The Kerala High Court has clarified that academic selection committees are not bound by the UGC-CARE journal list when evaluating research publications for appointment to teaching posts. This ruling reinforces institutional autonomy in academic hiring and sets a critical precedent for evaluating scholarly merit beyond bureaucratic lists.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Roshni C, challenged her rejection for the post of Assistant Professor (English) at Bishop Jesudasan CSI Arts and Science College, alleging that the 8th respondent, Sreejitha P S, was unfairly selected despite lower merit. The petitioner contended that the Selection Committee manipulated the shortlisting criteria to include the 8th respondent, who had a lower written test score, and awarded her 2.8 marks for research publications in journals later removed from the UGC list.
Procedural History
- 2021: Selection process conducted for four vacancies; written test held, followed by interview on 15.11.2021.
- 16.11.2021: Final rank list published; petitioner ranked 5th, 8th respondent ranked 2nd.
- 12.07.2022: University issued order approving appointment of 8th respondent.
- 2023: Petitioner filed writ petition challenging selection on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of UGC norms.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the selection order, cancellation of the 8th respondent’s appointment, and direction for a fresh selection process with strict adherence to UGC guidelines.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether UGC Regulations, 2018 require research publications to be indexed in the UGC-CARE list to qualify for marks in academic appointments, or whether assessment of peer-reviewed journals outside that list is legally permissible.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Ravidas M. v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana to argue that selection committees must limit interview shortlists to two to three times the number of vacancies. She further contended that the 8th respondent’s publications appeared in journals removed from the UGC list in 2017 and later classified as predatory by UGC-CARE, rendering them ineligible for academic credit under UGC Regulations, 2018. She cited Exhibits P7 and P12 to prove the journals were delisted and lacked peer-review integrity.
For the Respondent
The respondents, including the UGC, countered that UGC Regulations, 2018 do not mandate UGC-CARE listing as a precondition for evaluating research. The Selection Committee, comprising UGC and University nominees, is empowered to assess the quality of peer-reviewed publications irrespective of their inclusion in any official list. The 8th respondent’s publications were verified as peer-reviewed, and the petitioner’s own work was published in the same journal (IJCRT), undermining her claim of bias.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the UGC Regulations, 2018 and found no provision requiring research to be published exclusively in UGC-CARE listed journals. The judgment emphasized that the Regulations only require publications to be in "peer-reviewed journals," without restricting them to any specific list.
"The UGC Regulations do not insist that the research articles to be assessed should be published in UGC listed journals. The UGC Regulations do not prohibit assessment of research articles in a peer reviewed journal which is not included in the UGC approved list of journals."
The Court noted that the Selection Committee included a UGC nominee and university experts, making it a duly constituted body with the authority to evaluate scholarly merit. The petitioner’s claim that the journals were "predatory" was deemed speculative, as no evidence of plagiarism or non-peer-review was presented. The Court further held that the decision to set a cut-off of 52 for shortlisting was within the committee’s discretion, and inviting more candidates than thrice the vacancies did not constitute arbitrariness in a private college context.
The Court distinguished Ravidas M. and Ashok Kumar Yadav, noting those cases involved public service commissions bound by statutory limits, whereas private institutions enjoy greater autonomy in recruitment design. The Court concluded that academic judgment, absent statutory violation, must be respected.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that UGC Regulations, 2018 permit evaluation of research in peer-reviewed journals regardless of UGC-CARE listing, and that selection committees are entitled to exercise academic discretion without judicial interference unless there is clear illegality or mala fide.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Peer-Reviewed Status Trumps UGC-CARE Listing
- Practitioners must now argue that peer-reviewed status, not journal listing, is the legal standard under UGC Regulations, 2018.
- Institutions may award marks for publications in journals not on the UGC-CARE list, provided peer-review can be substantiated.
- Petitioners challenging research credits must produce concrete evidence of non-peer-review or plagiarism - not merely the journal’s removal from a list.
Institutional Autonomy in Academic Selection
- Private colleges and universities are not bound by the same numerical limits on interview shortlists as public service commissions.
- Courts will refrain from interfering in academic selection unless statutory norms are violated or mala fide is proven.
- Selection committees with UGC and university representation are presumed to act fairly unless proven otherwise.
Burden of Proof Shifts to Challengers
- Allegations of journal misconduct must be supported by documented evidence, not speculative claims.
- The petitioner’s own publication in the same journal (IJCRT) weakened her position, establishing that identical standards apply to all candidates.
- Future litigants must secure expert affidavits or UGC clarifications to substantiate claims of predatory publishing.
