Dr. Reji Srinivas v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.15386 OF 2018(W)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DR. REJI SRINIVAS SCIENTIST'C', NATIONAL CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES,SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES, AAKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.RESIDING AT: NAMBANVILAKATHU BUNGALOW, ANAYARA P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029. BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN-682 022.** - **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN-692 022.** - **3 THE REGISTRAR COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN 692 022.** - **4 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR MAKING SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MARINE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN-692 022.** - **5 DR. JOJI V.S SCIENTIST'D', CENTRAL GROUND WATER BOARD,KEDARAM SHOPPING COMPLES,VIVEKANAND NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **R1 BY SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) R5 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2020, THE COURT ON 23-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WPC.15386/18** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 23[rd] day of October 2020** The petitioner, pursuant to a notification dated 17.8.2015 inviting online application for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Marine Geology and Geo Physics, in the instant writ petition has challenged the appointment of 5th respondent on various grounds and with a further prayer for restraining the appointment of the 5th respondent as Associate Professor and to appoint the petitioner to the said post. 2. In support of the aforementioned prayers, it is averred that, as per notification ibid, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) invited applications under different streams for filling up the post of Associate Professor in Marine Geology. There was only one vacancy reserved for Ezhavas/Thiyyas/Billava communities. The qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Marine Geology shown in Ext.P2 reads as follows: - “1. Good academic record with a Ph.D Degree in the concerned/allied/relevant disciplines. > 2. Masters Degree in the relevant discipline with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade at the Masters level from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign **WPC.15386/18** **3** University. 3. A minimum of eight years of experience of teaching and/or research in an academic/research position equivalent to that of Assistant Professor in a University, College or Accredited Research Institution/industry excluding the period of Ph.D research with evidence of published work and a minimum of 5 publications as books and/or research/policy papers. 4. Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and technology – mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students. 5. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance indicator (API) Based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS)” 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per Ext.P2, the minimum qualification required to be possessed by a candidate for being considered for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Marine Geology is Masters degree in the relevant discipline with at least 55% marks or equivalent Grade at the Masters level from an Indian University and certain other conditions as stipulated under Clause IV. The petitioner possessed the qualification of M.Sc. Marine Geology awarded by the CUSAT and Ph.D degree under the faculty of Marine Sciences also awarded by the CUSAT. He is presently working at the National Centre for Earth Science Studies (NCESS) at Thiruvananthapuram. As per the order dated 5.4.2013 CUSAT recognized the petitioner as the Research Guide **WPC.15386/18** **4** of the CUSAT under the faculty of Marine Sciences. One Silpa B.L. a Research Scholar under the guidance of the petitioner, was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the faculty of Marine Sciences by the 1[st] respondent University. The petitioner has sixteen (16) years of teaching experience including experience of guiding candidates for research at doctor level. Besides that the petitioner has various publications in the National and International journals as evident from Ext.P11. Apart from the petitioner, two other candidates including the 5[th] respondent submitted their applications pursuant to Ext.P1 notification for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Marine Geology. It was further submitted that the 5[th] respondent do not possess the qualification prescribed in Ext.P2 for the aforesaid appointment. As per Ext.P2, for considering to the post of Associate Professor in Marine Geology the mandatory minimum qualification required to be possessed by a candidate is Masters degree in the relevant discipline and experience of guiding candidates for research at doctoral level. In the case of 5[th] respondent, the qualification possessed by him is M.Sc. (Geology) and not M.Sc (Marine Geology). The post graduate degree in Geology course is not conducted in the 1[st] **WPC.15386/18** **5** respondent University; whereas M.Sc degree course in Geology is offered by the University of Kerala as evident from Ext.P13. The syallabus of M.Sc. Degree course in Geology, of the University of Kerala and the course structure prescribed by the 1[st] respondent University, degree course in Geology would show that there is not a single paper even remotely relating to the subject Marine Geology. M.Sc. (Geology) is a course that is primarily concerned with land geology and it has got nothing to do with marine sciences or even remotely related to Ocean Science. One Dr.N.R.Nisha who was also a candidate had submitted her application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification along with the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent, for the post of Associate Professor, but prior thereto also submitted an application for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Geology in the University of Kerala. The University of Kerala rejected the application submitted by Dr.Nisha as per order dated 31.12.2007 holding that M.Sc. in Marine Geology qualification possessed by Dr.Nisha was not in the relevant subject namely Geology. 4. It was next contented that in accordance with the procedure followed for appointment in different departments to the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and **WPC.15386/18** **6** Professors in the CUSAT, on receipt of the applications from candidates were scrutinised by a verification committee consisting of the professors in the relevant discipline. After receipt of the application submitted by the petitioner, 5[th] respondent and another candidate namely Dr.N.R.Nisha, the 3[rd] respondent as per the order dated 6.4.2018 constituted the verification committee for verification of documents for approving the credentials of the candidates who had submitted their applications. Pursuant to Ext.P1. Dr.K.T.Damodaran, Associate Professor was also appointed as a member of the verification committee. Thus the two member verification committee, after verification of the credentials of the applicants, certified that the petitioner and Dr.N.R.Nisha were qualified to be considered for appointment, whereas the verification committee had specifically recorded in its proceedings that the 5[th] respondent who possesses only M.Sc in Geology was not qualified to be considered for appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Marine Geology. The committee also recorded that he possessed the qualification for having guided a research scholar for award of Ph.D. Thereafter the 3[rd] respondent issued a memo dated 28.3.2018 to the petitioner inviting him to appear for **WPC.15386/18** **7** an interview on 12.4.2018. However, petitioner found that the 5[th] respondent, who was not eligible for the post Associate Professor in Marine Geology, was also invited to appear for the interview. 5. In support of the aforementioned contentions, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarga University 2014 (3) SCC 767** to contend that where an advertisement requires the post graduate degree in 'relevant subject', the expression 'relevant subject' would, in the context of appointment to the post of lecturer in MCA, would mean post graduate degree in MCA and a post graduate degree in Mathematics cannot be considered to be relevant subject for consideration of appointment of Professor in MCA. 6. Thereafter petitioner submitted a detailed representation Ext.P22 pointing out the illegality in allowing the 5[th] respondent to appear for the interview. However, after completing the interview, the 3[rd] respondent published a rank list dated 30.4.2018 including the 5[th] respondent as rank No.1 and the petitioner, herein, as Rank No.2 evident from Ext.P23. Ext.P23 rank list, to the extent it includes the 5[th] respondent for **WPC.15386/18** **8** appointment to the post of Associate Professor in Marine Geology, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and without authority of law. 7. During the course of argument, learned senior Counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent Sri.George Poonthottam handed over tabular sheet including the syllabus of MSc Geology Course and M.Sc. Marine Geology course in CUSAT and University of Kerala in support of the contention of the 5[th] respondent, that topics of M.Sc Geology and M.Sc Marine Geology in CUSAT and University of Kerala are related subjects. However, by relying upon Paragraph 14 of the judgment, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court cannot examine the pros and cons and come to the conclusion that the candidate did not possess the requisite qualification as the issues must be decided by the expert committee; when two views are possible, the views of the expert body deserves acceptance. An Unreported judgment rendered in Writ appeal No.1346/2019 dated 20.5.2020 on similar grounds was also cited. 8. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **M.V.Thimmaiah and Others V. Union Public Service** **WPC.15386/18** **9** ## **Commission and Others [2008 (2) SCC 119]** was also cited on the point of scope of interference to exercise the power of judicial review, when the recommendations of DPC/Selection committee was under challenge, it can only be interfered with, unless and until, there is error apparent or violation of statutory rules. 9. By concluding argument, Sri.George Poonthottam submitted there is no such allegation of malafide in the constitution of selection committee and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. On the other hand, Sri.Vipin representing CUSAT submitted that Geology is basically earth science concerned with solid earth, the rocks of which they are composed and processed by which they change over time. Geologists use a wide variety of methods to understand the earth's structure and evolution, including field work, rock description, geophysical techniques, chemical analysis, physical experiments and numerical modelling. In practical terms, geology is important for mineral and hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation, evaluating water resources, understanding of natural hazards, etc. etc. also play a role in geotechnical engineering. Since the subject is very vast it is very difficult to study and analyse the overall evolution of the **WPC.15386/18** **10** earth as a whole. Therefore, branching cannot itself mean that the Marine Geology and Geology are different subjects. It is only a branch of Geology even though the University has named the Department as Department of Marine Geology and Geophysics. But when the applications were invited for the faculty positions in the Department of Marine Geology and Geophysics, the criteria fixed was first class Masters degree in the relevant subject, which would mean Geology as a whole which includes Marine Geology and Geophysics. This was well known to the petitioner also. The interpretation that 'relevant subject' is in the jurisdiction of concerned university/appointing authority which can be fixed with the aid and help of subject experts in the concerned related fields as per its requirements. 11. In fact the 5[th] respondent is a course Director, who had guided and supervised forty two (42) final semester B.Tech Soil and Water Engineering Students of Indira Gandhi Krishi Viswa Vidyala (IGKV), Rai in their in-planned training on “Ground Water Development” organised by the Rajiv Gandhi National Ground Water Training and Research Institute, Raipur, from 6.4.2015 to 1.5.2015. Many other achievements of the 5[th] respondent was cited in Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents **WPC.15386/18** **11** 1 to 4. 12. In support of the above contentions, reliance has been taken on Judgment of the Supreme Court in **Dalapat Abasaheb Solunke and Others v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and others [1990** **KHC 714],** wherein the appointment of the candidate was set aside on the ground that there was a deliberate attempt to delay the filling of the said post till 1980, wherein, the minimum educational qualification required for the post, as per the advertisement, was M.Sc, with additional condition that candidate with five years experience would be preferred. Even a plea with respect to the constitution of the selection committee was also taken. It was held that it would not be in the realm of court to assume the role of expert in determining the qualification. On similar lines, there is another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **K.M.Neelima Misra v. Dr.Harinder Kau Paintal and others [1990 KHC 819]** to submit that eligible candidate has right to be considered in accordance with law, but there is no further right with the candidates for selection. Petitioner had been duly considered and not found to be fit, as there is a vast difference in the rank obtained by the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent as 5[th] respondent secured 81.93 marks, whereas the **WPC.15386/18** **12** petitioner, only 64.25 marks. 13. In rebuttal, Sri.Elvin Peter, learned Counsel submitted that the Ph.D degree obtained by the 5[th] respondent is in the subject of Future Studies which has got absolutely no relevance with the subject Geology or Marine Geology. Ext.P19 dated 6.4.2018 has been produced to show that Registrar of the University communicated to Dr.Sajan.K. Professor, Department of Marine Geology and Geophysics on the subject of evaluation for faculty recruitment process and request to participate in verification process. By pointing out paragraph 14 of **Ganapath Singh's Case (supra)** , it was submitted that when two views are possible and the view of expert body, deserves acceptance, and would not be subject to a judicial review. 14 **.** I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books and examined case law cited. 15. From the perusal of the qualification extracted above, it is evident that candidate must have the relevant qualification including the Master degree in the relevant subjects with at least 55% marks. Vide Ext.P28 this Court has been apprised the difference between the subjects of M.Sc. Marine Geology and M.Sc. Geology under CUSAT and the Kerala University. **WPC.15386/18** **13** 16. All subjects of M.Sc Geology are not part of the course M.Sc Marine Geology. In other words, the number of subjects are more than the one prescribed for M.Sc. (Marine Geology) vis-avis M.Sc. (Geology). In **Ganapath Singh's Case (supra)** the selection process for filling up of the post of Lecturer in MCA where the selected candidate had the qualification of M.Sc. Mathematics, was set aside with a direction to appoint a fresh candidate in the said post. While considering the aforementioned facts, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 14, 21 ,23 and 25 held as under: “14. The main thrust in the appellant’s contention is that when an expert body i.e. The Board of appointment consisting of high academicians, has found Ganpat eligible and qualified and which has been approved by the Syndicate, another expert body, the High Court ought not to have acted as a Court of appeal, examined the pros and cons and come to the conclusion that Ganpat did not possess the requisite qualification. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad submission that academic issues must be left to be decided by the expert body and the court cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters. It deserves great respect. When two views are possible and the expert body has taken a view, the same deserves acceptance. However, to say that expert body’s opinion deserves acceptance in all circumstances and is not subject to judicial review does not appeal to us. In our constitutional scheme the decision of the Board of appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute. Any other view will have a very dangerous consequence and one must remind itself of the famous words of Lord Acton “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. “21. As is evident from the advertisement, applications were **WPC.15386/18** **14** invited for filling up various posts in different subjects including the post of Lecturer in MCA. The advertisement requires post-graduate degree in the ‘relevant subject’. The relevant subject would, therefore, in the context of appointment to the post of Lecturer, mean post-graduate degree in MCA. In our opinion, for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters’ degree in Mathematics is not the relevant subject. The advertisement requires Masters’ degree in ‘relevant subject’ and not ‘appropriate subject’. In the present case, the Board of appointment has not stated that post-graduate degree in Mathematics is the relevant subject for MCA but in sum and substance it is equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathematics is one of the subjects taught in MCA. This, in our opinion, was beyond the power of the Board of appointment.” “23. The language of the advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any ambiguity and, hence, it has to be given effect to. Since the appellant Ganpat did not have a Masters’ degree in Computer Application, in our opinion, he was not entitled to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in MCA. We are aghast to see that when a candidate possessing Masters’ degree in MCA is available, the Board of appointment had chosen an unqualified and ineligible person for appointment in that subject. Its recommendations are, therefore, illegal and invalid. Natural corollary thereof is that the University acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat as Lecturer cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in setting aside his appointment. In our opinion, an unqualified person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the recommendee. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in Masters’ of Computer Application. “ “25. Ordinarily, in a case where the person appointed is found ineligible, this Court after setting aside such appointment, directs for consideration of cases of such of the candidates, who have been found eligible. It is only in exceptional cases that this Court issues mandamus for appointment. The case in hand is not one of those cases where the High Court ought to have issued mandamus for appointment of Shivanand as Lecturer in MCA. Hence, we **WPC.15386/18** **15** are of the opinion that the High Court rightly held Ganpat ineligible and quashed his appointment. However, it erred in issuing mandamus for appointment of Shivanand. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the High Court whereby it had set aside the appointment of the appellant herein and direct that the case of the writ petitioner Shivanand and all other candidates be considered in accordance with law. However, we make it clear that the selection already made shall be taken to its logical conclusion.” On cumulative reading of the findings, no doubt the Supreme Court found that there would not be any difficulty in accepting the broad submission that the academic issues must be left to be decided by the expert body and the court cannot act as an appellate authority, but it cannot be said that the opinion would be absolute and would not be brought under judicial review. 17. By noticing the expression 'relevant subject' in Paragraphs 21 and 23 extracted above it was held that Master degree in mathematics would not be a relevant subject for filling up the post of Lecturer in MCA. The language of the advertisement is clear and explicit nor ambiguous, it has to be given effect to. In the cited judgments produced by learned Counsel for the 5[th] respondent and the University, to the effect court should not assume the role of an expert in the matters of selection, particularly when the selection committee consists of **WPC.15386/18** **16** experts, would not be absolute nor would preclude me to shut eyes to the relevant subject for filling the post of Associate Professor of Marine Geology, whereas the 5[th] respondent possess the Master degree in Geology. “Marine Geology” and “Geology” on comparison of the subjects as extracted above cannot be construed to be identical or similar even for an ordinary prudent person. 18. In my view, act of the selection committee in giving appointment to the 5[th] respondent by awarding 81.93 marks to him and 64.25 marks to the petitioner is not justified in law and per se it is incorrect and illegal. 19. The entire process of selection by the selection committee considering the candidates, who do not possess the M.Sc. Marine Geology and selection to the post of Associate Professor cannot escape the notice of this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to bring the case under the realm of judicial review. The reasoning of mine is derived from the finding in Paragraph 14 of the judgment in **Ganapath Singh's Case (supra)** , whereby the contention for non-interference in the selection process assessed by the expert committee, under the judcial review has been negated to be not **WPC.15386/18** **17** fool proof. 20. The expression 'relevant subject' provided in the qualification would be construed to be Marine Geology and not simple Geology as per the findings in Paragraph 21 and 23 of the judgment ibid. 21. On a cumulative findings made hereinabove, I am of the view, the selection of the 5[th] respondent in the post of Associate Professor in Marine Geology with a Master degree in Geology is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is wholly illegal much less fallacious and hereby set aside. I would refrain to issue any direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as there is a vast difference of marks between the selected candidate and the petitioner. This Court has also not been informed about the status of the third candidate. The University will be at liberty to issue fresh advertisement for filing the said post in view of the findings given above. The writ petition is allowed. ## **SD/-** ## **AMIT RAWAL** jm ## **JUDGE** **WPC.15386/18** **18** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15386/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.D3/136/NOTIF/08(2) DATED 17-082015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY THE GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION OF ON-LINE APPLICATION.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.AD.D3/136/NOTIF/08(1) DATED 17-082015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER AWARDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER AWARDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.AC.B1/000348/RS/2013 DATED 5-42013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.EA5/7944/MS./16/2015 DATED 28-12017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NO.B1 B1/019773/2013 DATED 11-4-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO SRI.ANEESH T.D. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE OF COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AC.B1/019773/2013 DATED 11-04-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO SRI.KRISHNA R. PRASAD,** **WPC.15386/18** **19** **NO.AC.B1/019773/2013 DATED 11-4-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO SRI. ARUN T.J** - **EXHIBIT P11** - **TRUE COPY OF THE RESUME OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE UGC REGULATIONS,** - **EXHIBIT P13** - **TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS OF M.SC., GEOLOGY COURSE CONDUCTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE M.SC, MARINE GEOLOGY COURSE STRUCTURE IN THE FIRST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-122007 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO DR. NISHA R.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-122007 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO DR. A. KRISHNAKUMAR.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-122007 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO VINU PRAKASH.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-122005 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO SHINU.N.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-4-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO DR. SAJAN K,** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28-3-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **WPC.15386/18** **20** - **EXHIBIT P21** - **TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREMENT COURT IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2014(3) SCC 767.** - **EXHIBIT P22** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4-4-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P23** - **TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P24** - **TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 28.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR-INORGANIC CHEMISTRY** **EXHIBIT P26** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO DR.N.R.NISHA.** **EXHIBIT P27** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO DR.N.R NISHA ENCLOSING THE CONSOLIDATED MARK LIST WITH HIS SIGNATURE** **WPC.15386/18** **21** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CLARIFICATION No.F176/2013 (PS)/MISC) DATED SEPTEMBER 2015** **R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD ON 23.2.2018** **R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 30.5.1991 TO THE DEPONENT** **R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED 28.1.2005 TO THE DEPONENT** **R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE UPDATED RESUME OF THE DEPONENT** **R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE ARABIAN JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCES** **R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF INDIA** **R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF GEOMORPHOLOGY** **R5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORITON OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 21.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN EXAMINATION NOTICE NO.7/2018-GEOL** **R5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OFFICERS/STUDENTS GUIDED AND SUPERVISED BY THE DEPONENT** **R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE WRIT PETITIONER.** **R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION/REPLY TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 13.7.2018 WITH ENCLOSURE** **R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION / REPLY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CUSAT DATED 4.7.2018 ALONG WITH ENCLOSED JOINING REPORT DATED 8.4.2010.**