Dr. Mohammed Aslam M.A. v. Central University of Kerala & Ors.

W.P(c).No.29991/2017 1 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.29991 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **DR.MOHAMMED ASLAM M.A AGED 45 YEARS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,SREYAS, KMC VIII/306, ANANGOOR, VIDYA NAGAR P.O.,KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN -671 123.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,**| ||**TEJASWINI HILLS,PERIYE P.O.,KASARAGOD-671316.**| |**2**|**THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,PERIYE P.O.,**| ||**KASARAGOD-671316,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/VICE CHANCELLOR.**| |**3**|**THE CHAIRMAN**| ||**SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE POST OF**| ||**PROFESSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, CENTRAL**| ||**UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS,**| ||**PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD-671316.**| |**4**|**DR. MUTHUKUMAR**| ||**PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,TEJASWINI HILLS,**| ||**PERIYE P.O., KASARAGOD-671316.**| ||**HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT 32A,**| ||**ATHIPATTI, BOOTHIPURAM POST,**| ||**THENI DISTRICT,**| ||**TAMIL NADU, PIN-625 531.**| W.P(c).No.29991/2017 2 **5 DR. MOHANRAJ RANGASWAMY AGED 45 YEARS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT, SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, BHARATIDASAN UNIVERSITY,THIRUCHIRAPPALLY-620024. 6 ADDL.R6- THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC), BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 ( ADDL.R6 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.1.2019 IN WP(C).** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) SRI.S.ANEESH SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(c).No.29991/2017 3 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ -------------------------W.P(C) No.29991 of 2017-Y ------------------------------------------- _Dated this the 3[rd] day of July, 2019_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ Ext.P9 rank list and the appointment of the 4[th] respondent as Professor in the Department of Environmental Science in the Central University of Kerala - the 1[st] respondent, based on that rank list are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The 1[st] respondent University issued Ext.P1 notification dated 4.12.2015 inviting applications for appointment of various faculties in the University, fixing the last date as 31.12.2015 which was later extended to 11.1.2016. The petitioner is an Associate Professor in the Central University of Karnataka since August, 2012 drawing pay in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of 9000. It is stated that he is having 2 Ph.Ds i.e, one in Remote Sensing and the other in Geology. It was stated that he has got more than 15 years teaching/research experience including in the post of Associate Professor. He has published 7 books and 34 research articles in Peer Reviewed Journals. He has published 57 papers in Conference Proceedings. Apart from that, he has coauthored 3 books; he had been member of many academic bodies and societies and thus is having sufficient experience in educational innovation/design/teaching etc. He has also got API score of 770.04 in all the 3 categories as explained in Ext.P7, as against the required 400. He submitted Ext.P8 application pursuant to Ext.P1 W.P(c).No.29991/2017 4 notification. 3. In the interview held on 16.1.2017, 8 candidates participated. Ext.P9 rank list was thereafter published on 2.3.2017, with the 4[th] respondent as rank no. 1. One Dr.Sailas Benjamin who is no more, was rank No.1 in the wait list and the 5[th] respondent was ranked 2 in the wait list. The petitioner is not included in the rank list. On the basis of Ext.P9 rank list, the 4[th] respondent was appointed as Professor in the Department of Environmental Science. The petitioner alleges that the selection and appointment of the 4[th] respondent is illegal. It is alleged that the application submitted by the 4[th] respondent was defective and not in the prescribed form; he submitted Ext.P10 application, which is not in tune with Ext.P11 format, modifying the prescribed format. It is alleged that an application if not submitted in the prescribed form is liable to be rejected on that sole ground. The petitioner alleges that there were 16 omissions/additions in the format. The further contention is that the 4[th] respondent was only an Assistant Professor in the pay band of Rs.15600-39100 with AGP of 8000; only a candidate having minimum 3 years experience as Associate Professor in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of 9000 is eligible for appointment as Professor. The 4[th] respondent, who is having no experience as Associate Professor and was drawing pay in a lower pay band and lower AGP, therefore was ineligible for consideration. It is stated that the claim raised by the 4[th] respondent in his application that he has got 10 years regular teaching experience with running pay band and grade pay as per UGC pay scale for the post of Professor is totally incorrect. The further allegation is that the W.P(c).No.29991/2017 5 summary sheet prepared by the screening committee with respect to the 4[th] respondent is manipulated/tampered awarding excessive marks. It is also alleged that in the case of the petitioner also marks are tampered but by reducing the marks awarded to him by the screening committee. Producing the score sheet Ext.P12 obtained under the RTI Act, the petitioner claims that the original mark of 15 which was awarded to the petitioner under the head Research Performance and Quality of Publications was reduced to 9; similarly marks due to the petitioner for Ph.D were not awarded. Therefore, it is claimed that in case full marks were awarded for his 2 Ph.Ds by research guidance, he would have got 15 more marks raising his score from 60.5 to 75.5. It is also alleged that the 5[th] respondent was also an Assistant Professor without any experience as Associate Professor and therefore he was also ineligible for inclusion in the wait list. It is also pointed out that the person ranked at 1 in the waiting list was fully qualified, being a Professor working in the University of Calicut and he was not preferred to the 4[th] respondent who is ineligible. The petitioner claims that the illegalities leading to the rank list as well as the appointment of the 4[th] respondent could be found out only from the details collected under RTI Act on his application submitted in April and the reply received in May, 2017. 4. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the entire achievements of the petitioner and all other qualified candidates were considered by the screening committee as well as the selection committee. The selection committee found the 4[th] respondent as a more suitable candidate weighing the W.P(c).No.29991/2017 6 credentials and performances of all the candidates participated in the interview. It is stated that at the time when applications were invited there were 2 formats available in the website of the University. Certain minor modifications incorporating serial number of the appendix page, serial number of the post applied for etc. were incorporated subsequently in the basic format and therefore the contention regarding the format in which the 4[th] respondent submitted application, does not merit consideration as the application was in the format which prevailed in the University at the relevant time. His application was accepted and processed in accordance with rule. It is stated that as per the UGC Regulations, the 4[th] respondent - a candidate with 10 years of teaching experience is fully eligible to be appointed as Professor, and 3 years of service as Associate Professor in the particular branch is relevant only for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) of the UGC and not for direct recruitment. Based on the credentials produced by the 4[th] respondent it was found that he was having 10 years of regular teaching experience at Bharathi Dasan University and therefore he was fully qualified. It is further stated that the corrections in the score sheet was carried out by the selection committee/interview board within its competency and the selection committee members had acknowledged such corrections. According to the University, the screening by the scrutiny committee is mostly a clerical job with few experts in the syndicate and selection committee is competent to correct those mistakes duly acknowledging the same. It is also stated that all the members had signed the summary score sheet acknowledging the initials by the Chairman W.P(c).No.29991/2017 7 on the corrections. It is stated that the petitioner was granted the 5 marks which is permissible for Ph.D in the relevant subject. It is further stated that the 4[th] respondent is having 8 Ph.Ds and 6 M.Phil and marks were awarded accordingly. The petitioner is having only one Ph.D as per his application and 2 marks were awarded and in the case of a student, who was not awarded Ph.D and had submitted only thesis, marks were not awarded. It is stated that the selection committee has corrected the marks awarded by the screening committee and the same is endorsed by the selection committee. With respect to the 5[th] respondent, it is stated that he was having sufficient teaching experience. The respondents have produced the summary sheet in respect of the petitioner as Ext.R1(a) and that of the 4[th] respondent as Ext.R1(b). 5. The 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is a 1[st] class M.Sc degree holder in Environmental Science from Bharatidasan University with Ph.D in Waste Water Treatment from Anna University. He has published various research articles. He worked as Lecturer in the Department of Environmental Sciences in Bharathiyar University from 19.4.2005. The post of Lecturer was subsequently re-designated as Assistant Professor on 01.01.2006. Thereafter, he joined the 1[st] respondent University as Associate Professor on 29.01.2016 and while working there he submitted application for appointment as Professor based on Ext.P1 notification and was called for the interview and appointed as Professor on 3.3.2017 on being selected as rank No.1 in the ranked list. It is stated that the petitioner has not raised any allegation of malafides or bias W.P(c).No.29991/2017 8 as against the selection committee and the selection and rank list are not liable to be interfered with. The 4[th] respondent has also stated that 10 years' teaching experience alone is required for appointment to the post of Professor, as per the UGC regulations. It is stated that the petitioner was not entitled to get any additional marks for Ph.D in Geology as the same was not in the relevant field and also it was declared that he had acquired the same from a foreign country withiout producing the equivalency certificate. 6. The petitioner relies on various information received under the Right To Information Act from various Universities including Central University in other States where selections and appointments were made to the post of Professor in various departments. Pointing out Ext.P16 series produced along with I.A.No.1 of 2019 which are the lists of candidates who applied in response to various employment notifications issued by various Universities for the post of Professor in various departments. In Ext.P16(a) sl.nos.2, 3, 5 & 6 among the 8 candidates were not shortlisted on the ground that they were having experience as Assistant Professor only. Ext.P16(b) is another list with respect to Professors in another department in the Central University of Tamil Nadu where sl.no.1 is also not shortlisted on the ground that he does not have teaching experience i.e, 3 years experience as Associate Professor in the pay scale. Sl.Nos.3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16 and 21 were also not shortlisted on the very same reason. Similar is the case with respect to the professors in the Department of Commerce given in Ext.P16(c) in the Central University of Tamil Nadu, Ext.P17 list in respect of candidates who are W.P(c).No.29991/2017 9 provisionally not eligible for the post of Professor in the discipline of Management, USME, Ext.P18 list of Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari of eligible and not eligible candidates for the post of Professors. Ext.P19(b) also indicates such ineligible candidates who applied for the post of Professors in Anand Agricultural University, Anand. 7. However, what is relevant to be looked into is the qualification fixed for appointment as Professors in accordance with the notification as well as the UGC regulations. In Ext.P1 employment notification (No.7/15), the essential qualifications prescribed by the UGC for the post of Professor are given in para.1 as follows. ## _“1. PROFESSOR_ _A. (i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. Qualification (s) in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality actively engaged in research with evidence of published work of high quality actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers._ _(ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in university/college, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level._ _(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and course, and technology – mediated teaching learning process. (iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in this Regulation in Appendix III of UGC Regulations and subsequent amendments._ _O R_ _B. An outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field, who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline to be substantiated by credentials.”_ Going by this provision, what is required is a minimum of 10 years of teaching experience in university/college, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/Industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level. This is in addition to the other academic W.P(c).No.29991/2017 10 qualifications and minimum API score, contribution to educational innovation or else he should be an outstanding professional with established reputation in the relevant field who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline to be substantiated by credentials. Ext.P1 notification further provides for Essential Qualification – II for each discipline. As far as Professor and Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental Science is concerned, the academic qualifications required are given in sl.no.7 as “Masters Degree in Environmental Sciences/Life Sciences/Earth Sciences and Ph.D in concerned/allied/relevant area. Under the `General Information' in clause 4 it was provided that persons in service should apply through proper channel. In clause 10 it was provided that selection would be made on the basis of candidates' performance at the interview. It was also provided that the University may utilise seminar and/or colloquium as a method of selection. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly on the basis of the provisions contained in Ext.P2 Regulations i.e, UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations, 2010” for short). Clause 2.1.0 provides for the revised scale of pay and other service conditions including age of superannuation in central universities and other institutions maintained and/or funded by the University Grants Commission, shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the Central Government, Ministry of Human Resources W.P(c).No.29991/2017 11 Development (Department of Education), as contained in Appendix I. In Appendix 1, Regulation 3 deals with recruitment and qualification. Regulation ## 3.1.0 provides as follows: _“3.1.0: The direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the Universities and Colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by duly constituted selection committees as per the provisions made under these regulations to be inncorporated under the Statutes/ordinances of the concerned university. The composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations.”_ Regulation 4 deals with direct recruitment. Regulation 4.1.0 provides as follows: _“4.1.0 PROFESSOR_ _A. (i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D qualification(s) in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as books and/or research/policy papers._ _(ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in university/college, and/or experience in research at the University/National level institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level.”_ Regulation 6.8.0 reads as follows: _“The Schedule annexed to these Regulations Outlines the Pay scales, Designations and stage of promotions under CAS of incumbent and ndwly appointed teachers and equivalent positions in the Library and Physical Education and Sports cadres in Central Universities and colleges thereunder and institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC.”_ 8. Ext.P3 Appendix I provides for the revised scale of teachers. Clause xiii reads as follows: _“(xiii) Associate Professor completing 3 years of service in the AGP of Rs.9000 and possessing a Ph.D degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, subject to other conditions of academic performance as laid down by the UGC and if any by the university. No teacher other than those with a Ph.D shall be promoted, appointed or designated as Professor. The Pay Band for the post of Professors shall be Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.10000.”_ The basis of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only Associate Professors having 3 years of service in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of 9000 alone are eligible for appointment as Professor as provided in W.P(c).No.29991/2017 12 clause (xiii) of Rule 2 of the Appendix I. 9. Regulation 5 provides for selection committees. Regulation 6 provides for selection procedure. Regulation 6.4.0 deals with stages of promotion of incumbent and newly appointed Assistant Professors/Associate Professors and Professors. It further provides for the number of years required for entry level Assistant Professors for promotion under CAS based on the qualification possessed by them. While Ph.D holders become eligible to move to next grade on completion of 4 years, M.Phil holders require 5 years and one without Ph.D or M.Phil or Masters Degree in relevant discipline takes 6 years service. Assistant Professors completing 3 years in teaching in stage 3 with required API score are eligible to move to stage 4 and to be designated as Associate Professor. Regulation 6.4.8 reads as follows: _“Associate Professors completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D in relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher grade (stage 5) subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS methodology provided in table i-iii of Appendix IV stipulated in these regulations, and (b) on assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for direct recruitment of Professors. Provided that no teacher other than those with Ph.D shall be promoted or appointed as Professor.”_ 10. Regulation 6.8.0 provides that the pay scale, designation and stages of promotion under CAS of incumbent and newly appointed teachers are given in the schedule. The CAS is for the incumbent as well as newly appointed teachers on fulfilling certain conditions/completing requisite number of years. Clause (xiii) of the appendix provides for the scale of pay for the Associate Professors who are promoted/appointed on CAS as provided in Regulation 6.8.0. That does not mean that 3 years service as Associate Professor is necessary for direct recuitment as W.P(c).No.29991/2017 13 Professor. It is also relevant to note that clause xiv of the very same Appendix provides that the pay of a directly recruited Professor shall be fixed at a stage not below Rs.43000 in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.10000. All these relate to stages after appointment. 11. When the qualification for appointment by direct recruitment is notified in Ext.P1 employment notice as well as Regulation 4.1.0, there is no basis for the contention of the petitioner that qualification is as provided in Regulation 6.8 read with clause xiii of the Appendix to the Regulations or that the regulations. Moreover, Regulation 6.8 only provides for the pay scale of incumbent and newly appointed teachers on CAS. Just because a scale of pay is provided for the Associate Professors with 3 years in stage 4, that does not mean that only Associate Professors with 3 years are eligible for direct recruitment. The contention of the petitioner that 3 years service as Associate Professors is necessary for direct recruitment as Professor is absolutely unsustainable. 12. Exts.P16 to P19 series of lists of candidates produced by the petitioner in which those without 3 years service as Associate Professors were not short listed cannot also help the petitioner as long as there is nothing in UGC Regulations or in Ext.P1 notification which provides for such a qualification. The petitioner has also not challenged Ext.P1 notification in which such a qualification is not provided. The documents produced from other Universities cannot be authorities to interpret the qualification prescribed in the UGC regulations or in Ext.P1 employment notice. Therefore, the contention that the 4[th] or 5[th] respondent are not eligible to be W.P(c).No.29991/2017 14 considered for direct recruitment as Professor on the ground that they are not Associate Professors or that they have not completed 3 years service as Associate Professor is unsustainable. 13. The contention that the application of the 4[th] respondent was liable to be rejected as it was not in the prescribed form, also cannot be accepted because the University has stated that the format in which the petitioner submitted was also available in their website at the relevant time. 14. The next contention is that the selection committee has manipulated the marks awarded by the screening committee and that selection committee has no authority for the same. According to petitioner, the marks given by the screening committee under different heads determining his API score is reduced while that of the 4[th] respondent is enhanced by manipulations. The contention is that in the event of any difference of opinion for the selection committee it should have returned it to the screening committee and they alone have the competence to correct it. It is true that there are corrections. But these corrections are countersigned and the selection committee has stated it in its minutes that corrections are carried out. 15. From Ext.P7 score sheet it is seen that under the head `academic background' for which 20% marks are allocated, the petitioner is given 18 out of 20, though there are corrections. For research performance and quality of publications for which 40% marks are allocated, 29.5 marks awarded by the screening committee is corrected as 19.5 as the marks awarded for research W.P(c).No.29991/2017 15 guidance at the rate of 2 for Ph.D produced is corrected from 6 as 2; marks for post-doctoral international fellowship is corrected from 4.5 to 4, quality of papers/books is corrected as 9 in the place of 15. The UGC Regulations do not provide for any procedure to be followed by the screening committee. It does not also say that the selection committee cannot correct the marks awarded by the screening committee. In the absence of any such provision anywhere, it cannot be said that the selection committee has no authority. 16. The respondents have stated that the petitioner had produced only one Ph.D for which he is eligible for 2 marks only. At any rate, all these corrections are verified by the selection committee. Therefore, the corrections by itself cannot be a reason to invalidate the selection. The University has stated in the counter affidavit that only 2 marks can be awarded when there is only one Ph.D holder under the research guidance of a candidate and marks were awarded accordingly. 17. This Court cannot also look into the correctness of awarding the API score to the candidates in the absence of any expertise for the same and this Court is of the view that judicial review cannot be extended to such matters. The petitioner has not alleged any bias or malafides on the part of the members of the selection committee. No instance is also pointed out as to why the 4[th] respondent should be favoured in preference to the petitioner. Though there is a vague allegation that the selection was made on extraneous considerations, the said plea is not substantiated 18. This Court is not supposed to conduct a roving enquiry and find out W.P(c).No.29991/2017 16 the variation in marks, under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. As held in the judgments in _**Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke & Ors. v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan & Ors, M.V.Thimmaiah & Ors. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors, UPSC v. M. Sathiya Priya: (2018) 15 SCC 796**_ **,** when the Selection Committee consisting of experts in the field have assessed the candidates for direct recruitment, it is not open to sit over the assessment made by the Selection Committee as an appellate authority except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is not the function of the court to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates, as an appellate authority to the selection committee. The selection committee has overseen the marks awarded by the screening committee and approved the corrections carried out in the score sheet. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the selection or rank list or the appointment. Hence the Writ Petition fails and is dimissed. _Sd/-_ **==> picture [182 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** _rtr/_ W.P(c).No.29991/2017 17 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION NO.7/2015 DATED 04.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (7849 TO 7853, 7888 TO 7893) OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2010 AS APPEARED IN THE GAZETTE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF APPENDIX -I (PAGES 7922-7924 & 7937) MENTIONED IN UGC REGULATIONS 2010. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SCHEDULE REFERRED IN CLAUSE 6.8.0 IN UGC REGULATIONS 2010 (PAGES 7910, 7911 AND 7920). EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE PROGRAMMES OF STUDY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIORNEMNTAL SCIENCE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONFERMENT OF DEGREE ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF THE SUBJECT UNDERGONE IN THE DOCTORAL COURSE DATED 25.3.2005. EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE PH.D IN GEOLOGY DATED 29.3.2000. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S SUMMARY SHEET TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR PREPARED BY THE SCREENING COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P1 NOTIFICATION DATED 06.1.2016. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED ON 02.3.2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHICH INCLUDES THE RANK LIST OF THE POST OF PROFESSOR.** W.P(c).No.29991/2017 18 |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED**| |---|---| ||**23.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**TO THE POST OF PROFESOR IN PURSUANCE TO**| ||**EXT.P1 NOTIFICATION.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT OF THE**| ||**APPLCIATON.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET/MARK SHEET**| ||**AWARDED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR**| ||**PREPARING THE RNAK LIST AND WAITING LIST**| ||**DATED 16.1.2017 OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED**| ||**03.4.2017 AND REPLY PROVIDING INFORMATION**| ||**BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.5.2017 BY**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| |EXHIBIT P15|THE OPENING PAGE OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2010| ||PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE.| |EXT.P16(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CENTRAL| ||UNIVERSITY OF TAMIL NADU DT.25.4.2017 & SHORT LISTING| ||THE CANDIDATES FOUND ELIGIBLE TO THE POST OF| ||PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH.| |EXT.P16(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CENTRAL| ||UNIVERSITY OF TAMIL NADU DATED 20.7.2017 SHORT LISTING| ||THE CANDIDATES FOUND ELIGIBLE TO THE POST OF| ||PROFESSOR IN DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT.| |EXT.P16(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CENTRAL| ||UNIVERSITY OF TAMIL NADU DT.20.07.2017 SHORT LISTING THE| ||CANDIDATES FOUND ELIGIBLE TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR| ||IN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.| |EXT.P17|TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES| ||NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE POST OF PROFESSORS IN THE| ||DISCIPLINE OF MANAGEMENT PUBLISHED BY THE DELHI| ||TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY IN ITS WEBSITE.| |EXT.P18|TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE AND NOT ELIGIBLE| ||CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF PROFESSORS AND OTHER| ||POST PUBLISHED BY THE NAVSARI AGRICULTURAL| ||UNIVERSITY IN THEIR WEBSITE.| |EXT.P19(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE AND NOT ELIGIBLE| ||CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND| ||PROFESSOR PUBLISHED BY THE ANAND AGRICULTURAL| ||UNIVERSITY IN THEIR WEBSITE IN RESPECT OF| ||ADVERTISEMENT NO.2-3/2015.| |EXT.P19(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE AND NOT ELIGIBLE| ||CANDIDATES TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR PUBLISHED BY| ||THE ANAND AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY IN THEIR WEBSITE IN| ||RESPECT OF ADVERTISEMENT NO.1-2/2016.| W.P(c).No.29991/2017 19 ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT SUMMARY SHEET OF THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN ENVIORNEMNTAL SCIENCES. EXT.R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT SUMMARY SHEET OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN ENVIORNEMNTAL SCIENCES.