High Court of KeralaDivision BenchOriginal petition dismissed. No costs.
Dr. Abraham Kuruvilla v. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) & Others
Case / Petition Number:OP(CAT) No.296/2016
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- A. M. Babu
- Judgment Date
- 2019-03-11
- Court Decision / Holding
- We dismiss the original petition. No costs.
- Final Disposition
- Original petition dismissed. No costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Dr. Abraham Kuruvilla
Respondents
- Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Thiruvananthapuram
- Governing Body, SCTIMST
- Dr. K. Radhakrishnan (Director, SCTIMST, retired)
- Ministry of Science and Technology
- Dr. Muralidharan Nair (Head, Dept. of Neurology, SCTIMST)
- Dr. P.N. Sylaja (Consultant Neurologist, Addl. Professor of Neurology, SCTIMST)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan (Sr.)
- • Sri. K. Radhamani Amma
- • Sri. Antony Mukkath
- • Sri. P. Abdul Nishad
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. T. R. Ravi
- • Sri. P. Vijayakumar, ASG for R4 (Ministry)
- • Sri. Jagadeesh Lakshman, CGC for R4
- • Sri. K. Jayakumar (Sr.) for R6
- • Sri. C.S. Manu for R6
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court, OP(CAT) No. 296/2016, challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order upholding an ad hoc appointment to the post of Additional Professor (Neurology) at SCTIMST. The petitioner, a candidate for the same post, contends that the sixth respondent’s period as an ad hoc Consultant cannot be counted towards the requisite teaching/research experience for qualification, and thus the appointment was improper. The court sets out the Ext. P27 notification requirements and notes that the sixth respondent held several periods of service (including ad hoc consultant) after obtaining DM in Neurology, which the institute treated as equivalent to teaching duties. The petitioner argues that ad hoc service cannot be counted for seniority or qualification and raises concerns about potential fraud in misrepresenting the 6th respondent’s role. The respondents insist that ad hoc appointments are permissible under the institute’s Service Rules (Rule 4 of General Conditions of Service, Chapter II) and that the ad hoc consultant’s duties include teaching, effectively equating to teaching/research experience. The court reviews the relevant authorities on judicial review and ad hoc appointments, ultimately sustaining the institute’s approach while distinguishing earlier decisions that restricted counting ad hoc service. It dismisses the petition, holding the 6th respondent’s ad hoc consultation period valid for qualification and appointing the respondent accordingly.
Provisions of Law Cited
General Conditions of Service, Chapter II, Rule 4 (Ad hoc appointments)SCTIMST Service and Personnel Conduct Rules (Chapter I & II)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Judicial review is limited to illegality, improper procedure or malafides in selection decisions (Solunke v. Mahajan)
- Ad hoc appointments can be permissible under the Governing Body’s rules and may be counted as experience when duties include teaching (interpretation of ad hoc consultant role)
- ‘Consultant’ must be a human who provides professional services in a specialized field (G.V.K. Industries Ltd. v. I.T.O; C.I.T. v. Bharti Cellular Ltd.)
- Teaching duties can be fulfilled by individuals in roles described as ad hoc consultants; the teaching-learning process may include consultancy
- Court should not act as an appellate authority over expert selection committees except for illegality, irregularity, or malafides (Solunke; Neelima Misra)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner argued that the 6th respondent’s five-year-and-some-month tenure as an Ad hoc Consultant cannot be counted towards the requisite teaching/research experience for the Additional Professor post, and that reliance on the ad hoc designation does not equate to teaching experience or a post equivalent to an academic appointment. He maintained that Ext.P27’s criteria and the institute’s practice did not justify counting ad hoc service and questioned alleged procedural irregularities and possible misrepresentation by the 6th respondent. The petitioner relied on established authorities to contend that ad hoc service should not be counted for seniority or qualification, and emphasized the necessity of a strict, rules-based interpretation of eligibility.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that ad hoc appointments are permissible under Rule 4 of the SCTIMST General Conditions of Service and that the ad hoc Consultant’s duties included teaching, thereby constituting relevant teaching/research experience for qualification. They argued that the Governing Body has the power to appoint on an ad hoc basis for academic programs and that the 6th respondent’s work aligned with the duties of a teacher, thus satisfying the qualification. They asserted that there was no malafide, and the Tribunal’s decision was correct, relying on the relevant service rules and the institute’s internal practice.
Cited Precedents (8)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others | AIR 1990 SC 1607 | Distinguished | Cited to contend ad hoc service cannot be reckoned for seniority; the court distinguishes this proposition as not directly applicable to the facts before it. |
| State of M.P. v. Dharam Bir | (1998) 6 SCC 165 | Distinguished | Cited to contend that ad hoc experience cannot be counted; the court distinguishes this proposition as not directly bearing on the current case. |
| Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India and others | (2000) 8 SCC 25 | Distinguished | Cited to contend ad hoc appointment as temporary; court distinguishes this proposition for present purposes. |
| Debabrata Dash and another v. Jatindra Prasad Das and others | (2013) 3 SCC 658 | Distinguished | Reiterates ad hoc officiation cannot be considered for seniority; court distinguishes this proposition on the facts. |
| Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan | (1990) 1 SCC 305 | Positive | Sets the limits of judicial review in selection of candidates; not to act as an appellate authority absent malafides or illegality. |
| Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal | (1990) 2 SCC 746 | Positive | Supports limited grounds for interference, emphasizing absence of malafide or contravention of rules. |
| G.V.K. Industries Ltd. v. I.T.O. | (2015) 11 SCC 734 | Positive | Defines ‘consultant’ as a human professional who provides specialised services; teaching context can include consultancy. |
| C.I.T. v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. | (2009) 319 ITR 139 (Del) | Positive | Supports definition and interpretation of ‘consultant’ in professional contexts. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. Abraham Kuruvilla v. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU**
**MONDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940**
**OP (CAT).No. 296 of 2016**
**AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2016 IN T.A.NO.180/4 OF 2015 IN WP(C)NO.17270 OF 2010 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:**
**DR.ABRAHAM KURUVILLA, S/O. THE LATE M.K.KURUVILLA, AGED 62 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGY, SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY(SCTIMST), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, RESIDING AT 42 BAPUJI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI. K. RADHAMANI AMMA SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD.**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:**
**1 SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY (SCTIMST), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.**
**2 GOVERNING BODY, SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY(SCTIMST), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.**
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 2 :-
**3 DR.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, DIRECTOR(RETIRED), SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY(SCTIMST), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PROFESSOR,NEUROLOGY, AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES(AIMS),EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM-682041.**
- **4 MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN,NEW MAHRAULI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110016.**
**5 DR.MURALIDHARAN NAIR, HEAD,DEPARTMENT OF NEUROLOGY, SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY(SCTIMST),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.**
**6 DR.P.N.SYLAJA, CONSULTANT NEUROLOGIST, ANANTHAPURI HOSPITAL CHAKKA,N.H.BYPASS ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGY, SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY(SCTIMST), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011, RESIDING AT TC 74/1421,'GOURI SANKARAM', OPPOSITE SREEVELI NAGAR, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG FOR R4 SRI.JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN, CGC FOR R4 SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.) FOR R6 SRI.C.S.MANU FOR R6**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON 11.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 3 :-
“CR”
## Judgment
## Chitambaresh, J.
1.Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology ('the Institute' for short) functioning under the Government of India invited applications for the post of Additional Professor in Neurology. The petitioner as well as the sixth respondent applied to the post and the qualification prescribed for the same in Ext.P27 notification is as follows:
“ (IV) ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR (Neurology) - For Comprehensive Stroke Program (vacancy - 1) Pay Band Rs.37400-67000 (minimum pay of Rs.46000/-) and academic grade pay of Rs.9500. Upper age limit 50 years as on 31.03.2010. Qualification & Experience: Eight years of teaching and/or research experience after obtaining DM or its equivalent qualification in the case of 2 years course and seven years after DM in the case of 3 years course and thirteen years after MBBS with DM in the case of direct course. Experience in Stroke preferable.” (emphasis supplied)
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 4 :-
The sixth respondent who was appointed to the post had obtained DM (Neurology) from the Institute in the year 1998 and the following are the details regarding her teaching and/or research experience thereafter:
|Designation|Period|Tenure|
|---|---|---|
|Ad hoc Consultant|1.2.1999-3.5.2004|5 years & 3 months|
|Assistant Professor|5.5.2004-30.6.2006|1 year & 1 month|
|Stroke Fellowship|June, 2005-Nov.,2006|1 year & 5 months|
|Consultant<br>Neurologist|January, 2007 till<br>19.4.2010|3 years & 2 months|
The petitioner contends that the tenure of the sixth respondent as Ad hoc Consultant for a period of 5 years and 3 months cannot be reckoned and therefore she could not have been appointed to the post. The plea in that regard was not accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) by Annexure A8 order and hence this original petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction.
2.We heard Mr O.V.Radhakrishnan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr T.R.Ravi, Advocate on behalf of the
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 5 :-
first respondent Institute as well as Mr C.S.Manu, Advocate on behalf of the sixth respondent.
- 3.Ad hoc appointments are permitted as per the Service and Personnel Conduct Rules of the Institute and Rule 4 of the General Conditions of Service in Chapter II of the Rules is to the following effect:
“ 4. Ad hoc appointments: The Governing Body may appoint persons on ad hoc basis on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit for conduct of studies, investigations, research, teaching and other academic programmes undertaken by the Institute.” (emphasis supplied)
The term 'consultant' has not been defined in the Rules aforesaid which in ordinary parlance can only mean a person who knows a lot about a particular subject and is employed to give advice about it to others. The Supreme Court in G.V.K.Industries Ltd. v. I.T.O. [(2015) 11 SCC 734] quoted the following passage from C.I.T. v. Bharti Cellular Ltd. [(2009) 319 ITR 139(Del)]:
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 6 :-
“'Consultant' itself has been defined, inter alia, as a person who gives professional advice or services in a specialised field. It is obvious that the word 'consultant' is a derivative of the word 'consult' which entails deliberations, consideration, conferring with some one, conferring about or upon a matter. Consult has also been defined in the said Dictionary as ask advice for, seek counsel or a professional opinion from; refer to (a source of information); seek permission or approval from a proposed action. It is obvious that the service of consultancy also necessarily entails human intervention. The consultant who provides the consultancy service, has to be a human being. A machine cannot be regarded as a consultant.” (emphasis supplied)
The process of deliberations, consideration and giving professional opinion thereby imparting knowledge to those who have sought consultation is necessarily a part of the teaching process which is insisted. The teaching need not necessarily be by a person holding the post designated as Professor or Assistant Professor and the spell of service as Ad hoc Consultant is sufficient. The Institute in the reply statements before the Tribunal has admitted that the nature of duty of Ad hoc Consultant and Associate Professor in
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 7 :-
Neurology are one and the same. We therefore repel the contention of the petitioner that the post of Consultant cannot be equated to that of a teacher in order to qualify for appointment to the post of Additional Professor.
- 4.The word 'ad hoc' only means on temporary basis without any fixed terms and conditions and does not in any way denigrate the nature of the duty discharged by the incumbent in service. Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and others v. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 1990 SC 1607] was relied on to contend that ad hoc service cannot be reckoned for seniority. Reliance was placed on State of M.P. and another v. Dharam Bir [(1998) 6 SCC 165] to contend that experience gained in a post on ad hoc basis cannot be counted. Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India and others [(2000) 8 SCC 25] was pressed into service to contend that ad hoc appointment is to meet a temporary contingency. Debabrata Dash and another v. Jatindra Prasad Das and others [(2013) 3 SCC 658] was referred to reiterate that officiation on ad hoc basis cannot be considered for seniority. No body has any quarrel
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 8 :-
with the propositions of law aforestated even though none of the decisions have any direct bearing on the pointed question posed for adjudication here.
5.It may at once be noticed that the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Additional Professor (Neurology) in Ext.P27 notification is not 7 years in a particular post after obtaining DM. The aforequoted decisions may have relevance only if Ext.P27 notification prescribes so whereas what is insisted is mere teaching and/or research experience. The experience as an Ad hoc Consultant for the requisite period after obtaining DM satisfies the qualification as we have already held that duty of a consultant takes in teaching also. Much was argued pointing out that the sixth respondent has committed fraud in obtaining employment and that the same has to be invalidated. The plea in essence is that the sixth respondent had stated in her application that she had worked as an Assistant Professor though her stint of service was only as Ad hoc Consultant. But the service of the sixth respondent as Ad hoc Consultant was in the Institute itself which is the employer who has consciously
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 9 :-
given the appointment knowing the details. There is no case for the Institute that the sixth respondent has played fraud in obtaining the appointment and the petitioner has also not pleaded any collusion on their part.
6.It is trite law that constitutional courts cannot sit over decisions of expert bodies as court of appeal and compare the relative merits of the candidates when the procedure adopted is otherwise legal. The limits of judicial review in selection of candidates made by a committee of experts have been delineated in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S.Mahajan [(1990) 1 SCC 305] as follows:
“It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 10 :-
vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc.” (emphasis supplied)
The judicial review in the absence of malafides should be confined to the question as to whether any statutory or binding rule has been contravened in the appointment {See Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal [(1990) 2 SCC 746]}. We fail to see any one of the vitiating factors in the instant case and the stint of service of the sixth respondent as Ad hoc Consultant was rightly reckoned for appointment as Additional Professor (Neurology). The fact that the petitioner has already retired from service on superannuation and that the sixth respondent is at the fag end of her career is also one of the dissuading factors.
We dismiss the original petition. No costs.
Sd/-
## V. CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE
Sd/-
A.M. BABU, JUDGE
Sha/070319
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 11 :-
## APPENDIX
## PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
|ANNEXURE-A1|PHOTOCOPY OF THE AMENDED WP(C)NO.17270/2010 FILED BY THE<br>PETITIONER.|
|---|---|
||EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-8-1994 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.1992 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.3.1998 OF THE 3RD<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4.1.1999 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE<br>PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.1.2000 OF THE FACULTY<br>ASSOCIATION.|
||EXT.P7-TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.7338/2000 FILED BY THE<br>PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.|
||EXT.P8-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.3.2002 OF THIS HON'BLE<br>COURT IN O.P.NO.7338/2000.|
||EXT.P9-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.9.1999 OF THE SENIOR<br>STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE.|
||EXT.P10-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.7.2002 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT INSTITUTE ALONG WITH DECISION OF 2ND RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P11-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.4.2003 OF THE HON'BLE<br>SUPREME COURT IN SLP.NO.15745/2003.|
||EXT.P12-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.9.2003 OF THE HON'BLE<br>SUPREME COURT IN SLP.NO.15745/2003.|
||EXT.P13-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.3.2004 OF THE PETITIONER<br>TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENIOR SELECTION COMMITTEE.|
||EXT.P14-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2004 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P15-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.1.2008 FILED BY THE<br>PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P16-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 3.11.2008 OF THE SENIOR<br>STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P17-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.12.2008 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P18-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.12.2008 SENT BY THE<br>PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 12 :-
||EXT.P19-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
|---|---|
||EXT.P20-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.2.2009 SENT BY THE<br>PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P21-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.2.2009 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.|
||EXT.P22-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.4.2009 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P23-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 5.3.2009 OF THE SENIOR<br>STAFF SELECTION COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P24-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.2.2010 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P25-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 16.3.2010.|
||EXT.P26-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.2.2010 OF THE 2ND<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P27-TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION DATED 30.3.2010 OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P28-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 26.4.2010.|
||EXT.P29-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&A.II/352/SCTIMST/2010 DATED<br>16.7.2010 OF THE DIRECTOR OF SCTIMST.|
||EXT.P30-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P&A/II/PF 2175/1/SCTIMST/2010<br>DATED 20.7.2010 BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GRADE-I OF SCTIMST.|
||EXT.P31-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.4.2010 SUBMITTED BY<br>THE 6TH RESPONDENT.|
||EXT.P32-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PPIO/RTTA/525/ SCTIMST/2014<br>DATED 21.4.2014 OF THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND<br>ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER, SCTIMST ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES-I<br>TO III.|
||EXT.P33-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.6.2014 WITHOUT ITS<br>ENCLOSURE.|
||EXT.P34-TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE<br>MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BODY HELD ON 28.6.2014.|
||EXT.P35-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.7.2014 SUBMITTED BY<br>THE PETITIONER TO THE DIRECTOR OF SCTIMST.|
|ANNEXURE-A2|PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.|
|ANNEXURE-A3|REJOINDER TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
||ANNEXURE A36-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TWO MEMBER SCRUTINY<br>COMMITTEE.|
||ANNEXURE A37-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF 1ST RESPONDENT<br>IN O.A.171/2015 OF THE TRIBUNAL.|
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 13 :-
||ANNEXURE A38-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ESTT.1(27)/2010 DATED<br>10.10.2011 OF THE DIRECTOR, JIPMER.|
|---|---|
||ANNEXURE A39-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P&A.I/X/58/SCTIMST/2012<br>DATED 20.12.2012.|
||ANNEXURE A40-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P&A/RTI-AOOEAK/SCTIMIST/<br>2014 DATED 2.12.2014 OF THE AO GR.I.|
|ANNEXURE A4|REPLY STATEMENT TO THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.|
|ANNEXURE A5|REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.|
||ANNEXURE R6(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE SREE CHITRA TIRUNAL INSTITUTE FOR<br>MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SERVICE<br>AND PERSONNEL CONDUCT RULES (CHAPTER-I AND II ONLY).|
||ANNEXURE R6(B)-TRUE COPY OF THE PLACEMENT ORDER DATED 5.5.2004<br>ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.|
||ANNEXURE R6(C)-TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING CERTIFICATE DATED<br>8.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE R6.|
||ANNEXURE R6(D)-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.P&A.I/X/58<br>SCTIMST/2012 DATED 20.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE<br>6TH RESPONDENT.|
||ANNEXURE R6(E)-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.4.2010<br>SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR<br>APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ADDITIONAL PROFESSOR OF NEUROLOGY.|
||ANNEXURE R6(F)-TRUE COPY OF THE CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE 6TH<br>RESPONDENT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R6(E) APPLICATION.|
||ANNEXURE R6(G)-TRUE COPY OF THE PLACEMENT ORDER BEARING<br>NO.P&A/II/PF/2175/I/SCTIMST/2010 DATED 20.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST<br>RESPONDENT.|
|ANNEXURE A6|REJOINDER TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.|
||ANNEXURE A41-APPLICATION DATED 3.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH<br>RESPONDENT.|
|ANNEXURE A7|ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.|
||ANNEXURE R6(H)-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE NAMES OF<br>CANDIDATES.|
|ANNEXURE A8|PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.2.2016 IN T.A.NO.180/0004/2015 OF<br>THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM.|
|ANNEXURE A9|PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENIOR STAFF SELECTION<br>COMMITTEE HELD ON 17.6.2010 AT 12.00 NOON OBTAINED BY THE<br>PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT WITH COVERING<br>LETTER NO.PPIO/RTIA/518/SCTIMST/2014 DATED 1.4.2014.|
|ANNEXURE A10|PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENIOR STAFF SELECTION<br>COMMITTEE DATED 17.6.2010 HELD AT 12.45 P.M.|
|ANNEXURE A11|PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.2.2016 OF THE PETITIONER TO|
OP(CAT)No.296/2016
-: 14 :-
||THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SCTIMST.|
|---|---|
|ANNEXURE A12|PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY NO.PPIO/RTIA/807/SCTIMST/2016 DATED<br>28.3.2016 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS OF THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC<br>INFORMATION OFFICER, SCTIMST.|
|ANNEXURE A13|PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.4.2016 OF THE PETITIONER TO<br>THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SCTIMST.|
|ANNEXURE A14|PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY NO.PPIO/RTIA/821 & 822/SCTIMST/2016 DATED<br>25.5.2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OF THE PRINCIPAL PUBLIC<br>INFORMATION OFFICER, SCTIMST.|
|ANNEXURE A15|PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC<br>SURGERY CASE SUMMARY AND DISCHARGE RECORD.|
|ANNEXURE A16|PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PETITION DATED 1.8.2014 FILED BEFORE<br>THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.|
|ANNEXURE A17|PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1379/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE<br>MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.|
|ANNEXURE A18|PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.3.2015 IN WP(C)NO.21855 OF<br>2014 OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT.|
|ANNEXURE A19|PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2016 IN CMP.NO.8242 OF 2014 ON<br>THE<br>FILE<br>OF<br>THE<br>ADDITIONAL<br>JUDICIAL<br>MAGISTRATE,<br>THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.|
|||
|RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:||
|EXHIBIT R6(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 28.6.2014 OF THE GOVERNING<br>BODY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.|