"Real Teaching Experience Needed" : Kerala HC Directs Kannur University To Re-Examine Credentials Of Priya Varghese, Wife Of CM's Private Secretary

The Kerala High Court on Thursday allowed the plea challenging the selection of Priya Varghese, wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan as an Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam at Kannur University and directed the competent authority of the University to reconsider the credential of the 5th respondent (Priya Varghese) and decide whether she should continue on the Rank List. On such enquiry being completed and the Rank List sufficiently modified, further action to make an appointment can be taken forward.

Justice Devan Ramachandran allowed the Writ Petition, observing that:

Teaching experience can only be a real fact and not a fiction or an inference. To paraphrase, unless a candidate is able to show real experience in teaching as required by the UGC Regulations 2018, he or she could not have had their applications approved by the scrutiny committee of the University, which is also a statutory one. In the case at hand, the scrutiny committee proceeded on certain assumptions that they thought to be true, particularly with respect to the periods of service claimed by the 5th respondent while engaged in full-time research and discharging duties as Director of Student Services and coordinator of the National Services Scheme. Certainly, such activities would go to the promotion of the growth of a person as a good teacher, but that by itself would not be sufficient in the absence of the requisite experience of teaching. What is required is a felicitous mix of both, so that a teacher is able to guide his or her students. 

The petition filed by the second rank holder sought a directive to the Kannur University and its selection committee to rework the rank list for the post of Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam after removing Priya Varghese.

The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate George Poonthottam instructed by Advocate P. Santharam, challenged the inclusion of Priya Varghese (5th respondent) on the ground that the respondent does not have sufficient 'experience of teaching' as mandated by the UGC Regulations and that the Selection Committee had acted capriciously, in including the 5th respondent in the Rank List even though her academic score was lower than what his client had achieved. However, she was interviewed, and the selection committee gave her first rank.

The Senior Counsel further submitted that the 5th respondent was ineligible to be included in the Ranked list because she did not have either the service or the experience of teaching that is required under the "UGC Regulations 2018" after she acquired the essential qualification under it, namely PhD.

The Senior Counsel also argued that the Ranked List is inept and incompetent because it has been shown to be a "Provisional Ranked List", prepared by the Selection Committee of the Syndicate of the University but without the "physical verification of the original documents claiming academic qualifications having been done".

Senior Counsel Advocate P. Ravindran instructed by Advocate I. V. Pramod appearing for the Registrar of the University, in the Additional Counter Affidavit filed before the Court submitted that after the Vice Chancellor had obtained the Ranked List from the Selection Committee certain complaints were received which led to suspicion as to if the inclusion of the 5th respondent was in order. The Registrar thereby sought legal opinion from the UGC however no reply was received. therefore the Vice-Chancellor went by the advice given to him by the Advocate General of Kerala and subsequently placed the Ranked List before the syndicate, which was approved. 

The Senior Counsel argued that as far as the 5th respondent is concerned her experience as the Director of Student Services (DSS) and the period when she spent on 'deputation' without leave for the purpose of pursuing PhD were accepted by the Scrutiny Committee to be part of teaching experience. 

The Court after considering the considering the contentions raised by the parties, observed that "experience of teaching' as specified in Regulation 4.1(II) of the UGC Regulations 2018 has to be actual teaching experience and not something that can be inferred or construed, either by operation of law or on the strength of executive orders or circulars. 

Furthermore, the Court opined that the argument of the 5th respondent that since she continued as a Teacher- within the meaning of the term, as available from the Act- her activities must be constructed to be 'experience of teaching', notwithstanding the fact that she was not engaged in such during the relevant period, is precisely what the UGC prohibits. 

...they (UGC) vehemently stipulated that a person ought to have had the requisite real teaching experience, to be directly appointed as Associate Professor, as as to ensure excellence and the highest standards in the higher education system, the Court added.

Therefore the Court observed that 'experience of teaching' can only be real fact and not fiction or an inference. 

The Court observed that unless a candidate is able to demonstrate real experience of teaching, as required by the "UGC Regulations 2018", he/she could not have had their application for direct appointment as Associate Professor, approved by the Scrutiny Committee of the University, which is also a statutory one. 

In the present case, the Court pointed out that the Scrutiny Committee proceeded on certain assumptions especially with the periods of service claimed by the 5th respondent, while engaged as "DSS" and Co-ordinator of the NSS. The Court observed that though such activities may aid the growth of a person as a good teacher, that by itself would not be sufficient for being considered for direct appointment as an Associate Professor in the absence of requisite "experience of teaching".

Thereby, the Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Competent Authority of the University to re-assess the credentials of the 5th respondent. The Court further added that on such assessment being completed, the Final Ranked List shall be published and further action to effect appointments taken forward, without avoidable delay

Case Title: Dr Joseph Skariah v. Vice-Chancellor (Selection Committee Chairman)

Citation:2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 593

Click Here To Read/Download The Order