S. Balaji v. State Institute of Hospitality Management Kozhikode & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.38272 OF 2015(H)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **S. BALAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. SRI. M. SUNDARAMOORTHY,** **PRINCIPAL, STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE - 673 005.** **BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) SRI. M.P. PRAKASH SRI.JOS LEO JOSE SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE COMPOUND, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673 005.** - **2 BOARD OF GOVERNORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE COMPOUND, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673 005.** |**3**|**DIRECTOR,**| |---|---| ||**DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM AND SPECIAL OFFICER,**| ||**STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE COMPOUND, WEST HILL,**| ||**KOZHIKODE-673 005.**| |**4**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.**| **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **2** ***ADDL. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND CATERING R5 TECHNOLOGY, (MINISTRY OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A-34, SECTOR 62, NOIDA-201 309, UTTAR PRADESH.** ***IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.11.2016 IN I.A.NO.16953 OF 2016.** **BY ADVS. R4 - SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 - SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2019, THE COURT ON 11.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition was originally filed by the petitioner-Principal of the 1[st] respondent, i.e., the State Institute of Hospitality Management, Kozhikode, challenging Ext.P13 Government letter dated 13.04.2015 declining regularization of the service of the petitioner and seeking to declare that the action of the respondents in initiating selection process as per Ext.P15 notification dated 09.12.2015 for appointment to the post of Principal under the 1[st] respondentInstitute on contract basis, replacing the petitioner who has been working as Principal under the 1[st] respondent-Institute on the basis of Ext.P7 order of appointment dated 18.02.2011 is illegal and bad, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Later, the 3[rd] respondent, i.e., the Director of Tourism and Special Officer of the 1[st] respondent has passed Ext.P19 order dated 27.03.2017, deciding to terminate the contract employment of the petitioner and thereupon, writ petition was amended challenging the said order and the consequential orders namely, Exts.P20 to P23. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **4** 2. Petitioner applied for the post of Principal under the 1[st] respondent-Institute in response to Ext.P2 notification issued by the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala, inviting applications to the post of Principal of the 1[st] respondent-Institute from experienced professional on deputation/contract basis. The educational qualifications prescribed are: (1) Graduation from a recognized University; and (2) Degree/3 years Diploma in Hotel Management from an institute affiliated to NCHMCT/State Board of Technical Education/Recognized University. The candidate must have secured at least 55% marks in degree/Diploma in Hotel Management and for graduates in Hotel Management, item No.1 is not necessary. The experience prescribed is at least 3 years experience in Hotel related subjects as Head of the Department in an Institute of Hotel Management affiliated to National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology; or 20 years experience in teaching and/or Hotel industry including minimum 3 years in Hotel operations related subject(s) as Head of the Department in an Institute of Hotel Management affiliated to State Board of Technical Education/Recognized University/NCHMCT; or 20 years of experience in teaching and/or Hotel Industry including **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015 5** 3 years as Principal in a Food Craft Institute affiliated to NCHMCT; or minimum 20 years Hotel Industry experience including minimum 5 years in Managerial capacity in 4 Star/Heritage or above category approved Hotel. The age limit fixed was 52 years with 5 years relaxation to SC, ST and Departmental candidates etc. etc. 3. Petitioner secured 1[st] rank in the interview and the select committee recommended him for appointment as Principal. It was accordingly that as per Ext.P7 dated 18.02.2011, petitioner was appointed on contract basis, with a rider that it is likely to be made permanent on the basis of performance of service. The 7[th] Board of Governors Meeting held on 31.10.2012 as per Ext.P11 resolved to extent the contract for one more year and enhanced his monthly consolidated pay to Rs.62,000/-. In the 8[th] Governing Body meeting held on 19.02.2014, the 2[nd] respondent-Board of Governors directed, to forward the request of the petitioner for regularization, to the Government through the Director and Special Officer, evident from Ext.P12. But the request was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P13 dated 13.04.2015, however, without any valid reason. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P13 is **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **6** laconic and the Government cannot refuse the request to make the petitioner permanent without assigning reasons. It is also pointed out that, no opportunity was afforded before taking a decision. 4. The case projected by the petitioner is that, petitioner has sacrificed his post as Head of the Department in Subbalakshmi Lakshmipathy College of Science, Madurai, for over 17 years on substantive basis, and he was induced to take up the employment under the 1[st] respondent institution pursuant to the promise made in Ext.P7 order, i.e., appointment would be made permanent on the basis of performance of service. Therefore, it is submitted that, the doctrine of promissory estoppel undoubtedly gets attracted and it indisputably creates a right which cannot be taken away by initiating fresh recruitment process as per Ext.P15. **==> picture [396 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** notification has been issued contrary to the eligibility conditions prescribed in Ext.P16 Staff Regulations, which has been approved by the Government as per Ext.P17 Government Order dated 20.02.2015. So much so, Ext.P15 notification has been issued on the basis of recommendation of Ext.P18 letter dated ## **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **7** 26.06.2013 of the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology, and Ext.P18 letter dated 26.06.2013 has not been accepted in Ext.P16 Staff Regulations approved on 20.02.2015 long after Ext.P18 letter dated 26.06.2013. Therefore, the respondents cannot issue notification inviting applications for selection to the post of Principal, prescribing different eligibility conditions from that of Ext.P16 Staff Regulations which received the approval of the Government as per Ext.P17 Government Order dated 20.02.2015. 6. It is also submitted that, by Ext.P34 communication dated 24.08.2018, the National Council itself has reduced the qualification from 25 years experience to 20 years experience, as per clause 7.1.2 of the said notification. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, looking either way, petitioner was qualified, and the services of the petitioner ought to have been regularized by the Government, especially when there are no adverse circumstances remaining against the petitioner, enabling the State Government to decline regularization, and the sole reason assigned in Ext.P13 **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **8** is that, the regularization of the petitioner cannot be considered as per the existing rules. 7. The 4[th] respondent, i.e., the State has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that, 1[st] respondent is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, which is affiliated to National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology (NCHMCT), Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. The paramount contention advanced is that, as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal, the experience required is 25 years. But the petitioner was having the experience of 22.5 years only. The Director, Department of Tourism has reported that, since the petitioner does not possess the required qualification, he is not eligible for regularization in the post of Principal. So, as per Ext.P13, it is informed that the request for regularization cannot be considered as per the existing rules and the Governing Body was given the liberty to consider extension of the contract service and inform the Government. **==> picture [396 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** Committee meeting of the 1[st] respondent held on **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **9** 16.10.2015 has authorized the Director, Department of Tourism to initiate steps for the recruitment of Principal in State Institute of Hospitality Management, Kozhikode, and directed that de-post facto permission for the extension of contract of the petitioner shall be taken in the next Governing Body. It was in response to the said decision that the 3[rd] respondent published Ext.P15 notification dated 09.12.2015, calling for applications for appointment of Principal at State Institute of Hospitality Management, Kozhikode, on contract basis. The above decision has been taken by the Executive Committee of the State Institute, owing to the direction from the NCHMCT, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. In the letter No.453 dated 26.06.2013, the competent authority have strictly directed all institutes affiliated to the Central NCHMCT to follow the uniform recruitment rules for academic staff and Principal as designed by the Government of India for Central Institute of Hospitality Managements, so as to ensure the same quality education among all the affiliated institutes. A copy of the approved Recruitment Rules has been forwarded by the NCHMCT with a direction to adopt the same Recruitment Rules in the respective Governing Body **10** ## **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** meeting and implement immediately for all future recruitments. A compliance report was further directed to be forwarded to NCHMCT by all the institutes affiliated to the Central NCHMCT. It was accordingly that steps were taken to conduct the recruitment to the post of Principal as per Ext.P15. 9. That apart, it is submitted that, the State Institute of Hospitality Management have made staff regulations for the State Institute based on the Memorandum of Associations and Rules of State Institute of Hospitality Management, Kozhikode Society. The Staff Regulations have been approved by the Government as per G.O.(MS)No.64/15/TSM dated 20.02.2015, evident from Ext.P17. The qualifications and method of appointment for the post of Principal are mentioned in the staff regulations. The practices of appointment at State Institute were followed by the above order from Government. But fact remains, NCHMCT have directed to follow the uniform recruitment rules for all future recruitments. As per the said direction, the Executive Committee of 1[st] respondent have taken a decision to recruit the Principal at State Institute with revised higher qualification from the Government of India. It is under the above background circumstances, Ext.P15 ## **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** ## **11** notification is published, and therefore, there is no illegality or any other legal infirmity on the part of the respondents in inviting applications with required qualifications specified thereunder. 10. It is also submitted that, petitioner was appointed as Principal after taking into account the educational qualification and experience required for appointment to the post of Principal at the time of appointment. But the appointment was purely on contract basis and the question of regularization of the petitioner become valid only after assessment of his performance. Even though the 8[th] Governing Body meeting of the State Institute forwarded the request of the petitioner for regularization to Government, as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Principal, the experience required was enhanced to 25 years. But, as pointed out above, petitioner has only experience of 22.5 years, and therefore, it is reported that petitioner is not eligible for regularization in the post of Principal. However, the Governing Body of the State Institute was given the liberty with respect to extension of contract of the petitioner and communicate it to the Government. Consequently, the Executive Committee of the State Institute held on 16.10.2015 **12** ## **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** have decided to take up the matter of extension in the Governing Body Meeting of the State Institute. 11. The Executive Committee also directed that depost facto permission for the extension of contract of the petitioner shall also be taken in the next Governing Body Meeting. In continuation of the same, the Director, Tourism Department has sought performance report of the petitioner during the period as Principal at the State Institute. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the State is that, the State has acted in accordance with Ext.P18 letter issued by the NCHMCT, and it was accordingly that the notification was issued and the allegations made by the petitioner against the stand adopted by the State Government cannot be sustained under law. 12. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. Therein, it is also pointed out that, petitioner is having educational and other eligibility criteria and at the time of issuance of notification, petitioner has 24 years and 7 months experience, as on 2016, and therefore, fully eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of Principal. **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015 13** 13. I have heard Sri. M.P. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Mary Beena Joseph, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 14. The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, petitioner was given the promise as per Ext.P7 appointment order that on the basis of his performance, it is likely that the appointment would be made permanent. Therefore, according to learned counsel, petitioner has resigned from the post of Head of the Department, which he was enjoying for a period of 17 years, presumably thinking that in accordance with his performance, he would be appointed permanently. That apart, it is submitted that, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had performed badly during his period of service with the 1[st] respondent or that he was inefficient. 15. In fact, the Governing Body, only after evaluating his performance, have decided to recommend to the Government for regularising the service of the petitioner, however, it was rejected on the ground that petitioner did not have the required qualification in accordance with Ext.P15 notification issued, which ## **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** ## **14** prescribes an experience of 25 years of service, is the contention. It is also pointed out that, when the petitioner was appointed on contract basis, the experience that was notified was only 20 years and the petitioner had the qualification and it was after finding that the petitioner was the most suitable candidate, he was assigned rank No.1. It is further pointed out that, now as per Ext.P34, the experience criteria is brought down to 20 years again, and therefore, the experience criteria that was fixed in Ext.P15 notification did not have much impact, and now the petitioner is fully qualified. 16. On the other hand, learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that, petitioner cannot claim regularization as of right, since his appointment was purely on contract basis and merely because a rider was incorporated in Ext.P7 appointment order that he is likely to be made permanent in accordance with the performance, that by itself will not turn out in favour of the petitioner to assert for permanent appointment. Moreover, it is the State Government to decide as to whether the services of a person is to be continued permanently, who was appointed on contract basis. It is also pointed out that, the claim raised by the **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015 15** petitioner that he is entitled for permanent appointment is not in accordance with law, and therefore, there is no manner of illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the State Government in rejecting the regularization sought for by the petitioner. It is also submitted that, peremptory directions were issued by the NCHMCT as per Ext.P18 letter dated 26.06.2013 that all the Institutes affiliated to the said organization should follow the uniform Recruitment Rules for the academic staff and Principal as designed by the Government of India for Central IHMs so as to ensure the same quality education among all the affiliated institutes. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to support his contentions, has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Southern**_ _**Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity**_ _**Inspector & ETIO and Others**_ ' [(2007) 5 SCC 447], and to paragraph 121 to canvass the proposition of promissory estoppel, which held as follows: _“_ _**121** . The doctrine of promissory estoppel would undoubtedly be applicable where an entrepreneur alters his position pursuant to or in furtherance of the promise made by a State to grant inter alia exemption from payment of taxes or charges on the basis of the current tariff. Such a policy decision on the part of the State shall not only be expressed by reason of_ **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **16** _notifications issued under the statutory provisions but also under the executive instructions. The appellants had undoubtedly been enjoying the benefit of (sic exemption from) payment of tax in respect of sale/consumption of electrical energy in relation to the cogenerating power plants”._ 18. It is also laid down that, unlike an ordinary estoppel, promissory estoppel gives rise to a cause of action, and it indisputably creates a right. It also acts on equity. However, it is held that, its application against constitutional or statutory provisions is impermissible in law. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the rider contained in Ext.P7 appointment order was a clear promise that if the performance of the petitioner is good, there is likelihood of the appointment of the petitioner being made permanent, and since there is no adverse situations pointed out against the petitioner, petitioner was entitled to be regularized. 19. Along with a memo, learned Senior Government Pleader has produced the Government of India notification dated 21.09.2007, as Ext.R4(a), dealing with Central Financial Assistance to the setting up of the Institute of Hotel Management at Kozhikode, and therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the State Government is duty bound to follow the **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015 17** stipulations issued by NCHMCT in order to secure the financial benefits from the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India. Clause (vii) thereunder stipulates that, the State Institute of Hospitality Management will follow the academic/admission norms prescribed by the National Council for Hotel Management & Catering Technology (a Central apex body for this purpose). Apart from the same, other conditions are prescribed by the Government of India. Therefore, no manner of relaxation can be made in order to make the appointments overlooking the service conditions provided by the Government of India, is the contention. 20. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar and I am of the considered opinion that, Ext.P7 appointment order issued to the petitioner was purely on contract basis. But, however, even if there is no promise provided in the said contract to make the appointment of the petitioner permanent, the rider contained in Ext.P7 appointment order that the appointment of the petitioner is likely to be made permanent on the basis of the performance of service, might have motivated the petitioner to accept the employment, because permanency in service would be the prime expectation of every person joining a service, **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** ## **18** irrespective of the post, and that too, in a Semi-State Government organization. It is also an admitted fact that a selection procedure was adopted in the matter of appointment of the petitioner and petitioner continued in service till his termination on 27.03.2017 as per Ext.P19 order. 21. It may be true, the regularization was sought for by the Governing Body from the Government on the basis of the request made by the petitioner, but that by itself, is not a reason to show that the performance of the petitioner was bad in any manner. It is equally important to note the 5[th] Board of Governors decision dated 01.03.2011, produced as Ext.P10, whereby the appointment of the petitioner was approved by the Governing Body, and the decision reads that the appointment of the petitioner as Principal on contract basis has been discussed in detail and the Governing Body ratified the action taken by the special officer to appoint the petitioner as the Principal of the State Institute, on contract basis. It was further decided therein to assess the performance after one year and the question of regularization decided on the basis of the assessment. **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **19** 22. Therefore, I find force in the contention advanced by the petitioner that the Governing Body was evaluating the performance of the petitioner all throughout, and it was accordingly that in its 8[th] Governing Body meeting had decided to request the Government for regularization of the petitioner. It is also equally important to note that, at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the experience criteria prescribed was only 20 years and petitioner did have the qualification and the selection committee was satisfied with the experience petitioner had. Even though when Ext.P15 notification was issued, as per Ext.P18 letter issued by the Government of India dated 26.06.2013, the experience was raised to 25 years, that did not in effect materially affected the appointment of the petitioner, since from the Annexure to Ext.P15, it is clear that, prior to issuance of Ext.P18, the experience prescribed was that of 20 years in teaching or Hotel Industry etc. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that, at the time of appointment, there was no qualification for the petitioner. 23. In fact, Ext.P19 order dated 27.03.2017 makes a bare statement that the Board of Governors of the ## **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** ## **20** State Institute, Kozhikode has observed that the functioning of the State Institute of Hospitality Management, Kozhikode is not up to the level, however, expressed their serious displeasure about the performance of the petitioner in the capacity of Principal and head of the institution. Therefore, it is clear that, there is a clear stigma cast upon the petitioner as per Ext.P19, and it cannot be treated as a mere termination of the contract service of the petitioner. 24. In this regard, learned counsel has also invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in ' _**Mohanan v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram and Others**_ ' [2015 (3) KHC 426 : 2015 (3) KLT 18], wherein, the question considered was in respect of an empanelled conductor and removal from the list on the allegation of misdemeanor in service without notice. After undertaking a survey of the earlier apex court judgments, it was held that, an empanelled employee is one who has been included in the panel of temporary hands whose services would be requisitioned as and when there is a need and the regular hands are not available, and it is beyond dispute that the petitioner who has been working as ## **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **21** empanelled conductor and the possibility of his services being regularized cannot be ruled out. Taking into account the Government Orders in vogue and in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in ' _**Suresh Kumar C.R. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others**_ ' the question considered was, can the services of such an employee be terminated by Ext.P1 memorandum wherein the only reason stated is misdemeanor in the rest room while not on duty, and held as follows in paragraph 6: “ **6** . _A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India (AIR 1964 SC 449) had occasion to observe as follows:-_ _“It is obvious that to say that it is undesirable to continue a temporary servant is very much different from saying that it is unnecessary to continue him. In the first case, a stigma attaches to the servant, while in the second case, termination of service is due to the consideration that a temporary servant need not be continued, and in that sense, no stigma attaches to him. It seems that anyone who reads the order in a reasonable way, would naturally conclude that the appellant was found to be undesirable, and that must necessarily import an element of punishment which is the basis of the order and is its integral part. When an authority wants to terminate the services of a temporary servant, it can pass a simple order of discharge without casting any aspersion against the temporary servant or attaching any stigma to his character. As soon as it is shown that the order purports to cast an aspersion on the temporary servant, it would be idle to suggest that the order is a simple order of discharge. The test in such cases must be: does the order cast aspersion or attach stigma to the officer when it purports to discharge him? if the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then notwithstanding the form of the order, the termination of service must be held, in substance, to amount to_ **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **22** _dismissal.”_ _It can by no stretch of imagination be stated that Ext.P1 memorandum merely discharges the petitioner from service on the ground that it is unnecessary to continue him in that post. Ext.P1 memorandum on the other hand casts an aspersion on the petitioner alleging that he created a ruckus and misbehaved with the Inspector in an inebriated state. This certainly attaches a stigma to the character of the petitioner which should not have been done behind his back without affording an opportunity to prove his innocence. Ext.P1 memorandum is punitive in nature in the form of a punishment for alleged misdemeanor in service which should have been preceded by an enquiry or at least an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Ext. P1 memorandum being a stigmatic termination without notice and not a discharge simplicitor is violative of the principles of natural justice._ Accordingly the memorandum in question was quashed and directed to restore the petitioner in the empanelled list. 25. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, I am of the view, the termination done without notice to the petitioner and without opportunity for defending himself, as per Ext.P19, casting stigma on the petitioner, cannot be sustained under law. So much so, all the consequential orders based on Ext.P19, viz., Exts.P20 to P23 are also bad. It is also equally important to note that there was a clear hope given to the petitioner as per Ext.P7 appointment order bordering a promise that there is likelihood of making the appointment permanent, taking into account the **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **23** performance of the petitioner. 26. In that view of the matter, I quash Exts.P13 order declining regularization, P19 order to the extent terminating the contract of the petitioner on and with effect from 27.03.2017, and Exts.P20 to P23 consequential orders. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent, i.e., the Director, Department of Tourism and Special Officer State Institute of Hospitality Management, Kozhikode, to receive an objection from the petitioner treating Ext.P19 as a show cause notice, and consider the issue after providing notice of hearing to the petitioner, also taking into account the recommendation made by the Governing Body, the rider contained in Ext.P7 order in respect of the likelihood of making the appointment permanent, and the performance of the petitioner. 27. Therefore, petitioner is directed to make suitable objection to Ext.P19, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and there will be a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to finalize the proceedings within a month thereafter, in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and participation to the petitioner and also exploring the possibility of **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015 24** appointing the petitioner in the State Institute, taking into account the observations and principles of law discussed above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P.CHALY** **JUDGE** **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **25** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38272/2015** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION S.NO.359/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT-SOCIETY.** - **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.HB417995/2010 PUBLISHED IN HINDU DAILY DATED 09/12/2010.** - **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 05/09/1995 ALONG WITH MARK SHEET DATED 09/01/1992.** - **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.A. SOCIOLOGY DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/08/2002.** - **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS ISSUED BY THE MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY.** - **EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.B4-17995/2010 DATED 18/01/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.HB4-17995/10 DATED 18/02/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.HB4-17995/10 DATED 20/04/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.17/10/TSM DATED 25/01/2010 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MINUTES OF THE 5TH BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT INSTITUTE HELD ON 01/03/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MINUTES OF THE 7TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS MEETING OF THE STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE HELD ON 31/10/2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES OF THE 8TH GOVERNING BODY MEETING HELD ON 19/02/2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.72211/B3/2014/TSM DATED 13/04/2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **26** **EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MINUTES OF THE 3RD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 16/10/2015 WITH COVERING LETTER NO.BH48654/2011 OF THE ADDL. DIRECTOR (H), FOR 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOTIFICATION APPEARED IN MATHRUBOOMI DAILY DATED 09/12/2015. EXHIBIT P16 PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF STAFF REGULATIONS WITH SCHEDULE. EXHIBIT P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.64/2015/TSM DATED 20/02/2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.453 DATED 26/06/2013 OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND CATERING TECHNOLOGY ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAGE OF ANNEXURE I. EXHIBIT P19 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.HB4-4159/2017 DATED 27/03/2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P20 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.72211/B3/14/TSM DATED 06/03/2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P21 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.JDK/A1/740/2014 DATED 03/02/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE. EXHIBIT P22 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 10TH BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE HELD ON 20/09/2016. EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 11TH BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE STATE INSTITUTE OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE HELD ON 08/02/2017. EXHIBIT P24 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANNUAL DAY REPORT 5TH APRIL, 2016 SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM THROUGH E-MAIL. EXHIBIT P25 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANNUAL DAY REPORT 9TH APRIL, 2015 E-MAIL. EXHIBIT P26 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESULTS OF CAMPUS PLACEMENTS -SIHM KOZHIKODE E-MAIL DATED 10/12/2013.** **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015** **27** |**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CLASSES HAVE COMMENCED E-**| |---|---| ||**MAIL DATED 20/07/2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CAMPUS INTERVIEWS RESULTS**| ||**E-MAIL DATED 13/11/2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P29**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT ON THE VISIT OF**| ||**SRI. NAR SIGH, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NCHMCT**| ||**AND SRI. RJNISH THAPAD, HOD, IHM SHIMLA ON**| ||**8 MAY, 2013 AT SIHM KOZHIKODE E-MAIL DATED**| ||**09/05/2013.**| |**EXHIBIT P30**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS INSTITUTE**| ||**OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT CATERING & NUTRITION**| ||**(STATE INSTITUTE OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT,**| ||**KOZHIKODE) INCOURSE MARKS FOR SEMESTER-VI**| ||**OF 3 YEAR B.SC IN HOSPITALITY AND HOTEL**| ||**ADMINISTRATION FOR THE ACADEMIC SESSION**| ||**2014-2015 OF THE PRINCIPAL, SIHM,**| ||**KOZHIKODE.**| |**EXHIBIT P31**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ANNEXURE I-TEACHING SCHEME**| ||**AS PER SIHM TIME TABLE FOR SEMESTER II AND**| ||**ANNEXURE I TEACHING SCHEME AS PER SIHM TIME**| ||**TABLE FOR 3RD/4TH SEMESTER AND ANNEXURE I-**| ||**TEACHING SCHEME AS PER SIHM TIME TABLE FOR**| ||**6TH SEMESTER-LESSON PLAN IN THE INSTITUTE.**| |**EXHIBIT P32**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF GUEST FACULTY**| ||**2013-14.**| |**EXHIBIT P33**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ANTI-**| ||**RAGGING COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH ANTI RAGGING**| ||**MEASURES OF THE PRINCIPAL, STATE INSTITUTE**| ||**OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, KOZHIKODE.**| |**EXHIBIT P34**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER FILE NO.**| ||**1(11)/2000-HRD (VOL.V) DATED 24/08/2018**| ||**ALONG WITH THE REVISED RECRUITMENT RULES**| ||**FOR THE POST OF PRINCIPAL UNDER THE CENTRAL**| ||**INSTITUTES OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT OF THE UNDER**| ||**SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.**| |**RESPONDENTS'**|| |**EXHIBITS:**|| |**EXHIBIT R4(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM THE MINISTRY OF**| ||**TOURISM, HRD DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA**| ||**DATED 21.09.2007.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(B)**|**G.O.(MS)NO.178/2008/TSM DATED 07.06.2008.**| **W.P.(C)No.38272 of 2015 28**