No one was ‘fit’ enough: Kerala High Court upholds institution’s right to fix minimum standards for managerial post

Justice N Nagaresh placed significant emphasis on the importance of the position in question.

Affirming the institution’s stand, the court added that the cut-off mark of 60 prescribed, therefore, cannot be treated as illegal or arbitrary.

Case of dispute for directorial post

• The dispute arose following a recruitment notification issued on March 4, 2024, inviting applications for the post of director of the IHRD.
• Dr Vinu Thomas, who is serving as Dean (Academic) and Controller of Examinations (in charge) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and has served in various capacities within the IHRD since 1995, including as a professor, alleged that the selection process was arbitrary and ill-motivated.
• The petitioner specifically challenged the marks awarded to the Dr V A Arun Kumar, currently serving as Additional Director (In-charge) of the IHRD.
• Dr Thomas contended that Dr Arun Kumar was illegally awarded 5 marks of teaching experience and 10 marks for research experience, despite allegedly having no experience in either field.
• Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the selection committee lacked the authority to insist on a minimum 60 per cent cut-off score because this requirement was not mentioned in the original notification.
• Dr Kumar’s initial 1997 appointment as Assistant Director, which the petitioner alleged was the result of political clout rather than merit.
• He contended that certain members of the selection process had no jurisdiction to fix minimum marks for the Director’s position

‘Employer is not legally bound to disclose marks’

• It has come out from the pleadings that the IHRD has proceeded with the selection. The IHRD fixed a 60 per cent cut off marks for selection.
• After the selection process, the IHRD has found that none of the candidates have secured the prescribed cut-off marks.

• Therefore, no appointment was made to the post of director pursuant to the notification.
• When none of the candidates have secured the minimum cut-off prescribed by the institution, the argument of the petitioner that the selected candidate has no experience in teaching and awarding of 5 marks for teaching experience and 10 marks for research experience, is inconsequential.
• Since even with those marks, the selected one was found not fit for selection and appointment.
• As none of the candidates were found fit in the selection process, it would be a futile exercise for this court to go into the legality of the marks awarded to the candidates.
• In a recruitment notification, the institution/employer is not expected to or legally bound to disclose the marks to be obtained by a candidate for selection in the recruitment process.
• Dr V A Arun Kumar was appointed as assistant director long ago in the year 1997.
  The petitioner cannot question that appointment at this distance of time, to challenge the outcome of the notification.