Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** ## **PETITIONER:** **DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V. S/O. P.ACHUTHAN NAIR, "KARTHIAYANAM" KANHANGAD SOUTH PO., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PIN-671531.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SMT.B.ANANJANA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.V.VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,**| ||**THEJASWINI HILLS, PERYE PO.,**| ||**KASARAGOD PIN-671316.**| |**2**|**THE REGISTRAR,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**THEJASWINI HILLS, PERYE P.O.,**| ||**KASARAGOD PIN-671316.**| |**3**|**THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST**| ||**OF PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF HINDI - REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,**| ||**THE VICE CHANCELLOR,**| ||**CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,**| ||**TEJASWINI HILLS, PERYE P.O.,**| ||**KASARAGOD PIN-671316**| **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **2** **4 DR.SREELATHA.K 'NIKUNJAM' APARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETTAH(P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695024** - **5 DR. SUBRAMANIAN VADAKKEVEEDU KUTTAPPAN, "GAURI NANDANAM" KURUPPINPAD,CHAPPANANGADI (P.O), KOTTAKKAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-676503.** - **6 DR.SUDHA BALAKRISHNAN, “SOUPARNIKA”, NEAR BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI - 682 028.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SMT.R.ANJALI SRI.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner challenges the inclusion of the respondents 4 to 6 in the rank list and the appointment of the 6[th] respondent as Professor in Hindi.** **2. The 1[st] respondent University issued Ext.P12 notification on 06.12.2015 inviting applications for appointment to various teaching posts including that of a Professor in Hindi and Associate Professor in Hindi. Petitioner claims that he has worked as Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Payyanur College for the period from 1979 to 1986; Reader/Associate Professor from 27.03.1992 to 06.07.2007; he was deputed as Visiting Professor in Hindi at Valladolid University, Spain and thereafter took voluntary retirement. He was on deputation as Visiting Professor in Hindi at the Indian Council for Cultural Relation's Chair in Valladolid University for the period from 06.07.2007 to 01.10.2010. Petitioner also claims that he had been taking classes for the 4[th] semester** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **4** **M.A.(Malayalam) students in Translation Theory and Practice of Kannur University for the academic year 2010-11 and 2011-12 and has worked as Guest faculty in the Department of Hindi in the Central University of Kerala in different spells between 02.07.2012 to 14.12.2015.** **3. Pursuant to the notification petitioner submitted Ext.P21 application. The total API score he claimed in the proforma for the same was 1035.15 with the following break up:** **Category I: 117 against minimum requirement of 75; Category II: 50 (minimum requiremnt of 15); Category IIIA: 420; III B: 255; IIIC: 40; IIID: 65; IIIE (E and E(i) to E(iii)): 255.15 with consolidated API score of 1035.15 in category III (III(A) to III(E)) against minimum requirement of 400. For category III(A), the verified API score according to him was 510.3, which was limited to 420. For category III(B) – Research Publications (books, chapters in books, other than referred journal articles), he claimed 425.25, which was** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **5** **limited to 255. For category III(C) – Research projects, the score according to him was 340.2, which was limited to 40. Under category III(D) Research Guidance, the verified score was 170.1, which was limited to 65. For category III(E) he claimed 921, which is limited to 255.15 i.e., total under category III was 1035.15. The contention of the petitioner is that his score was reduced by the selection committee whereas that of the 6th respondent was enhanced.** **4. Ext.P25 rank list was published on** **02.03.2017 with one Smt.Sreelatha K. - the 4[th] respondent as rank no.1, the 6[th] respondent as Wait List no.1 and the petitioner as Wait List no.2 against the unreserved category. It is stated that though rank no.1 was appointed, she did not join duty. Therefore the 6[th] respondent who was wait list no.1 was appointed as per Ext.P31 order dated 11.07.2017. The petitioner challenges the rank list as well as the appointment of the 6[th] respondent. Though petitioner had challenged the selection and** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **6** **appointment to the post of Associate Professor also, since the 5[th] respondent who was ranked no.1 did not join duty and petitioner who was ranked below her was appointed, it is not necessary to consider the contentions with respect to the post of Associate Professor. Therefore the subsisting grievance is against the selection and appointment of the 6[th] respondent as Professor.** **5. The main contention against the selection of 6[th] respondent is violation of Ext.P20 norms laid down by the University read with the provisions in UGC Regulations. According to the petitioner, the 4[th] respondent is entitled to get only 17 marks under the 40% quota set apart for category III and therefore he would be more meritorious than her with 54 marks. According to petitioner, the consolidated API score in category III claimed by the 6[th] respondent in the proforma furnished along with her Ext.P27 application was only 173.86 as against the minimum mandatory score of 400, as evident from Ext.28 applicant summary sheet in her** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **7** **case and therefore her application itself was liable to be rejected for want of minimum qualification. It is alleged that as against the claim of 6[th] respondent, the University calculated her API score as 485 with ulterior motive to give her undue preference. Pointing out the API score claimed by the 6[th] respondent in her Ext.P28 applicant summary sheet (which is part of preliminary score sheet), under various heads in Category III, it is alleged that the University has adopted a different computation in her case even in the absence of her claim and even in the absence of any material before the University to make such a re-computation at their end and to invite her for the interview and thereafter to include her in the rank list.** **6. The petitioner has produced the Applicant Summary Sheets in respect of the petitioner as well** **as the 6th respondent pointing out that the Screening Committee found the 6th respondent eligible to be called for interview enhancing her** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **8** **marks.** **7. It is pointed out that the API score assessed by the petitioner in his case and claimed in his Ext.P21 application was 1035.15, whereas in Ext.P29 applicant Summary Sheet in respect of the petitioner it was computed as 770 only, reducing the points under various heads, despite production of materials towards his claim. It was also pointed out that the marks awarded by the Screening Committee in Ext.P28 as well as Ext.P29 are corrected by the Selection Committee to the detriment of petitioner and to undue favour the 6[th] respondent. It is also the contention of the petitioner that when the 6[th] respondent submitted an application according to which the API score was less than 400, the University ought not have issued a call letter to the 6[th] respondent. It is his contention that in order to verify the API Score even without a claim from the 6[th] respondent and for considering the 6[th] respondent for selection based on such an application, there should have been some** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **9** **external interference.** **8. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P30 mark sheet which shows that the 6[th] respondent was awarded 7 marks under the Head A, 21 marks under Head B, 15 marks under Head C and 3.5 + 12.5 for teaching skill and interview out of 25. At the same time, petitioner was given 10 marks under Head A, 21 marks under Head B. 15 marks under Head C and 2.5 + 7.5 for teaching skill and interview. Thus the petitioner got 56 marks and the 6[th] respondent got 59 marks.** **9. The respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that in the selection process, the petitioner scored 46 out of 75 whereas the 6[th] respondent scored 42 out of 75. It is stated that in the score sheet, the selection committee reassessed the marks awarded by the screening committee, at various points with respect to all the candidates. All the members of the selection committee including the subject experts had affixed their signature in the preliminary** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **10** **score sheet approving the corrections. The respondents also stated that the screening committee had evaluated the claims on the basis of records and awarded appropriate marks in accordance with the materials.** **10. 6[th] respondent, in the counter affidavit has stated that she is having M.A. Degree in Hindi from Cochin University and Ph.D. from Cochin University of Science of Technology. She was appointed as Lecturer in Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha on 04.10.1995, after which she was working as Reader and thereafter she got appointment as Reader in Sree Sankaracharya Sanskrit University on 17.11.1997 and thereafter as Professor in Calicut University from 30.01.2006 onwards and she retired from Calicut University on 24.01.2017. She has stated that she is an author of eight criticism books in Hindi and translated 21 stories of Smt.Kamala Das from Malayalam to Hindi. It is stated that she has translated a Hindi novel and got 25 publications in approved journals and 28** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **11** **years of total teaching experience and it is also stated she had guided seven Ph.D holders several M.Phil candidates. She stated that she was not well versed in calculation of API score or with the Performance Based Appraisal System as it was a newly introduced system and that the Screening Committee has calculated the API score on the basis of materials furnished by her along with her application. It is stated that though her calculation of API score at 173.86 in her Ext.P27 application was erroneous, the University had in Ext.P28 preliminary scoresheet, calculated it correctly under the 13 different heads. It is stated that there is no external interference in considering her for selection, based on materials produced by her along with her application; the select list was prepared on the basis of merit and therefore there is no reason for interfering with the selection or her appointment.** **11. The learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent argued that the same pattern is followed in the** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **12** **case of petitioner as well as the 6[th] respondent /all the candidates. As against the claim of petitioner for API score of 1035.15 in Ext.P29 Summary Sheet the Screening Committee computed the verified API score of petitioner as 1305 towards the API score of 1035.15 claimed by the petitioner and that it was limited to 770 in his case because there is a maximum cap for the marks under each head as per the UGC Regulations. The learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the 6[th] respondent argued that this court is not expected to interfere with the selection conducted by a duly constituted selection committee on the basis of evaluation of comparative merit and also that there is no circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.** **12. Regarding the contention that the selection committee has corrected the marks awarded by Screening Committee, it is seen that corrections are made in the case of all the candidates** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **13** **including the petitioner and the 6[th] respondent.** **13. Heard Sri. V. Varghese, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sajithkumar for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the 6[th] respondent.** **14. The qualification prescribed for appointment of Professor in Hindi as prescribed in the notification as well as in Ext.P32 UGC Regulations, 2010 is as contained in Regulation 4.1.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010, which reads as follows:** _**“A.(i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualificaiton(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. (iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses, and**_ **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **14** _**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.**_ ## _**OR**_ _**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.”**_ **15. The selection procedure is prescribed in the UGC Regulations as amended in 2013 in clause** ## **6.1.0 as follows:** _**“6.1.0. 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.**_ _**Provided that API scores will be used for screening purpose only and will have no bearing on expert assessment of candidates in Direct Recruitment/CAS**_ **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **15** _**Provided also that the API score claim of each of the sub-categories in the Category III (Research and Publications and Academic Contributions) will have the following cap to calculate the total API score claim for Direct Recruitment/CAS.**_ |**_Sub-category_**|**_Cap as % of API cumulative_**<br>**_score in application_**| |---|---| |**_III(A):Research_**<br>**_papers_**<br>**_(Journals, etc)_**|**_30%_**| |**_III(B) Research publications_**<br>**_(Books, etc)_**|**_25%_**| |**_III(C) Research Projects_**|**_20%_**| |**_III(D) Research Guidance_**|**_10%_**| |**_III(E) Training Courses and_**<br>**_Conference/Seminar, etc_**|**_15%_**| _**In order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the 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.”**_ **16. The selection is under challenge on the ground that the API score of the 6[th] respondent claimed by her is less than 400. Petitioner alleges that the Screening Committee raised the API score** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **16** **of 6[th] respondent above 400 in the absence of a claim from her. Therefore it is necessary to have a look at Ext P.28 - applicant summary sheet in respect of the 6[th] respondent in which the Screening Committee arrived at her verified API score, which** ## **is as follows:** |**_category_**|**_Minimum_**<br>**_require_**<br>**_d_**|**_Score_**<br>**_limited_**<br>**_to_**|**_Verified_**<br>**_API_**<br>**_score_**||**_Remarks_**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |**_CategoryI_**|**_75_**||**_87_**||| |**_CategoryII_**|**_15_**||**_32_**||| |**_Category IIIA_**|**_400_**|**_30.00%_**|**_140_**|**_140_**|| |**_IIIB_**||**_25.00%_**|**_125_**|**_125_**|| |**_IIIC(i)_**||**_20%_**|**_10_**|**_10_**|| |**_IIIC(ii)_**|||**_0_**||| |**_IIIC(iii)_**|||**_0_**||| |**_IIIC(iv)_**|||**_0_**||| |**_IIID(1)_**||**_10%_**|**_120_**||| |**_IIID(ii)_**|||**_67_**|**_84_**|| |**_IIIE(i)-_**<br>**_Maximum_**<br>**_30_**<br>**_points_**||**_15%_**|**_30_**||**_Proof_**<br>**_of_**<br>**_M.Phil/Ph.D_**<br>**_should_**<br>**_be_**<br>**_produced_**| |**_IIIE(ii)_**|||**_320_**||| |**_IIIE(iii)_**|||**_30_**|**_126_**|| ||||**_842_**|**_485_**|| **17. The API cap fixed under Regulation 6.01 is prescribed percentage under each of the categories of IIIA to E on the cumulative as provided in** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **17** **Regulation 6.01, the cumulative API score in category III. On examination of Ext.P27 application submitted by the 6[th] respondent, it is seen that she assessed and claimed the API score as follows: From Page 10 of Ext.P27, total score under category IIIA: 160. She thereafter calculated 30% of that score in category IIIA (160) as API cap, instead of total verified score in category III. Similarly the score she calculated for category III B, as seen from page 11 of Ext 27 is 219; she calculated 25% of that score (52.5) as API cap again instead of 25% of verified API score in category III. The score she calculated under Category IIIC was 10 and she thereafter took its 20% (2) as the API cap. Similarly in the subsequent pages she calculated the score for categry IIID as 187; took the 10% of it API cap and arrived at 18.7; for category IIIE she assessed her score as 351 and took its 15% which came to 52.65 as API cap. Thus the total API score was arrived at taking the API cap on the respective score under categories IIIA to IIIE** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **18** **instead of on the cumulative API score in category III. Therefore the calculation made by her was totally incorrect.** **18. In the preliminary score sheet, the Screening Committee arrived at the verified score as 140, 125 and 10 for categories IIIA to C, (120+67) for IIID, 30, 320,& 30 for IIIE; Thus the total API score was arrived at category III was calculated as 842 and thereafter they calculated the score admissible as per the API cap fixed for each categories A to E and found 140+125+10+84+126=485; In fact the total score as assessed by the 6[th] respondent (without determining the API cap) was 160, 219, 10, 187 and 351, the total of which is 927. The verified score awarded by the Screening Committee is only 842 (140, 125, 10, 187, 380) as against her assessment at 927. Therefore it is clear that there was no disqualification for the 6th respondent.** **19. In the case of the petitioner, he calculated the API cap on the total API score** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **19** **assessed by him in category III under various heads. The verified API score calculated in Ext.P29** **by the Screening Committee is as follows:** |**_category_**|**_Minimum_**<br>**_require_**<br>**_d_**|**_Score_**<br>**_limited_**<br>**_to_**|**_Verifie_**<br>**_d_**<br>**_API_**<br>**_score_**||**_Remarks_**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |**_CategoryI_**|**_75_**||**_93_**||| |**_CategoryII_**|**_15_**||**_33_**||| |**_CategoryII_**<br>**_IA_**|**_400_**|**_30.00%_**|**_255_**|**_255_**|| |**_IIIB_**||**_25.00%_**|**_240_**|**_240_**|| |**_IIIC(i)_**||**_20%_**|**_30_**|**_30_**|| |**_IIIC(ii)_**|||**_0_**|**_0_**|| |**_IIIC(iii)_**|||**_0_**|**_0_**|| |**_IIIC(iv)_**|||**_0_**|**_0_**|| |**_IIID(1)_**||**_10%_**|**_0_**|**_0_**|| |**_IIID(ii)_**|||**_50_**|**_50_**|| |**_IIIE(i)-_**<br>**_Maximum 30_**<br>**_points_**||**_15%_**|**_30_**||| |**_IIIE(ii)_**|||**_500_**||| |**_IIIE(iii)_**|||**_200_**|**_195_**|| ||||**_1305_**|**_770_**|| **20. The total score assessed by the petitioner was 1035.15 whereas the verified API score was 1305. Therefore there is no basis for the contention that API score was corrected to his prejudice or to the benefit of the 6[th] respondent.** **21. In the counter affidavit, the respondents 1** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **20** **to 3 have stated that corrections made in the score sheet are approved by the selection committee and that all the members of the selection committee have put their signature in the preliminary score sheet. Therefore the contention relating to correction made with respect to API score is also unsustainable. The petitioner has not alleged any malafides against the members of the selection committee.** **22. When it is found that the calculation made by the 6[th] respondent in arriving at the API score was erroneous, the mere fact that the Screening Committee corrected it, will not make the selection illegal or irregular, when that correction by the Screening Committee is found to be made in accordance with the UGC Regulations. The main contention of the petitioner that 6[th] respondent did not have the minimum API score of 400 is therefore without any basis.** **23. None of the other contentions merit any consideration. The merit of a candidate is not** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **21** **decided on the basis of API score alone. Table II(C) of Appendix III to the UGC Regulations, provides for the minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment of teachers in University Departments/ Colleges and weightages in selection committees to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the Regulations for appointment to the post of Professors (Stage 5) as follows:** ||**_Professor (Stage 5)_**| |---|---| |**_Minimum_**<br>**_API_**<br>**_Score_**|**_Consolidated API score requirement of 400_**<br>**_points from category III of APIs)_**| |**_Selection_**<br>**_committee_**<br>**_critera/weighta_**<br>**_ges(Total_**<br>**_weightages=100)_**|**_a)Academic background:(20%)_**| ||**_b)Research Performance based on API_**<br>**_score and quality of publication:_**<br>**_(40%)_**| ||**_c)Assessment of domain knowledge and_**<br>**_teaching skill:(20%)_**| ||**_d)Interview Performance:(20%)_**| **24. Selection is made on the basis of the marks awarded under all the above heads. The 6th respondent got 59 marks and the petitioner got 56 marks. Minimum API score of 400 is only one of the minimum qualifications. There is no provision to determine merit based on the cumulative API score** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **22** **in category III alone. Once it is found that the API score of the candidate is 400 or more, she is eligible for being considered for selection. The rank list is prepared on the basis of marks secured in all the 4 aforesaid heads. Petitioner does not have any complaint against the marks awarded under any other heads. Therefore I am unable accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner or to find any sustainable ground for interfering with the selection or appointment of the 6[th] respondent.** **It is also not necessary in the circumstances of this case to consider the applicability of the judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the 6[th] respondent. It is the well settled legal position that this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the decision of the selection made by duly constituted selection committees, consisting of academic experts and that except in the case of proved malafides, patent material irregularity in constitution of selection** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **23** **or the procedure or violation of rules, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. (See It is settled law, that the courts under Article 226 should not interfere with the selections made by duly constituted selection committee with academic experts except in the case of violation of statutory rules or regulations or ordinance (see** _**University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao**_ **[AIR 1965 SC 491];** _**J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University**_ **[1980) 3 SCC 418];** _**Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan**_ **[(1990) 1 SCC 305],** _**Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal**_ **[(1990) 2 SCC 746];** _**Secretary (Health and Family Welfare) and Others v. Dr. Anita Puri**_ **[1996 (6) SCC 282]).** **The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.** **Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** ## **SCS/ww** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **24** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** **EXHIBIT P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE DATED 19.8.1978 ISSUED TO THE PEITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.** **EXHIBIT P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE DATED 5.1.1982 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE M.PHIL CERTIFICATE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN SPANISH LANGUAGE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VALLODOLID UNIVERSITY, SPAIN. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN GANDHIAN STUDIES ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PAYYANNUR COLLEGE, PAYYANNUR.** **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE ICCR TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF INDIAN LANGUAGES, KANNUR UNIVERSITY.** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **25** **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF INDIAN LANGUAGES, KANNUR UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUE BY THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04.12.2015. EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOUND ELIGIBLE TO BE CALLED FOR INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 26.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 26.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF CORRIGENDUM DATED 31.5.2016 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2016 IN WPC NO.39070/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 15.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 15.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT LAYING DOWN THE NORMS FOR SELECTION.** - **EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR.** - **EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF 1ST PAGE OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR.** ## **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** ## **26** **EXHIBIT P23: TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX 3TABLE 2(C) OF THE UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN THE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2010. EXHIBIT P24: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION DATED 13.6.2013 PUBLISHED BY THE UGC. EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPY OF SUMMARY OF MARK SHEET OF THE PETITIONER PREPARED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPARATIVE LITERATURE EXHIBIT P26: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P-27 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT SUMMARY SHEET PREPARED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT SUMMARY SHEET PREPARED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SHEET SHOWING THE MARKS FOR THE INTERVIEW. EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CUK/ET/PF153/SB/2017/D1855 DATED 11.07.2017 OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE UGC REGULATIONS, 2010 SHOWING CLAUSE 4.1.0 EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT SUMMARY SHEET FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR. EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCP/INC/2012/TS DATED 16.02.2012 OF THE PRESIDENT OF PAYYANNUR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, THE MANAGER OF PAYYANNUR COLLEGE.** **WP(C).No.7456 OF 2017(F)** **27** **EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ICC/506/70/06 DATED 09.07.2007 OF THE PROGRAMME DIRECTOR(CHAIRS) OF THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL RELATIONS.** **EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPEAL UNDER THE (IN I.A. NO.11384/18) RTI ACT, 2005 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE REGISTRAR OF THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.** **EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.03.2017, (IN I.A. NO.11384/18) BEARING NO.CUKER/A/2017/60001 ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS.** **EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DOH/RIA/2018-19 (IN I.A. NO.11384/18) DATED 12.06.2018 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER.** **EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.06.2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.11182 OF 2015-W OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F.NO.63-2/2018CU-III DATED 10.04.2018 OF THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-R1(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TERMINATION NO.CUK/ET/PF-15/CPV/2017/071 DATED 30/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR. EXHIBIT-R1(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/01/2018 IN WP(C) 39013/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.**