Dr. Reshmi R.R. v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DR.RESHMI R.R. AGED 32 YEARS W/O. NAVEEN SANKAR, KAIPPALLIL, THOTTUMUGHAM.P.O., SOUTH MYNAGAPALLI, KOLLAM-690 519** **BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033** - **3 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 034** - **4 REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 034** - **5 MANAGER,** **MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGES, (MAJOR ARCHDIOCESE OF TRIVANDRUM) ST.MARYS CATHEDRAL CAMPUS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004** - **6 PRINCIPAL ST.JOHNS COLLEGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306** - **7 CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE OR SELECTION TO THE POST OF** **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **2** **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ST.JOHNS COLLEGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306** **8 DR.BRILLIANT RAJAN HOD AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ST.JOHNS COLLEGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306** **9 DR.T.ALEXANDER ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE(UNAPPROVED), ST.JOHNS COLLEGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306** - **10 ADDL.R10.REV. DR.M.G.MATHEW COR-EPISCOPE, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHAIRMAN AND MANAGEMENT NOMINEE, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, MAR IVANIOS COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM AND VICAR GENERAL, MAJOR ARCHBISHOP'S HOUSE,PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM AND MANAGER, M.S.C. COLLEGE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** - **11 ADDL.11.DR.SABU JOSEPH, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SUBJECT EXPERT (MANAGEMENT NOMINEE) PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034.** - **12 ADDL.12.DR.SHIVANANDAN ACHARI.V, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SUBJECT EXPERT, DIRECTOR AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, CUSAT, KOCHI.** - **13 ADDL.13.DR.SHIJO JOSEPH, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SUBJECT EXPERT, FORMER SENIOR SCIENTIST, KFRI, PRESENTLY AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, REMOTE SENSING AND GIS DEPARTMENT, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN STUDIES, PUDUVEYP, KOCHI.** - **14 ADDL.14.SRI.S.D.FEROLD XAVIER, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), GOVERNMENT NOMINEE, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **3** - **15 ADDL.15.REV.FR.JOHNSON.G, (AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRINCIPAL NOMINEE, PRINCIPAL, ST.JOHN'S COLLEGE, ANCHAL.** - **16 ADDL.16. SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE SELECTION OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONEMNTAL SCIENCE UNDE MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGES MANAGEMENT, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC COLLEGES, (MAJOR ARCHDIOCESE OF TRIVANDRUM) SAMANNUAYA PASTORAL CENTRE, ST.MARY'S CATHEDRAL CAMPUS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-04.** **ADDL. R10 TO R16 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05-10-2020 IN IA 2/2020.** **R3-4 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA R5-8 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN THOMAS R5-8 BY ADV. SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN R5-8 BY ADV. SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA R5-8 BY ADV. SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN R5-8 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL R5-8 BY ADV. SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE R5-8 BY ADV. SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE R5-8, R10-13, R15-16 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SALEEM R9 BY ADV. SRI.SHAFIK M.A. R9 BY ADV. SHRI.RAMAKRISHNAN D. R9 BY ADV. SRI.M.ALFRED LIONEL WINSTON** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP SRI B HARISH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0712-2020, THE COURT ON 18-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **4** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 18th day of December 2020** Aggrieved on account of non-selection to the post of Assistant Professor and challenging the selection process of the 9[th] respondent on various grounds, writ petition has been filed. Petitioner, in pursuance to the advertisement by the 5[th] respondent for filling up that post, on 6.7.2019, applied to the post of Asst Professor in St.Johns College, Anchal, Kollam. On 8.11.2019, she was called upon for the interview held at the Major Arch Bishop's House, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. In addition to the petitioner, the 9[th] respondent (Dr.T.Alexander) had also applied. As per the University Grants Commission(UGC) Regulation 2018, for the purpose of direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor, candidates were to be assessed under two heads; (a) Academic Record, Research Performance and Teaching Experience and (b) Interview. The marks under heading (a) was fixed as 100 and under the head (b) 20. ## 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj raised the following submissions: a) Petitioner secured 85 marks,whereas,9[th] respondent **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **5** scored only 75 marks under the head Academic Record, Research Performance and teaching Experience. However, while assessing the eligibility of the candidates for the interview performance, the 9[th] respondent was illegally granted 19 marks whereas the petitioner was awarded only 8 marks. b) The entire selection process was not free from malice but biased in view of the letter Ext.P7 dated 21.7.2019. The aforementioned letter was written by Fr.Samuel Varghese Paravila, St.Thomas Malankara Catholic Church, Vayala, Anchal to His Beatitude Moran Mor Baselios Cardinal Cleemis Catholicos, Major Archbishop of Trivandrum recommending the name of the 9[th] respondent for appointment as Assistant Professor. One of the selection committee members namely Dr.Brilliant Rajan is in very close association with 9[th] respondent as evident from the face book photos. In fact the aforesaid addressee is the Manager of 5[th] respondent and said averment has not been denied as evident from contents of paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5th to 8th respondents. Even Dr.Brilliant Rajan is an Alumini of 2001-03 Batch. Aforesaid information was obtained under the Right to Information Act. The experience certificate issued by one of the subject expert cannot be a ground for the rejection of the petitioner. 9[th] **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **6** respondent is personally known to the 8[th] respondent and vice versa. Prior to his appointment was working as a Guest Lecturer in St.Johns College. In support of contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in **Mother Anasthasia** v. **University Appellate Tribunal** [1980 KHC 176] as well as **Asok Kumar Yadav and others** Vs. **State of Haryana and others** (1985) 4 SCC 417), a matter where a case of bias on the basis of material was conspicuous that selection committee was favourable towards one of the candidate. 3. Per contra, Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned Counsel appearing for the additional 11[th] to 16[th] respondents raised the objection qua maintainability of the writ petition being premature as selection of the 9[th] respondent as an appointment vide Ext.R9 (e) owing to the interim order of this Court has not yet been approved by the University. 4. There will be no objection in case petitioner is relegated to approach the University and raise all contentions. As per the Provisions of Section 57 (10) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, there is an efficacious alternative remedy for challenging appointment by aggrieved persons before appropriate authority, in case appointment is approved. **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **7** 5. Clause 4.0 of the notification dated 18.7.2018 of University Grants Commission, deals with Direct Recruitment. Academic score shall be considered for short-listing of the candidate for interview only, and the selection shall be based only on the performance in the interview. Thus, there is no force in the argument that petitioner is more meritorious than the 9[th] respondent. The marks in the interview alone will be taken for selection as prescribed in the UGC Regulation 2018. Only two candidates applied for the posts, there was no need for short-listing of candidates. The orders Exts.R11 (a) to R11 (c) would reveal that the subject experts were appointed on the basis of the instructions by the Vice Chancellor. They were directed to forward the Confidential report (proforma enclosed) to the officer (university) when the selection process was over. The proforma is conspicuously absent in the order passed by the University appointing the Chairman, Head of Department and Principal, as they are also part of the selection committee. The marks were awarded only by the subject experts without any external influence ,purely based on the performance in the interview. The 9[th] respondent performed well in the interview whereas,the petitioner did not perform up to the mark owing to her lack of teaching experience, which was also assessed by selection committee. 6. The mandate of the selection committee was to “Assess **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **8** through a Seminar /Lecture/ Interaction/ Discussion in a class room situation” and award marks for interview. The performance in the interview may not have a direct connection with the academic performance of a candidate and as such the academic score cannot be compared with the score in the interview as tried to be projected by the petitioner. 7. There is no personal allegation against any of the selection committee members, except 8[th] respondent in the writ petition or in the impleading petition. petitioner did not attach any documents but later based on the information under RTI Act, built case. 9[th] respondent was not in the rolls of the College, as per the contents of the interim order of this Court and therefore, there is no violation of any interim order. Experience and practice certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Head of the Department, Chairman of the Selection committee. Had the petitioner been selected, 9[th] respondent would have raised the same objection. This Court cannot examine the decision of the selection committee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ganapathi Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarga University 2014 (3) SCC 767** that when two views are possible and view of the expert body deserves acceptance, and urges this Court for dismissal of this writ petition. 7. Sri.Shafik M.Abdulkhadir, learned Counsel appearing for **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **9** the 9[th] respondent opposed the allegations, and submitted that the writ petition has been filed with malicious intention and by misrepresentation the facts, to give an impression that the entire selection process is vitiated for the sole reason that the name of the 8[th] respondent has been mentioned as a referee in the application form. In fact the 8[th] respondent was included in the Selection committee in the capacity of Head of Department of Environmental Sciences, a mandatory requirement of UGC Regulations. In such circumstances, the doctrine of necessity would be applicable. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved, she should have raised the objection before her participation in the selection process. But raising allegations, that too after the appointment, is against the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **G.Sarana V.University of Lucknow &others [1977 1 SCR 64]** . Though the petitioner was aware of the facts, she voluntarily appeared before both the committees without raising any objection. In Ext.P6 reflects the name of 8th respondent as one of the referee, as ninth respondent was working as Guest Lecturer in the same college for about two(2) years and it is natural to include the name of the person under whom a person works as referee as he knows well about the capability of the person. The 9[th] respondent is a Ph.D. holder with about ten(10) years of research and more than one year of teaching experience. The selection of Guest **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **10** Lecturer was done by the panel duly constituted. 9[th] respondent secured higher marks in the interview amongst the two candidates. The petitioner does not have any direct teaching experience. It was pointed out that the petitioner was awarded Eight (8) marks for her passing NET, whereas the 9[th] respondent had been awarded zero marks as she had not passed NET. When there is an order exempting the candidates like the 9[th] respondent from passing NET, there is no need for having a column for granting marks for passing NET, that too 8 to 10 marks. It is a common practice for members belonging to a particular parish to obtain letters from the Vicar of the Parish, certifying that the concerned person is a bonafide member of the Parish. Ext.P7 certificate produced by the petitioner is only a letter by the Vicar of St.Thomas Malankara Chatholic Church, vayala, Cherukulam, Kollam, but no undue favour has been granted to the 9[th] respondent by virtue of Ext.P7 letter. In the application form, Column No.6 provided for mentioning Religion and community and 9[th] respondent mentioned that he is a Christian and belongs to the Malankara Catholic Community. The marks were awarded only by the three subject experts and others were part of the Selection committee as mandated by the UGC. The marks in the interview alone were to be considered for selection and not the academic records. The College is a minority institution and is covered under Article 30 (1) of the **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **11** Constitution of India (Rights of Minorities). It is a settled law, the minority institution can select candidates of their own choice by regulating their process of selection. The 9[th] respondent is now about 40 years and he joined the college as Guest Lecturer leaving a job in a school and will not be in a position to apply to other jobs due to his age, if he is left out of job. He hails from a middle class family and has family obligations to discharge. 8. I have heard counsels representing respective parties and appraised paper book. There is no doubt the High Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot assume the role of an appellate authority to sit on decision the selection process, unless gross abuse or irregularity is apparent. If two views are possible, and the expert body has taken a view, the same deserves acceptance, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra. One of the members of the selection committee Dr.Brilliant Rajan, no doubt was referred as referee in the application form. In such circumstances, he should not have participated in the selection process. Contents of Ext.P7 has not been denied by either of the respondents but, attempted to explain as per convenience, a practice, for recommending the name of the candidate belonging to a particular community. The relevant portion of Ext.P7 reads thus:- **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **12** _“_ This is to humbly notify his Beatitude that Dr.T.Alexander, Reeja Bhavan, Kottukkal PO is an active member of our Parish. He is qualified with his Graduation. Post Graduation and Ph.D in flying coloures. He is the one and only Ph.D holder in our Parish. In my knowledge he and his family are very co-operative in all the Parish activities including the Parish committee in several years. In addition he is also served as the poineer General Secretary of Malankara Catholic Association Anchal ecclesiastical District, now he is working as member of MCA Anchal district. He is concerned of the Parish and straight forward in his thinking and action. He is currently working as a guest Lecture in Department of envornmental Science, St.Johns College, Anchal. Thus I humbly strongly recommend Dr.T.Alexander for the appointment of Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Science, St.Johns College, Anchal. He definitely becomes an asset to the College as well as to the Church especially for the Vayala Parish.” 9. It is also not denied that the Manager is the appointing authority. Issuance of Ext.P7 prior to the finalisation of selection process definitely in my view would influence the selection process. Selection process in such circumstances, was not in accordance with law. In **Asok Kumar's Case** (supra) similar allegation of bias was accepted and held that the influence in selection process in case the material placed on record prima facie makes out, the entire selection **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **13** process to be vitiated. Ext.P9 photographs also shows the close acquaintance of Fr.Brilliant Rajan with the 9[th] respondent. They are also Alumni of the same College evident from Ext.P8. Vide Ext.R9(e), the Manager of the Archdiocese of Trivandrum issued appointment letter in favour of the 9[th] respondent subject to the provisions of the Kerala University Act. 10. Provisions of Section 57 (9) and (10) deals with the approval of the University and remedy to assail before appellate Tribunal. There is no such provision in the Act, before approval,the University would be bound to hear the matter in detail or any allegation of influence as made out in the present writ petition. It is only on account of the interim order, selection has not been finalized, thus, the objection qua maintainability of the writ petition is premature. For the sake of brevity Section 57 (9) and (10) read thus: ## “57. Appointment of teachers in private colleges- (1) Appointments to the posts eligible to receive salary from the Government shall be made only against posts sanctioned by the Government or by such officers as may be authorized by the Government. ## xxxxxxxx (1.9) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. (1.10) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.” **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **14** 12. As per the submission of the respondents recommendation letter is a routine exercise by the member of community and would not have bearing on the selection, ,but in my view do not sustain and rejected. On a cumulative reading of observation of mine, selection of 9[th] respondent is vitiated in law, it is totally unconstitutional and hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, this order would not give any preferential right to the petitioner to seek appointment. The respondents will be at liberty to advertise afresh, however, they are not precluded from creating one more post in case they find the petitioner to be eligible keeping in view the fact that the 9[th] respondent crossed the age of 40. ## **Sd/** **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **Jm/** **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **15** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 25.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT WITH TYPED COPY** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF UGC REGULATION 2018, FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT TO THE POST ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION TOT HE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ST.JOHNS COLLEGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF MARKS AWARDED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE EXHIBIT P5 APPROXIMATE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT FOR SELECTION TO THE ABOVE SAID POST EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.07.2019 ISSUED BY FR.SAMUEL VARGHESE PARAVILA EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.9582/SJC/2020 DATED 11/08/2020 THE REPLY ALONG WITH THE RTI QUESTIONNAIRE. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF FEW PHOTOS OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT AND 9TH RESPONDENT TOGETHER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AT THE ST.JOHNS COLLEGE, ANCHAL PURSUANT TO THE** **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **16** **NOTIFICATION DATED 06/07/2019 WHICH APPEARED ON THE HINDU NEWSPAPER.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE BSC DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 06/03/2009 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MSC DEGREE RANK CERTIFICATE DATED 24/11/2010 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE MSC.DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 09/02/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE M.PHIL DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/07/2012 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE UGC NET CERTIFICATE DATED 14/07/2012 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PHD. DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/05/2019 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MATHRIBHUMI NEWSPAPER DATED 11/05/2018.** - **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CHARACTER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, KARIAVATTOM CAMPUS, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26.7.2019 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT R7(B) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE DATED 26.7.2019 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT R7(C) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR APPLYING TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE** - **EXHIBIT R11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ALONG WITH PROFORMA RECEIVED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT ON 6/1/2019** **EXHIBIT R11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT ON 6/11/2019** **WP(C).No.15666 OF 2020(G)** **17** **EXHIBIT R11(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 13TH RESPONDENT DATED 6/11/2019** **EXHIBIT R11(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE ADDITIONAL 10TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT R11(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CREDENTIALS OF THE ADDITIONAL 11TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CREDENTIALS OF ADDL.12TH RESPONDENT DR.V.SIVANANDDAN ACHARI. EXHIBIT R11(g) TRUE COPY OF THE CREDENTIALS OF ADDL.13TH RESPONDENT DR.SHIJO JOSEPH EXHIBIT R11(h) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC GUIDELINES,2018**