Dr. V. Madhu v. Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) and Dr. K. Satheesan, National Centre for Antarctic and Ocean Research (NCAOR)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 8341 of 2016** **PETITIONER: DR. V.MADHU, AGED 47 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR GRADE II, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), KOCHI-682 016.[CORRECTED] [DESIGNATION OF THE PETITIONER IS CORRECTED AS 'ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GRADE II' AS PER ORDER DATED 08.04.2016 IN IA 4901/16.] BY ADVS.SRI.P.LEELAKRISHNAN SRI.SHYAM KRISHNAN SRI.N.B.SUNILNATH RESPONDENTS: 1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR CUSAT CAMPUS, KOCHI UNIVERSITY.P.O., KOCHI-682 022. 2 DR. K. SATHEESAN, SCIENTIST.E., NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARCTIC AND OCEAN RESEARCH(NCAOR), HEADLAND SADA, VASCO DA GAMA GOA-403 802.[CORRECTED] (ADDRESS OF R2 IS CORRECTED AS 'DR.K.SATHEESAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCES, FINE ARTS AVENUE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), KOCHI - 682 016.' AS PER ORDER DATED 07.04.2016 IN IA 4901/16.] BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SRI.ARJUN SANTHOSH SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2018, THE COURT ON 08.03.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ========================= W.P.(C).No.8341/2016 “C.R.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8[th] day of March, 2019 ## J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of the second respondent as an Associate Professor (Meteorology) in Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). In the selection, the petitioner was ranked No.2 and the second respondent ranked No.1. 2. The University issued a notification on 17.8.2015 for the above post. The minimum qualifications as prescribed in the notification are as follows: “i. Good academic record with the Ph.D. degree in the concerned/Allied/relevant disciplines. ii. Master's Degree in the relevant discipline with at least 55% marks or equivalent grade at the Master's level from an Indian University or equivalent degree from a foreign University. ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:2:-** iii. 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. iv. 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. v. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance indicator (API) Performance Based Appraisal System ((PBAS), set out in the UGC Regulation 2010 and published in the University website.” 3. Selection list was notified on 22.2.2016. Since only two candidates were selected and the vacancy was for one post, the second respondent was appointed in that post. 4. The petitioner would submit that the second respondent is not having the essential qualification to apply for the post. Apart from ``` wpc 8341/2016 ``` ## **-:3:-** that, the petitioner also questioned the criteria in awarding the marks. It was also submitted that the second respondent was unduly favoured by awarding points under different heads. 5. Perhaps it is necessary to elaborate the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioner. Clause (iv) stipulates that 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 is a qualification. The said stipulation is in tune with the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications 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 “UGC Regulations”). The argument of the learned counsel Shri Shyam Krishnan appearing for the petitioner was that the second respondent does not have the said qualification. The argument proceeds on the basis that the second respondent was a Scientist ``` wpc 8341/2016 ``` ## **-:4:-** and he had no occasion to decide on curricula and courses and also the occasion to guide any doctoral candidates and research students. It was also argued that technology-mediated teaching process with evidence of having guided doctoral research students is an essential qualification to apply for the post of Associate Professor. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to various information received under the Right to Information Act rejecting the application on the ground of not possessing the aforesaid qualification, argued that the University ought to have rejected the application of the second respondent at the threshold. 6. The petitioner also would submit that the application itself was defective as the application was not signed by the second respondent. It was submitted that the general instruction forming part of the notification clearly specifies that late and defective applications shall be summarily rejected. Therefore, it was argued that unsigned application could not have been accepted by the University. ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:5:-** 7. The selection committee will have to award points based on four criteria vis-a-vis, academic background (20%); research performance based on Academic Performance Indicator (API) score and quality of publications (40%); assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skill (20%) and; interview performance (20%). Consolidated API score of 300 points is required for the purpose of selection to the post of Associate Professor. 8. A candidate will have to fill Performance Based Appraisal System ((PBAS) proforma developed by the University based on API criteria provided in the UGC Regulations. These PBAS would reflect components for awarding points by the selection committee for appointment of Associate Professor under the first three heads, except interview, that is to say, academic background, research performance and domain knowledge and teaching skill. The petitioner's argument is that the second respondent has been wrongly given points for certain publications made by him. It is submitted that the second respondent has been awarded marks ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:6:-** for keynote addresses and talks. It is also pointed out that the second respondent was also given 20 points for externally funded research. Another aspect highlighted by the petitioner was in relation to awarding of marks for the fellowship undergone by the second respondent in the Swedish Institute of Space Physics. 9. The petitioner also challenges awarding marks under the domain knowledge and teaching skill. According to the petitioner, 20% of the total points are earmarked for domain knowledge and teaching skill. It was argued that by limiting 10 points teaching skill, the selection committee wanted to induct the second respondent as he had no experience in teaching. 10. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it is contended that eight years of research experience is sufficient as an essential qualification for Associate Professor. University had not chosen to respond to the challenge made by the petitioner in regard to qualification as referred in clause (iv) of the minimum ``` wpc 8341/2016 ``` ## **-:7:-** qualification, except, a general statement that the second respondent possesses necessary qualification. It is to be noted that the petitioner had made an extensive challenge in the writ petition itself based on clause (iv) stipulation of the qualification. It seems the University wants to avoid to take any concrete stand on clause (iv) above. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the University. In the additional counter affidavit also the University reiterates the stand that the second respondent being a scientist having more than 11 years, is eligible to apply for the post. The University also had responded to other objections raised by the petitioner in regard to selection of the second respondent. Those responses I need not reiterate here as the same can be considered while considering the issues involved in the later part of the judgment. 11. The second respondent also filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, he had explained his qualification in regard to the post ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:8:-** aspired. He also has produced certain documents to justify his eligibility as per clause (iv) of the minimum qualifications prescribed in the notification. He also stated about supervising researchers. It is specifically stated that Shri Pradeep Kumar Dontha, Junior Research Fellow conducted research under his guidance. He also at the very same time questions petitioner's credentials as well. 12. The petitioner also filed a reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner highlighted rejection of applications submitted by many candidates in respect of other courses. This was on the ground of insufficiency in teaching experience. 13. I shall advert first to the challenge made by the petitioner in regard to the minimum qualification as provided under clause (iv) of the notification. This is quoted again to understand the nature of the Regulation. : “iv. Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and ``` wpc 8341/2016 ``` ## **-:9:-** technology-mediated teaching learning process with evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students.” 14. Before entering into the discussion on this aspect, it is necessary to highlight the nature of procedure prescribed by UGC under the Regulations to select teachers in various categories. UGC has prescribed two criteria; one with reference to prescribed qualifications and, the other with reference to selection based on PBAS. PBAS mainly would reflect in selection committee criteria. This has been broadly divided into different categories like academic background, research performance, assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skill. These components will be awarded points in the selection and along with interview performance. The candidates will be ranked in accordance with the assessment. Thus, all selection committee criteria other than the interview is with reference to pre-existing factors as referable in PBAS. PBAS also is relied upon for API score. ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:10:-** 15. Analysis of merits and credentials of a candidate on the basis of PBAS is unique and more scientific. PBAS replaces conventional method of assessment of eligibility like holding written test for qualified candidates. The merit of a candidate based on PBAS would reflect his competence on all aspects that would require one to hold the post. In a post like Associate Professor, a candidate requires to have minimum 300 API points. Perhaps in this background, this Court has to distinguish the differences between qualification and eligibility. 16. Often qualification and eligibility were used interchangeably. It has basic differences. 'Qualification' in the context of appointment means a prescribed ability of a definite nature. 'Eligibility' on the other hand means standards or norms on which qualified candidates are assessed. It refers to suitability based on qualification. One may have a qualification. However, he need not necessarily have eligibility. In Black's Law Dictionary, 'qualification' is defined as ``` wpc 8341/2016 ``` ## **-:11:-** possession by an individual of the qualities which is necessary to render him eligible to fill an office or to perform a public duty or function. In Collins Concise Dictionary, refers 'qualification' as an official record of achievement awarded on the successful completion of a course or an ability to perform a job. 'Eligibility' is referred to in Black's Law Dictionary as a qualification for an office or a position. It also refers 'eligible' as fit and proper to be chosen. 'Eligible' is also defined in Collins Concise Dictionary as fit, worthy or qualified, as for office. Thus, it is clear that qualification and eligibility are two different concepts operate in a different domain. 17. On an analysis of the UGC Regulations, it is discernible that API score and PBAS are matters to be considered for eligibility. The norms as referred in template proforma filled by the candidates for PBAS, therefore, will have to be treated as eligibility norms for assessment of points. It itself cannot be treated as a ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:12:-** qualification. See Regulation 6.0.1 which states as follows: “6.0.1 The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in this Regulations in Tables i to ix of Appendix III.” Therefore, it is crystal clear that PBAS norms are eligibility norms and not the qualification. 18. Now, coming back to the issue in hand, the clause (iv) as above clearly indicates that it is with reference to the eligibility norms for assessment of score. The clause as referred above refers assessment of the two aspects, namely, 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. The reference is not on experience developing ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:13:-** curricula and courses so also not on supervising guiding doctoral students. It is all about developing new techniques and tools relatable to curricula and courses and for guiding doctoral candidates. If one lacks this expertise, he will not get points under these heads; still, he will be qualified for the post. Similarly, merely for the reason that a candidate is having teaching experience will not entitle him for the award of points unless it is innovative or design of new curricula and courses as referred under the clause. So also one will not get points for merely guiding doctoral students unless he had deployed technologymediated teaching to guide such students. 19. What would be the educational innovation is a matter cannot be decided by a screening committee. The word 'innovation' is an adjective with reference to quality. It can be assessed only by a selection committee. The selection committee is different from the screening committee which verifies the credentials of candidates. Technologymediated credential means, deployment of technology ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:14:-** as an intermediary in the learning process. The learned counsel argued that this clause refers to teaching experience. I am unable to accept this argument. As already adverted, this is an eligibility norm for assessment of points under different heads, referred in selection criteria. In the absence of these proofs, a candidate will not get points based on PBAS on these criteria. Therefore, it can very well be concluded that it is only part of eligibility norms for the assessment of points and not the qualification. This is so clear in the light of clause (iii) prescribed in the qualification. Clause (iii) refers that a candidate, who fulfils eight years of experience as Assistant Professor in the University or as an accredited research institution/industry, is qualified. The reference to the research institution/industry clearly establishes that a candidate without any teaching experience is also qualified to apply. It has to be noted that the qualification has to be in a definite nature. It cannot depend upon variable factors. Variable ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:15:-** factors for assessment can be treated only as an eligibility norm and not as a qualification. 20. UGC referred clause as a part of the qualification. Therefore, the argument was that all stipulations conjunctively must exist to become eligible. For the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I cannot accept this argument. Merely because clause (iv) is referred along with qualification, it does not mean that it should exist for applying for the post. Clause (v) refers to the minimum API score. This is a verifiable factor for the selection committee and related to PBAS. It is to be noted that a screening committee cannot decisively decide the fulfilment of these stipulations. It can only be assessed by experts, who are included in the selection committee. Clause (v) is also eligibility norms for awarding points and, merely it is referred along with qualification, it cannot be said that it is a part of the qualification. Regulation 6.0.11 of UGC Regulations 2010 refers constitution of Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC). This cell is a ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:16:-** record-keeping cell. It will maintain API criteria based on PBAS proforma in respect of existing teachers working in the college or the University. A candidate working in an accredited research institution or in an industry cannot have such an API score. Therefore, clause (v) as far as the candidates, whose API score has not been included in the IQAC can be only with reference to PBAS proforma filled along with the application. Therefore, I have to hold that non-fulfilment of clause (iv) cannot be a reason to reject the applications. Thus, I hold that the second respondent is qualified since the petitioner has no other challenge in regard to other qualifications. 21. The University as well as the second respondent submitted that the application was in order, before the last date of application. I have also perused the original records produced before this Court. I do not find any infirmity with the application. In such circumstances, the challenge on this ground must fail. ``` wpc 8341/2016 ``` ## **-:17:-** 22. In regard to other challenges, I find that the petitioner made out a case for interference. Selection to the post of Associate Professor is based on criteria, which is as follows: **==> picture [392 x 379] intentionally omitted <==** 23. The criteria as above clearly indicate except interview performance all other criteria will have to be assessed based on PBAS. In this ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:18:-** case, the selection committee while awarding marks for assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skill, awarded marks separately for teaching skills/presentation based on the presentation before the sub-committee of the Board. The second respondent obtained 6 points; the petitioner obtained 5 points. The second respondent was a scientist. He was never engaged in teaching, in a professional capacity. According to the petitioner, this assessment, in fact, increased the component of the interview. The maximum points that can be awarded in an interview is 20 points. Objectively assessing candidates' skill and performance through a presentation, enlarged awarding points for the interview. I find merit in this argument. The teaching skills can be given points only with reference to past experience. No doubt, evaluation of teaching skill is possible in an interview so as to award marks in interview. (See the second part of Regulation 6.0.1.). Regulation 6.0.1 reads thus: “In order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:19:-** ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a class room situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These procedures can be followed for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations.” (emphasis supplied) The second respondent could not have been awarded 6 points based on the evaluation of teaching skills under the head of domain knowledge and teaching skill based on his presentation. The difference between the petitioner and the second respondent is only just above 5. The petitioner scored 77.77 and the second respondent scored 82.90. Since this Court had not adverted to other objection under the head academic background and research performance, it is only appropriate that the same be considered by the selection committee. 24. The petitioner had raised various objections in regard to awarding marks on publication, to the second respondent. Similarly, ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:20:-** the second respondent also raised counter against the petitioner. It appears that the documents produced by the second respondent along with the counter affidavit to the evidence for he having guided PhD and M.Phil students were not produced along with the application. Though it may be relevant to decide the eligibility norms, it cannot be relied upon for awarding points since it were not produced along with the application. In such circumstances, I am of the view that it is necessary to reconsider the selection in the light of the discussions as above. As I had already adverted, the awarding of the marks under the evaluation of teaching skill was irregular. The matter will have to be remitted to the selection committee. I think it is necessary to guide the selection committee in regard to awarding of points. 25. Accordingly, the following directions are issued for the guidance of the selection committee: ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:21:-** i. The selection committee shall keep in mind the objection raised by the petitioner as well as the second respondent in regard to the awarding of the points under the academic background and research performance. ii. Assessment of domain knowledge skill shall be in strictly with PBAS proforma. It can redraw the criteria in accordance with clause (iv) and also such other criteria as provided in template issued by UGC Regulations. Lacking in any of the criteria as referred in clause (iv) would only dissuade the selection committee in awarding points. iii.The interview marks can also be based on an evaluation of teaching skill, presentation as referred in Regulation 6.0.1. 26. The upshot of discussions is that the selection of the second respondent was not in accordance with UGC Regulations. 27. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the selection of the second ``` wpc 8341/2016 ``` ## **-:22:-** respondent and the selection committee shall select candidates, who were qualified in accordance with the above observations and findings. The selection committee is directed to complete the entire exercise within a period of two months. The second respondent can continue till selection is completed and his continuation would be subject to the outcome of such selection. If the second respondent is selected again, he shall be given all such service benefits from the date on which he was first appointed. The Registry shall return the original file to the learned Standing Counsel. No costs. Sd/- ## A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:23:-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AD.D3/10121/04(21) SANCTIONING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS LECTURER (ASSISTANT PROFESSOR) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHEIRC SCIENCES, CUSAT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY ON 18-11-2006. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. AD. D3/136/NOTIF/08(2) DATED 17-8-2015 INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, CUSAT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION SHEET NO. II(QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE) DATED 17-8-2015 ENUMERATING THE MINIMUM MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, CUSAT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST NO. RECT/201603/AUG.2015-ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR-METEROLOGY DATED 22-02-2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. AD.D3/FR/1/2015 VOL. II(10) PF DATED 2202-2016 APPOINTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, CUSAT.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 2610-2007 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, CUSAT TO THE PETITIONER.** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:24:-** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNOLOGY MEDIATED TEACHING VIA "MOODLE@CUSAT" WEBSITE FORMULATED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21-32007 GIVEN BY THE CONVENOR OF THE CURRICULUM WORKSHOP TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AC. B1/019182/VM/2014 DATED 31-08-2015 OF 1ST RESPONDENT CUSAT INDICATING RECOGNITION AS RESEARCH GUIDE GRANTED TO PETITIONER UNDER THE FACULTY OF MARINE SCIENCES.** **EXHIBIT P10** - **TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20-42012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF THE GOA UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 09.03.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT CUSAT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 21.03.2016 GIVEN BY THE UNIVERSITY IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P.11 RTI APPLICATION.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17.08.2015 FOR THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN OPTO-ELECTRONICS, LASER TECHNOLOGY AND SPECTROSCOPY(RELAVENT PAGES)** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18.03.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO. 7024 OF 2016. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2010** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:25:-** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.B1/006272/4966/2015 DATED 5.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO SMT.KARTHIKA G. GRANTING FULL TIME PH.D REGISTRATION** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.B1/018560/2015/5038 DATED 2.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO SHRI.SABEER V. GRANTING FULL TIME PH.D REGISTRATION** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.B1/018560/2015/5039 DATED 2.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR TO SHRI. MOHAMMED SHAFI M.P. GRANTING PART TIME PH.D REGISTRATION.** **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S PUBLISHED PAPER-”EFFECTS OF SUDDEN STRATOSPHERIC WARMING EVENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL COLUMN OZONE OVER POLAR AND MIDDLE LATITUDE REGIONS”ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION ON 4.2.2016 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF OPEN JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE.** **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S PUBLISHED PAPER-”MADDEN JULIAN OSCILLATIONS IN TOTAL COLUMN OZONE, AIR TEMPERATURE AND SURFACE PRESSURE MEASURED OVER COCHIN DURING SUMMER MONSOON 2015”- ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION ON 5.2.2016 AND DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE OPEN JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE.** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:26:-** **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF PUBLISHED PAPER WRITTEN BY THE PETITIONER AND KARTHIKA GANGADHARAN -”TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL COLUMN OZONE COCHIN- A STUDY BASED ON IN SITU MEASUREMENTS AND ECMWF REANALYSIS”WHICH WAS ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION ON 4.2.2016 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF OPEN JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE.** |**EXHIBIT P23**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS AND NAMES OF**| |---|---| ||**THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE OPEN JOURNAL**| ||**OF MARINE SCIENCES DOWNLOADED FROM THE**| ||**PUBLISHER'S WEBSITE.**| |**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT REVEALING THE**| ||**NAMES OF THE CONTRIBUTORS WHO HAVE**| ||**PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF THE**| ||**SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PUBLISHING.**| |**EXHIBIT P25**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE OPENING PAGE OF A FEW**| ||**PAPERS OF CONTRIBUTORS WHO HAVE**| ||**PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF THE**| ||**SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PUBLISHING**| |**EXHIBIT P26**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY**| ||**CUSAT INDICATING THAT THE PETITIONER HAD**| ||**PARTICIPATED IN A HEADS-ON TRAINING**| ||**WORKSHOP ON “BUILDING ONLINE COURSES**| ||**USING MOODLE” ON THE 6TH AND 7TH OF**| ||**AUGUST 2015**| |**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE COPY OF THE UGC LETTER D.O.F, NO.1-**| ||**100/2016(MOOCS/E-CONTENT DATED 27.7.2016**| ||**REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE ACTIONS FOR**| ||**INTRODUCTION OF MOOCS) (MASSIVE OPEN**| ||**ONLINE COURSES)- A SCHEME FOR THE**| ||**BENEFIT OF ALL UNIVERSITIES AND**| ||**AFFILIATED COLLEGES**| ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:27:-** **EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE PBAS FORM DATED 11.2.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, RECEIVED FROM CUSAT UNDER RTI ENQUIRY** - **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE AWARDED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF INTERVIEW ON 12.2.2016** **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 25.1.2016 WHICH PROVIDES THE INSTRUCTIONS EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES ATTENDED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE PAPERS PRESENTED THEREIN** - **EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER MOES/IASP/CAB/1/DATED 16.8.2013 ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WITH REGARD TO THE SANCTIONING OF THE PROGRAMME ENTITLED “POLAR SCIENCE - EXPEDITION TO ANTARCTIC” WHICH RELATES TO AN INSTITUTIONAL GRANT FOR RESEARCH TO NATIONAL CENTRE FR ANTARCTIC AND OCEAN RESEARCH (NCAOR), GOA** **EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL.B3/16796/2013 DATED 2.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CUSAT INDICATING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR OF AN EXTERNALLY FUNDED PROJECT** **EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.1.2003 ISSUED BY DR.B.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, EMERITUS SCIENTIST, CSIR TOT HE 2ND RESPONDENT** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:28:-** - **EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI INFORMATION DATED 12.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE PHYSICS DEPARTMENT, ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI ON AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2016 APPOINTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY.** - **EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.CONG.II/6689/2015(17) DATED 10.8.2015 OF CUSAT RECONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF STUDIES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES UNDER THE FACULTY OF MARINE SCIENCES** - **EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE RECONSTITUTED BOARDS OF STUDIES OF 5 DEPARTMENTS COMING UNDER THE FACULTY OF MARINE SCIENCES WHICH INDICATE THAT 19 SCIENTISTS ARE MEMBERS THEREIN** - **EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR.THAMBAN MELOTH, SCIENTIST-F IN NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARACTIC AND OCEAN RESEARCH (NCAOR) GOA** - **EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF THE U.O. NO.AC.B1/007092/2008 DATED 4.12.2010 ISSUED BY CUSAT WHEREBY DR. GIRISH GOPINATH, SCIENTIST-B, CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A RESEARCH GUIDE UNDER THE FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, CUSAT** **EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF U.O. NO.AC.B1/013092/2012 DATED 5.10.2012 REGARDING REGISTRATION OF SMT.JESIYA N.P. AS RESEARCHER UNDER GUIDANCE OF DR.GIRISH GOPINATH DOWNLOADED FROM THE CUSAT WEBSITE AND ARRANGED IN ORDER BY THE PETITIONER** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:29:-** |**EXHIBIT P42**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SCIENTISTS WHO**| |---|---| ||**HAVE RECENTLY GUIDED PH.D SCHOLARS OF**| ||**CUSAT UNDER THE FACULTY OF MARINE**| ||**SCIENCES**| |**EXHIBIT P43**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED**| ||**2.9.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPODNENT SUBMITTED**| ||**TO CUSAT FOR THE POST FO ASSOCIATE**| ||**PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY IN THE**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES**| ||**OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH AN**| ||**RTI APPLICATION**| |**EXHIBIT P44**|**TRUE COPY OF THE API (ACADEMIC**| ||**PERFORMANCE INDICATOR) SCORE SHEET OF**| ||**THE PETITIONER PREPARED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT UNVERSITY WITH REGARD TO HIS**| ||**APPLICATION TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE**| ||**PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY IN THE**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES**| |**EXHIBIT P45**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CUSAT U.O.**| ||**NO.PI.B1/5706/98 DATED 14.9.1999**| ||**DEFINING AN EXTERNAL FUNDED PROJECT AND**| ||**THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR**| |**EXHIBIT P46**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL GUIDELINES**| ||**ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EARTH**| ||**SCIENCES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REGARDING**| ||**THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT**| ||**PROPOSAL UNDER THE MONSOON MISSION**| ||**DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE**| ||**MINISTRY WHICH WOULD INDICATE THE ROLE**| ||**OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR OF AN**| ||**EXTERNAL FUNDED PROJECT**| |**EXHIBIT P47**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.9.2007**| ||**ISSUED BY THE SWEDISH INSTITUTE OF SPACE**| ||**PHYSICS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT OFFERING A**| ||**POST-DOCTORAL POSITION FOR THE PROJECT**| ||**“STRATOSPHERIC SOURCES OF SURFACE OZONE**| ||**AND MATHANE” WHEREIN ONLY A STIPEND IN**| ||**IS GIVEN**| ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:30:-** **EXHIBIT P48 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED TO SCRUTINIZE THE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN METEOROLOGY WHEREBY 5 OUT OF 8 APPLICATIONS WERE REJECTED** **EXHIBIT P49 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY CUSAT IN W.P.(C)nO.7024 OF 2016. EXHIBIT P50 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 20.02.2016 UNDER THE RTI ACT. EXHIBIT P51 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 01.03.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REGISTRAR TO EXHIBIT P50 R.T.I. APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P52 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO. PL.B2/07748/2006 DATED 27.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CUSAT, WHEREBY THE PRINCIPAL INVESTGATORSHIP WAS TRANSFERRED FROM DR. C.K. RAJAN TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P53 TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO. PL.B3/11246/2008 DATED 26.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CUSAT INDICATING THAT THE PETITIONER WAS PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR AN EXTERNALLY FUNDED PROJECT OF ISRO, BANGALORE.** **EXHIBIT P54 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE INFORMATION DATED 13.10.2017 RECEIVED FRROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT CUSAT UNDER AN R.T.I. APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER REGARDING SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN INORGANIC CHEMISTRY.** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:31:-** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 NIL** **EXHIBIT R2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR MSC. MATHEMATICS ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** - **EXHIBIT R2 B TRUE COPY OF THE MSC. DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** - **EXHIBIT R2 C TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR M.TECH IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES.** - **EXHIBIT R2 D TRUE COPY OF THE M.TECH DEGREE CERTIFICATE.** - **EXHIBIT R2 E TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR PH.D.** **EXHIBIT R2 F TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.EST/OSD/AC07699/2008 DATED 04/12/2008 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE SPACE APPLICATION CENTRE.** - **EXHIBIT R2 G TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE SWEDISH INSTITUTE OF SPACE PHYSICS.** - **EXHIBIT R2 H TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO.NCAOR/II/PER(A)(28)/10 DATED 14/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARCTIC AND OCEAN RESEARCH.** - **EXHIBIT R2 I TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. CSSTEAP/SATMET/2016 DATED 05/01/2016.** - **EXHIBIT R2 J TRUE COPY OF THE COVER PAGE OF THE THESIS SUBMITTED BY SRI. SOURAV CHATTERJEE.** - **EXHIBIT R2 K TRUE COPY OF THE COVER PAGE OF THE PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED BY SRI.K.S.R. DILIP KUMAR.** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:32:-** **EXHIBIT R2 L** **TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.NCAOR/II/PER(E)(148)/14 DATED 26/09/2014 OF THE ADMINISTRATION IN CHARGE OF NCAOR, GOA.** **EXHIBIT R2 M** **TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.NCAOR/II/PER(A)(39)/11 DATED 30/12/2011 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NCAOR, GOA.** ## **EXHIBIT R2(N)** **TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. NCAOR/II/PER(A)(33)/11 DATED 27.12.2011 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NCAOR, GOA.** - **EXHIBIT R2 (O) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.3.1999 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT R2 (P) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.MOES/16/02/2014-RDEAS(BF-CRA) DATED 16.3.2016 OF THE MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA** ## **EXHIBIT R2 (Q)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.NCAOR/MOES/35-ISEA/2015 DATED 13.5.2015 OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR (SCIENCE) OF THE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARCTIC AND OCEAN RESEARCH** - **EXHIBIT R2 (R) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005** - **EXHIBIT R2 (S) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THE MARKS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005** - **EXHIBIT R2 (T) TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE** - **EXHIBIT R2 (U) TRUE COPY OF THE ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION ID NO.1470261 ALONG WITH THE FRONT PAGE OF THE ARTICLES OF THE PETITIONER** ## **`wpc 8341/2016`** ## **-:33:-** **EXHIBIT R2 (V)** **TRUE COPY OF THE ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION ID.1470260 ALONG WITH THE FRONT PAGE OF THE ARTICLES OF THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT R2 (W)** **TRUE COPY OF THE ACCEPTANCE NOTIFICATION ID NO.1470259 ALONG WITH THE FRONT PAGE OF THE ARTICLES OF THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT R2 (X)** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE INTERNATIONAL WEEKLY JOURNAL OF SCIENCE (NATURE)PUBLISHED FROM THE UK** **EXHIBIT R2 (Y) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT R2 (Z) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2016 IN W.A.748/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT R2 AA COPY OF THE MAIL SENT BY THE PUBLISHER TO THE RESPONDENT ON 2.11.2016** **EXHIBIT R2 AB** - **COPY OF THE PART B OF APPLICATION OBTAINED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.** **EXHIBIT R2 AC COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R2 AD COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL CENTRE FOR ANTARCTIC AND OCEAN RESEARCH TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. \\True copy//** **ms** **PS to Judge**