REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4144 of 2022 
Biju K.K.              ...Appellant 
Versus
Cochin University of Science and Technology,
Kochi & Ors.          …Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
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 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
1

petitioner,   the   original   writ   petitioner   has   preferred   the
present appeal.
2. That   the   appellant   herein   ­   original   writ   petitioner   was
serving   as Technical  Assistant  Grade­II  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   –   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.
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
2

was   not   fulfilling   the   eligibility  criteria.     So   far   as  the  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 otherwise.  That it was
submitted   on   behalf   of   the   writ   petitioner   that   even   the   6 th
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  reason  to  interfere  with
the   same.     Consequently,   the   learned   Single   Judge   partly
allowed the said writ petition and set aside the appointment of
the   5 th
  respondent   and   directed   that   the   marks   of   the   5 th
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 against the judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   has   been
3

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   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 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
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
4

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 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   the   Division   Bench   and   the   learned   Single
Judge   are   hereby   quashed   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   namely   “ I   Class
Diploma   in   Computer   Science   and   3   years’   experience   in
respective   laboratories   of   Engineering   Colleges/Universities”.
5

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   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.
 
…………………………………J.
              (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July 11, 2022.
6