of appointing the 9th respondent. The selection process was vitiated by bias and favoritism. Exts.P6 and P7 documents evidence the close relation of the 9 th respondent with a member of the Selection Committee, namely, the 8th respondent. Aggrieved by the denial of employment, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 representation to the Registrar, University of Kerala, i.e., the 4 th respondent. As the selection process is vitiated by bias and favoritism, the writ petition seeking a declaration that the selection and appointment of the 9th respondent as Assistant Professor, Environmental Science pursuant to the notification issued on 06/07/2019, is unconstitutional, illegal and non-est in the eye of law. Hence for quashing his selection and appointment and for directing the respondents to award fair marks to the petitioner in the interview and also to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor, Environmental Science in the college of respondents 5 and 6.

(3.) Respondents 5 to 8, additional respondents 10 to 13, additional respondents 15 and 16 as well as the 9th respondent have filed counter affidavits denying the allegation of bias and favoritism, the details of which will be referred to as and when the arguments and counter arguments of either side are considered.