Binulal V.S. and Others v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 BINULAL V.S., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.VENUDHARAN, RANK NO.240, KOLLAMVILAKATHU HOUSE, AYIROOR, ARUVIPPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 126. 2 SIDHAN K.N., AGED 46 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, RANK NO.533, KAIPPON (H), NAYARAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 509. 3 ABDUL MAJEED K.M., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED PILLAI, RANK NO.330, KOCHERY HOUSE, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 501. 4 JOSEPH M.T., AGED 38 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, RANK NO.323, KALIYEKKAL (HOUSE), NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM -682 509. 5 RAJESH K.R., AGED 39 YEARS S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR K.P., RANK NO.246, KOYICKAL KALAPPURAYIL, NEENDOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 601. 6 SELMATH V.U., AGED 45 YEARS D/O.UMMAR, RANK NO.413, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, VADAKODE P.O., B.M.C.KAIPPADAMUGHAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 021. 7 BEENAKUMARI S., AGED 36 YEARS D/O.SASIDHSARAN, RANK NO.402, ERATTAKKALAYIL, PADUKKOTTUKAL, THATTAYIL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 525. 8 PRATHAPAN T.S., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.SEKHARAN, RANK NO.367, THOMPRAKUDY HOUSE, **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019 2** MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 587. 9 ABHILASH P.K., AGED 39 YEARS S/O.IMBI CHATHAN, RANK NO.292, POOLAKKUNAN (H), JAWAHAR COLONY (H.NO.39), CHANDAKUNNU P.O., NILAMBUR - 679 342. 10 VINOJ M.G., AGED 42 YEARS S/O.GOPI M.A., RANK NO.187, MANNOPPILLY MUGAL HOUSE, CUSAT P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 682 022. 11 RAZIA T.M., AGED 47 YEARS D/O.MARAKKAR T.B., RANK NO.SUPPL.4 (MUSLIM), VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, KARIPPASSERYMUGAL, VADACOD P.O., KANGARAPPADY, ERNAKULAM - 682 021. 12 ASHRAF M.A., AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, RANK NO.403, MATTAPURAM (H), KUNNUKARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 578. 13 AJIKUMAR G., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.GOPINATHAN CHETTIYAR, RANK NO.389, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KOLLA, KULAPPALLY, PANAVOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 568. 14 MUKESH K.V., AGED 36 YEARS S/O.VIKRAMAN K.P., RANK NO.134, KANICHATTUKUDY HOUSE, THOTTEKADU, MATTOOR, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 574. 15 SHANAVAS V.A., AGED 35 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KADAR, RANK NO.234, VENATTU HOUSE, MADAVANA P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR - 680 666. 16 SUDHA P.R., AGED 42 YEARS D/O.RAMU, RANK NO.430, KILIKOTT HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM, CHALINGAD P.O., THRISSUR - 680 681. 17 RASHEEDA P.M., AGED 40 YEARS D/O.MUHAMMED, RANK NO.158, PEREPPARAMBIL HOUSE, |**WP(C) NO.**|**9986 OF 2019**| |---|---| ||**3**| ||KUNNUSHERY, ATHANY P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 683| ||585.| |18|LOVELY V.T.,| ||AGED 37 YEARS| ||D/O.THOMAS V.P., RANK NO.504, PLAPPALLY HOUSE, VADACKAL| ||P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 003.| |19|SAGEER A.A.,| ||AGED 46 YEARS| ||S/O.ABDUL SALAM, RANK NO.468, ARACKAL HOUSE, NORTH| ||PALLILAMKARA H.M.T.COLONY P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 503.| |20|SANDHYA BAIJU,| ||AGED 39 YEARS| ||D/O.DANANJAYAN, RANK NO.473, NAVARTHIL HOUSE, VETTECKAL| ||P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 529.| |21|BINNY V.,| ||AGED 36 YEARS| ||S/O.VIJAYAN E.A., RANK NO.SUPPL.E (DHEEVARA), SURYA| ||KUMBALANPILLY, CHALIKKAVATTAM, VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM| ||- 682 028.| |22|SUNISH P.K.,| ||AGED 40 YEARS| ||S/O.BALAN, RANK NO.189, CHITHRAPPATTAGIL HOUSE,| ||ERAMANGALAM, BALUSSERY VIA., KOZHIKODE - 673 612.| |23|SURESH T.K.,| ||AGED 40 YEARS| ||S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, RANK NO.433, THAZHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,| ||PULLAVOOR NIT CAMPUS P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 601.| |24|GEETHIKA K.V.,| ||AGED 42 YEARS| ||D/O.VIJAYAN, RANK NO.305, PARIPPAYIL HOUSE, KARIMAKKAD,| ||THRIKKAKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 021.| |25|ANITHA RAJAN,| ||AGED 40 YEARS| ||D/O.OMANAKUTTAN, RANK NO.431, PALANCHERRY HOUSE,| ||EDATHALA P.O., PUKKATTUPADY, ERNAKULAM - 683 561.| |26|MADHU M.J.,| ||AGED 38 YEARS| ||S/O.JAYADAS, RANK NO.258, MUKKADAMANNIL HOUSE,| **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **4** MUKKOTTUTHARA P.O., ERUMELY VIA., KOTTAYAM - 686 510. 27 GIRIDAS A., AGED 35 YEARS S/O.ARUMUGHAN, RANK NO.356, R.K.V.HOUSE, PULIKKATTHARA, VALLANGHY, NENMMARA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 508. 28 SUNITHA K.D., AGED 39 YEARS D/O.DASAN, RANK NO.225, PADANNATHARA HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 010. 29 NISSAR P.M., AGED 43 YEARS S/O.MAKKAR, RANK NO.321, PALLATHUPARA (H), VENGOLA P.O., MEPRATHUPADY, ERNAKULAM - 683 556. 30 BEEVI M.A., AGED 45 YEARS D/O.AHMED, RANK NO.42, PALAKKAD HOUSE, PALLILAMKARA, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 683 503. BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR S.ANEESH AMRUTHA SANJEEV ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 2 THE VICE CHANCELLOOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 3 SELECTION BOARD FOR RECRUITMENT TO THE POST OF SWEEPERCUM-CLEANER, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 4 SUDHEER K.M., KARUVALLY HOUSE, UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN - 682 022. **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **5** 5 AJAYAKUMAR K.V., MANNOPPILLIMUGHAL, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 022. 6 SAJITHKUMAR K.G., KAIPPPADA HOUSE, CUSAT P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 022. 7 SHIJU MON T.P., THACHETHU HOUSE, MANNOPPILLI COLONY, CUSAT P.O., S.KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 682 022. 8 ABDL RAHMAN, AISHA MANZIL, ETTUKALIPPARAMBU, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM -682 022. 9 ABDUL JALEEL K.M., KARUVALLI HOUSE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY COLONY, ERNAKULAM - 682 022. 10 NOORUDEEN V.K., VARIKKAT HOUSE, NEDUVANOOR, CHOWARA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 571. 11 ANILA K.V., KAKKATTU HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH P.O., MANGALASSERY, THRISSUR - 680 308. 12 UDAYAKRISHNAN K.P., KAPPITHANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLILAMKARA, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 683 503. 13 RATHEESH P.H., PONNETH, PALLILAMKARA, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 683 503. 14 ABDUL SALAM M.K., MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA P.O., THOPPIL PADANATTUPARAMBU, ERNAKULAM - 682 021. 15 PREETHA T.V., PURAMUGALIL HOUSE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 022. 16 SANTHOSHKUMAR T.R., MADATHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, THEKKUMPURAM, CHENDAMANGALAM **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **6** P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 512. 17 AJEESH P.M., PUTHEN VEEDU, VANIAKKAD, MANNAM P.O., N.PARAVUR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 682 520. 18 SIJIMOL K.K., KUDILIL HOUSE, PADINJAKKARA, VATTEKUNNAM, N.EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 024. 19 SHAN N.K., PERUVARATH HOUSE, PERUVARAM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM683 513. 20 NOWSHAD K.M., KODOPILLY HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA P.O., CHITTATTUKARA, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM - 683 522. 21 KISHOR P.R., PATTATHANAM HOUSE, MARADU P.O., T.V.JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 304. 22 BIJU P.T., PATHAMPILLI HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD COLO,Y, KARUMALLUR P.O., THATTAMPADI, ERNAKULAM - 683 511. 23 RACHAEL SONA [DELETED] BLAYITHARA HOUSE, NO.18.1619, PAYANATTU PARAMBU, PALLURUTHY KONAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 006. [IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 06.10.2022 IN I.A.1/2022 IN WP(C)9986/2019.] 24 SAIJU MON S., THAREPARAMBU, CMC 5, NEDUMBRAKKAD, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 525. 25 SOJIMON P.S., PADINJARECHOOPRATHU, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 531. 26 PRINCE D., THUNDUCHIRAYIL, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 536. 27 LETHA P.S., NEELANGHATTUTHUNDIYIL (H), COSMOS ROAD, VYTTILA P.O., **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **7** KANIYAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 682 019 28 GIREESHKUMAR C.S., CHELAKKAL HOUSE, TUTHIYOOR, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, KAKKANAD, CESS P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 037. 29 ANCY KURIAN, THEENDACHIRA, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, RAKKAD, MEKKADAMPU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 682 316. 30 SURESH P.R., PATHODI PARAMBIL HOUSE, THEYYANGAD, PONANI P.O., MALAPPURAM- 679 577. 31 RAMESH T.G., THZHATHETHIL (H), K.B.THARA, THENNUR P.O., PARLI, PALAKKAD - 676 616. 32 DEVADASAN A.K., ETHIRMALA VEED, KANHIKULAM P.O., KALLADIKKODE VAZHI, PALAKKAD - 678 596. 33 RANJITH BABU A.K., EDAVALAKKANDI HOUSE, VELLIYAMPARAMBU P.O., MATTANNUR COLLEGE, KANNUR - 670 702. 34 MANOJ KUMAR B.S., NELLIMOOD PUTHENVEED, PLAVOOR, AAMACHAL P.O., KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 572. 35 P.S.JIJIMOL, MALIL HOUSE, EAST KODUNGALLOOR, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 102. 36 ANITHA V., KANNAMANGALAM, A.N.PURAM, NEAR KSHB, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011. 37 SUDHIJ N.S., MUTTIMAMPALLAM, NATTUKAL P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 554. 38 ANI P.K., PALLIKANDATHIL HOUSE, E.VELIYATHUNADU, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 101. 39 RATHISH K.R., **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **8** KOOMBAYIL HOUSE, THEKKUMKAD, PANANGAD P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 506. 40 MAHESH K.K., KODAMUKKIL HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA P.O., PANJAPPILLI - 680 683. 41 MANOJ KUMAR R., ASWATHY, PATHALAM, KUTTIKKATTUKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 501. 42 UDAYAKUMAR K.G., KOOTTAPPAYIL VEEDU, KEEZCHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 689 121. BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SRI.T.B.HOOD SRI.AMEER.K.M. SMT.M.ISHA SRI.AMAL KASHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **9** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners applied to the post of Sweeper-cum-Cleaner in the services of the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued in the year 2008. A written test was conducted on 14.08.2010 and Ext.P2 Short List was published on 11.02.2011. Pertinently, this Short List specifically stated that the persons included therein were the ones eligible for being called for interview, leading to the final selection to the posts in question. 2. It transpires that, in the meanwhile, certain candidates challenged the selection process on the ground that further stipulation of a “skill test” was unnecessary; and this was answered by a learned Judge of this Court in WP(C)Nos.29513/2015 and 37702/2015, through judgment dated 17.12.2015 – a copy of which is **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **10** on record as Ext.R1(a) – wherein, it was concluded that conduct of a “skill test” was impermissible, but allowed the CUSAT to complete the processes through written test and interview. Interestingly, in the said judgment, Ext.P2 Short List was specifically sustained, however, with the conduct of a “skill test” alone being set aside; and the University was directed to proceed with the interview and to make selection edificed on the total marks obtained by each candidate in it and the written test, in the ratio of 80:20. 3. It is on record that CUSAT conducted the interview on various dates from 16.04.2018 to 09.07.2018 and that Ext.P3 list was published, wherein, the petitioners were also included. They assert that Ext.P3 list is, however, illegal because no interview could have been conducted and also because the said process was vitiated by nepotism, corruption **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **11** and other deleterious factors. They assert that some of the candidates even recorded “conversations of leaders” making offers in lieu of appointments and that a police case was registered by the CUSAT, which apparently was not pursued by them subsequently. They thus pray that Ext.P3, as also the appointments of the party respondents, be set aside and CUSAT be directed to redo the list, taking into account only the examination marks obtained by each of the candidates. 4. I have heard Sri.P.Nandakumar – learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt.M.Isha – learned counsel for respondents 4,5,7 to 22 and 24 to 42 and Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay – learned Standing Counsel for the CUSAT. 5. Sri.P.Nandakumar commenced his submissions relying on three judgments of this Court, namely, _**Ravidas M. and Another v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others**_ **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **12** [2009(2)KLT 295]; _**Cyril Johnson (Dr.) v. State of Kerala and Others**_ [2009(4)KLT 573] and _**Smitha Chacko (Dr.) v.State of Kerala and Others**_ [2022(6) KHC 1] to argue that when the CUSAT had not prescribed an interview as being a component of the selection, Ext.P2 short list became impermissible and vitiated. He contented that the factum of his client having been participated in the process, or in having approached this Court late, would also be of no consequence because, when the selection process is found to be illegal, then the consequences flowing out of it can never obtain forensic favour. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted. 6. Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay – learned Standing Counsel for the CUSAT, however, submitted that attempt of the petitioners is extremely confutative because, they were fully **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **13** aware – it being admitted – that the processes of selection involved a written test, interview and skill test. He added that this is manifest from the fact that some of the candidates approached this Court and obtained Ext.R1(a) judgment, wherein, a learned Judge approved the Short List – Ext.P2 herein, and directed the selection to be completed based on interview and the written test in 80:20 ratio. He contented that once such affirmative orders had been issued by this Court, the petitioners could not have maintained this writ petition, without even having attempted a review of the same. He explained that, otherwise, his client would have been in contempt of the directions of this Court; and that, apart from the fact that they have no other option, they were fully convinced that the best selection could be only on the basis of interview and written test. He concluded his submissions saying that since **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **14** Ext.P1 notification did not mention the manner of the selection, either showing it to have the afore components or otherwise, the argument of Sri.P.Nandakumar, on behalf of the petitioners, that interview could not have been conducted by his client and that the selection ought to have been solely on the basis of the written test, does not stand to any reason. 7. Smt.M.Isha – learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay, further pointing out that the petitioners in this case have all scored much lower than the persons who are selected and appointed, even in the written test. She argued that the petitioners can only be seen to be “fencesitters”, since they participated in the interview knowing fully well that it was an essential component of the selection process, but then chose to challenge the appointments, **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **15** solely because they were ranked lower in the final rank list. She relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**D.Sarojakumari v.**_ _**R.Helen Thilakom and others**_ [(2017)9 SCC: 478] to drive home the point that a candidate who takes part in a selection process cannot be permitted a turn around and assail it, solely because she or he is ranked lower therein. 8. I have assessed and evaluated the afore rival contentions, on the touchstone of the various materials on record. 9. It is indubitable – being uncontested in the pleadings and the documents – that Ext.P1 notification was issued by the CUSAT as early as in the year 2008, which did not have any description of the selection processes or its components. One, therefore, fails to understand how the petitioners say that they were under the impression that only a written test would be conducted, since even that is not **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **16** stipulated in the notification. 10. That being said, after the conduct of the written test, which the petitioners voluntarily attended, Ext.P2 Short List was prepared, wherein, as I have already said above, it is perspicuously recorded that the persons mentioned therein are to be called for an interview, leading to the selection. 11. In the meanwhile, as recorded above, the further stipulation of a “skill test” in the selection process, was challenged by some of the candidates, resultant to which, this Court delivered Ext.R1(a) judgment, in which the short list was approved and specific directions were issued to complete the process by computing the marks both in the written test and the interview in the ratio of 80:20. 12. The petitioners did not choose to challenge the selection process at this time and then went on to participate in the **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **17** interview, however, to be ranked lower in the final rank list; when they woke up and thought it necessary to challenge the same through this writ petition. 13. Of course, it is the specific case of the petitioners that, during the interview process, many deleterious tendencies were exhibited and that a criminal case has also been registered, based on the complaints made by the CUSAT themselves. This can only mean that CUSAT had nothing to hide and that they were willing to requisition an investigation into the allegations of the candidates, including the petitioners, and to take necessary action, if they were found to be justified or tenable. 14. That said, however, there is nothing on record to show what happened to the investigation initiated at the instance of the CUSAT and it is informed at the Bar by **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **18** Sri.P.Nandakumar – learned counsel for the petitioners, that to the information of his clients, nothing happened thereafter, alleging that it is because the CUSAT did not pursue it. 15. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with this imputation of the petitioners because, all that can be done by the CUSAT is to approach the Police and file necessary complaints. Once they had done so, they cannot be expected to pursue it on a day-to-day basis, as the petitioners want. 16. Before I close, I must also record certain additional reasons why this Court cannot find favour with the petitioners. They have approached this Court much after the selection processes were completed and appointments were over; even though they were fully aware of the fact that they were included in Ext.P2 Short List for being interviewed subsequently. Coupled with this, the directions **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **19** of this Court in Ext.R1(a) judgment obligated the CUSAT to complete the selection only after the interview. It is thus apodictic that claims of the petitioners are only an an afterthought and intended to circumvent the selection process, which they had participated voluntarily, without any demur. 17. It is needless to say that if the petitioners were genuinely under the impression that the selection process took in only the component of the written test, they would have challenged Ext.P2 Short List at the relevant time, or at least before the interview was completed; but not merely did they not do so, they participated in the interview, which indubitably shows that they were aware that it was an essential component of the selection process. Added to this, the fact that this Court set aside the requirement of a “skill test” at the instance of one of the candidates, **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **20** would render it luculent that they were aware that, originally, the components of the selection were three, namely written test, interview and skill test. In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition without any further orders; however, clarifying that if any police investigation is to find that the processes of selection were vitiated for corruption or nepotism, then the CUSAT will be obligated to take into account the same and issue necessary reparative orders, subject to law, at that time. Sd/- ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** SAS **WP(C) NO. 9986 OF 2019** **21** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9986/2019** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 30/12/2018| |---|---| ||SUBMITTED BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY| ||OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF SHORT LIST DATED 11/02/2011| ||ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF| ||SCINENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF RANKED LIST DATED 28/12/2018| ||ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF| ||SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED| ||27/12/2018 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DATED| ||21/01/2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR,| ||COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF CONSOLIDATED MARK SHEET OF| ||CANDIDATES ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR COCHIN| ||UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF FACING SHEET OF THE QUESTION| ||BOOKLET ISSUED TO THE 30TH PETITIONER UNDER| ||THE RTI ACT.| |RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:|| |EXHIBIT R1(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2015 OF| ||THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 29513/2015| |EXHIBIT R1(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE SYNDICATE| |EXHIBIT R4(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 20.10.2011 ISSUED| ||BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE 14TH| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT R4(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2015 IN| ||W.P.(C) NO.29513/2015 AND CONNECTED CASE.|