Kerala High Court
Anju Lis Kurian vs The Mahatma Gandhi University on 17 July, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020
2025:KER:52774
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 3638 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
ANJU LIS KURIAN,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MANUAL THOMAS, KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE,
NEELOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM - 686 651.
BY ADVS.
SRI D.KISHORE
SMT.MINI GOPINATH
SMT.MEERA KISHORE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O.,
KOTTAYAM - 686 560.
2 THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GAN
DHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.
3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION),
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS
P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 560.
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020
2025:KER:52774
2
4 MATHEW A.VARGHESE,
AKKANAD, UC COLLEGE P.O.,
ALUVA - 683 102.
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R3 BY SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC
R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).6261/2020, THE COURT ON
17.7.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020
2025:KER:52774
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THTHURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6261 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
DR. G.GEETHIKA
AGED 38 YEARS
D/O. SRI. R.PRASAD, RESIDING AT NARAYANAMANGALAM,
THADIYOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 545
BY ADVS.
SRI O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI VISHNUDAS HARIDAS
SRI S.ABHILASH(K/001641/1995)
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS
P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560
2 THE SYNDICATE
REPRESENTED BY THE VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA,
KOTTAYAM-686 560
3 THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
( INTERNATIONAL RELATION AND POLITICS),REPRESENTED
BY THE EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN, THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS
P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM-686 560
4 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)
NEW DELHI,PIN-110 001
5 ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES (AIU)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL, 6-AIU HOUSE,
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020
2025:KER:52774
4
COMRADE INDRAJIT GUPTA (KOTLA) MARG,
NEW DELHI ,PIN-110 002
6 DR. MATHEW A.VARGHESE
AKKANAD (HILL VIEW ) U.C.COLLEGE P.O.,
ALUVA -683 102
7 DR.ANJU LIS KURIAN,
W/O. SRI. MANUAL THOMAS, KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE,
NEELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 651
BY ADVS.
SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SMT.O.M.SHALINA
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
SRI.D.KISHORE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
08.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).3638/2020, THE COURT ON
17.7.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020
2025:KER:52774
5
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Both these writ petitions relate to the selection and appointment of Assistant Professor in International Relations and Politics in the 1st respondent University (hereinafter referred to as the University). They are hence heard and disposed of together. The 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.3638 of 2020, arrayed as the 6 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.6261 of 2020, was selected for the post, and the petitioners in these two writ petitions are candidates who could not get selected. The parties are referred to as per their status in W.P.(C)No.6261 of 2020, which is treated as the main case. The reference to the exhibits is also as marked in W.P. (C)NO.6261 of 2020, except in the case of exhibits that are not produced in W.P.(C)No.6261 of 2020.
2. W.P.(C).No.3638 of 2020 has been filed with the following prayers:
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 6 "a. Call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit P6 rank list and quash the same to the extent it includes the 4th respondent as Rank. No.1 therein by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order.
b. Call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit P12 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction, or order. c. Declare that Exhibits P9 and P9(a) documents submitted by the 4th respondent for securing scores for interview for the post of Assistant Professor in furtherance to Exhibit P1 notification could not have been considered by the respondents 1 and 2 as the 4 th respondent failed to submit the Eligibility/Equivalency Certificate with respect to his M.Phil and Ph.D Degrees prior to the last date stipulated for submission of application in the selection notification and that the inclusion of the name of the 4 th respondent in Exhibit P6 ranked list is illegal.
d. Declare that Exhibit P9(a) Eligibility Certificate issued to the 4th respondent by the 2nd respondent, cannot be reckoned for awarding any score for selection in furtherance to Exhibit P1 notification as the same was not issued in accordance with Exhibit P10 Regulations. e. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the appointment given to the 4th W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 7 respondent on the basis of Exhibit P6, forthwith.
f. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2 nd respondent to appoint the petitioner to solitary post of Assistant Professor in the School of International Relations and Politics in furtherance to Exhibit Pl and in accordance with Exhibit P6 rank list, expeditiously. g. grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. W.P.(C)No.6261 of 2020 has been filed with the following prayers:
(i) to declare that the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Anthropology- "Spatial Reconfigurations and New Social Formations-", from University of Bergen, Norway obtained by the 6th respondent has not been recognised as equivalent to Ph.D degree in International Relations and Politics awarded by any of the Universities established under any of the Universities in the Country and the Association of Indian Universities is not invested with any power or authority under any Act of Parliament or State Legislature or by any Rule, Ordinance or Statutes or by any executive Order passed by the Central Government or any State Government to recognise Ph.D degree awarded by the foreign Universities as equivalent to the Ph.D degrees awarded by the Universities established under the Central Act or Acts of States and Statutes thereunder;
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 8
(ii) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P-13 Rank List, Exhibit P-19 Order dated 23-09-2019 and to quash the same to the extent they relate to the respondents 6 and 7 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction, order;
(iii) to declare that allocation of 19 score out of maximum 20 score, which is 95%, to the 6th respondent for Interview Performance was arbitrary and excessive and it had the effect of distorting the entire process of selection by introducing in a preponderant measure subjective element which made the determining factor and tilted the scale in favour of the 6th respondent which is vitiated by arbitrariness, favouritism, nepotism besides being discriminatory, offending Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India;
(iv) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P-22 Equivalency Certificate dated 24-08-2018 issued by the 5th respondent-Association and to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction, order
(v) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to give 8 more score to the petitioner towards Serial No. 6 in Part A for research Papers/Publications in International Journals and 2 score against serial No. 3(e)-Young Scientist Award/ Other Awards by Academic Bodies in Part B of Exhibit P18 strictly in terms of Exhibit P-3 UGC Regulations, 2010 and to increase the grand total W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 9 score of the petitioner to 64.60 and place her at rank No. 1 in Exhibit P-13 Ranked List;
(vi) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 3rd respondent to deduct 13.20 score against serial Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 in Part A and against Serial No.1 in part B in Exhibit P-16 and to allocate 47 grand total score to the 6th respondent and place him at the appropriate rank based on his score in Exhibit P-13 Ranked List;
(vii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in International Relations and Politics replacing the 6th respondent with effect from date on which he was appointed to the post with all consequential service benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.
(viii) to issue such other writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case; and
(ix) to award cost to the petitioner."
4. The petitioner and the 6th and 7th respondents applied for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in International Relations and Politics, in the University, pursuant to Ext.P1 Employment Notification dated 28.4.2018. The qualifications and eligibility are prescribed in Exhibit P1, and the upper age limit stipulated is not more than 40 years as on W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 10 1.1.2018. The last date for submission of the application online was 4.6.2018, and by post was on 9.6.2018. It is also stated in Ext.P1 that Degrees obtained from Universities/Institutions outside the State of Kerala shall be accompanied by the required equivalence certificate obtained from the M.G. University. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED AS PER EXT.P1:
5. The notification says that the UGC norms regarding qualifications will apply. As per Ext.P3 UGC Regulations dated 30.6.2010, the candidate should have good academic record as defined by the concerned University with at least 55% marks at the Master's Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university and must have cleared NET conducted by the UGC. A candidate who has been awarded a Ph.D in accordance with the UGC Regulations of 2009 is exempted from the requirement of clearing NET, for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor.
NET is also not required for the Master's Programmes for which NET is not conducted.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 6 & 7:
6. The petitioner obtained a B.A. Degree in Mass W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 11 Communication and Video Production in 2003 from the University of Kerala and Master of Arts (Regular) in "Politics and International Relations" in 2005, from the MG University Kottayam with 83%.
She was awarded a Ph.D in Social Science (International Relations and Politics) for the Thesis "IPR, International Conventions and TRIPS: the Indian Experience in the Realm of Public Health" by the MG University on 5.6.2017. She passed the NET in International and Area Studies, included at the Sl. No.90 in the list of NET subjects, published by the UGC-NET(Bureau) in 2005. The eligibility conditions for NET require the candidates to appear in the subject of their post-graduation alone.
7. The 6th respondent obtained a B.A. Degree in Psychology in the year 2001 and an M.A.Degree in Politics and International Relations in the year 2005 from the M.G. University. He has been awarded an M.Phil by the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Bergen on 5.9.2006 and a Ph.D by the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Bergen on 14.6.2013. The title of the Thesis for M.Phil is "New Urban Spatialities: Public Spaces and New Religious Assertions in Ernakulam Urban Complex" and W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 12 the thesis for Ph.D is "Spatial Reconfigurations and New Social Formations: The Contemporary Urban Context of Kerala". He cleared the NET in International and Area Studies in December 2013.
8. The 7th respondent obtained a B.A. Degree in History with 73% marks in 2004, and M.A. Degree in Politics and International Relations with 76% marks and 2nd rank in 2007, from M.G. University. In addition, the 7 th respondent has also obtained an M.A. Degree in Economics, the results of which were published later. She was awarded M.Phil for the Thesis "Problems of Regional Co-operation and Security in South Asia- A case study of SAARC"
from the Faculty of Social Sciences, M.G.University on 30.6.2009 and Ph.D for the thesis "Regional Cooperation and energy security:
The European Union experience" from the faculty of Social Sciences, M.G.University on 29.9.2014. The 7 th respondent claims that she is also entitled to marks for her research qualifications and research publication.
9. The petitioner has produced the score sheet as Ext.P4 along with W.P.(C)No.3638 of 2020 to show that specified scores W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 13 are stipulated for the acquisition of qualifications, and the same cannot be diluted or watered down. Column No.2 of Exhibit P4 prescribes the academic record, Column No.3 prescribes the scores to be awarded, and Column No.3 is to be filled up by the candidates themselves.
10. On 17.8.2019, the University published Ext.P13 rank list for appointment as Assistant Professor in the School of International Relations and Politics for the solitary post. Respondents 6 and 7, and the petitioner, are included in Ext.P13 against Ranks 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
ARGUMENTS:
11. Sri O.V.Radhakrishnan, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6261 of 2020 instructed by Sri Vishnudas Haridas contended that the 1st respondent ought to have summarily rejected the application submitted by the 6 th respondent as defective since it was not accompanied by equivalence certificate from the MG University for degrees obtained from outside Kerala. Ext.P3 Regulation was referred to regarding the qualification and evaluation process. The primary W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 14 contention raised is that the qualification of the candidate should be in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an Accredited Foreign University. It is submitted that the relevant subject, which has been mentioned against the Master's Degree level in the UGC Regulation, must be applied in the case of Ph.D qualification also. It is pointed out that a contrary view would lead to an anomalous situation where a person with an M.A. Degree in Music or History would be qualified to be appointed as a Reader in Political Science. It is submitted that the words "a relevant subject" must be read as "the relevant subject". On the facts of the case, it is submitted that the relevant subject is International Relations and Politics. According to the counsel, the 6th respondent did not produce an equivalence certificate issued by the 1st respondent certifying that the M.Phil Degree obtained from the Foreign University is equivalent to the M.Phil Degree in the relevant subject of International Relations and Politics, which is the discipline specified in Ext.P1 notification, which is also the case with the Ph.D degree awarded by the Foreign University. It is hence contended that the '2' marks awarded for M.Phil Degree and W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 15 '6' marks awarded for Ph.D Degree are wrongly granted and ought to be reduced from the total score of the 6 th respondent. The counsel submits that the justification offered that the University of Bergen, from where the qualifications were obtained, is a Public University with a top-tier ranking in the world University rankings, cannot be a defence in such circumstances. It is submitted that the insistence on an equivalence certificate would become meaningless if such contentions were to be accepted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharath Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534 - para.13]. The contention that the Ph.D. Degree obtained from a Foreign University/Institution, with a ranking among the top 500 in the world university ranking, can be accepted as per the UGC regulations introduced on 18.07.2018, is met by submitting that the said Regulations cannot be applied in the case of a selection based on a notification issued on 28.04.2018. It is submitted that the 6th respondent joined M.Phil course (Course period 01.08.2004 to 01.07.2006) even before he completed his Master's Degree in August 2005, and that was against what is contemplated in W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 16 Statute 6, Chapter 14 of the M.G. University Statute 1997. Another contention is that Ext.P26 Eligibility Certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University on 15.10.2018, after the cut-off date of 04.06.2018, cannot be taken as a document showing equivalence of the Ph.D Degree obtained by the 6 th respondent. The counsel further submitted that going by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. [1993 (Suppl) 3 SCC 575], the eligibility for recruitment to a service is a condition of recruitment, which needs to be complied with, for being eligible for consideration, and the same cannot be relaxed. Regarding the contention in the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent that the candidates who could not submit the equivalence certificates along with the applications were permitted to produce the same at the time of the interview, it is submitted that the condition regarding submission of the equivalence certificate could not have been relaxed in the case of the 6 th respondent alone. Regarding the cut- off date, the counsel referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Rajasthan v. Hitendra Kumar W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 17 Bhatt [1997 6 SCC 574], Mohd. Sartaj & Anr. v. State of U.P & Ors. [(2006) 2 SCC 315], Ext.P45 judgment in Nisha Vellapan Nair v.Mahatma Gandhi University [W.A.No.957 of 2022], Harpal Kaur Chahal (Smt) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab & Anr. [1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706], Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar & Anr. [1997 4 SCC 18], and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar Misra [2017 11 SCC 521].
12. Another contention is that Ext.P6 Eligibility Certificate only says that the Ph.D awarded by the University of Bergen is recognized and does not state that it is treated as equivalent. The counsel further contended that there is nothing to show that the Ph.D Degree was awarded to the 6th respondent in the relevant subject of International Relations and Politics.
13. The Senior Counsel referred to Ext.P22, which is an equivalence certificate issued by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) regarding the Ph.D. awarded to the 6 th respondent, wherein it is stated that the Ph.D. qualification is equated with Doctor of Philosophy Degree in the corresponding W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 18 field of an Indian University. The counsel submits that what exactly is a corresponding field, and which is the University which is granting such a degree is not stated in Ext.P22. It is further submitted that the said certificate is one granted by a Society and cannot be treated as an equivalence certificate. It is contended that the claim in the statement filed by the Standing Counsel for the Association of Indian Universities, that the AIU is vested with the power of according academic equivalence to the degrees obtained from Accredited Foreign Institutions/Universities, is incorrect and misleading. The counsel submits that no source of power has been mentioned, and AIU is not a statutory authority vested with any such powers. Reference is made to the judgment in Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. State of UP & Ors. [2020 4 SCC 86] and Dr. B. L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [AIR 1982 SC 933] to submit that the equivalence of a qualification must be declared by a body entrusted with such jurisdiction and competent to do so. It is argued that Ext.P23 notification dated 13.3.1995, whereby the Government of India decided to recognise Foreign Universities recognised by the AIU, for employment to the posts W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 19 and services under the Central Government, cannot be extended to employment to the posts and services under the Universities established under different Statutes. Reliance is placed on the public notice issued on 19.7.2016 by the UGC (Ext.P46 in W.P. (C)No.6261 of 2020) to submit that the UGC has declared that equivalence of degrees, diplomas, certificates, etc. are not determined by the UGC, and that, in the case of higher education equivalence is decided by the University concerned and in cases of employment, promotion, etc. equivalence is determined by the employer.
14. Referring to Ext.P16 score sheet, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the 6th respondent has been given '12' marks towards Sl.No.6, that is, Research Papers under Part A. It is submitted that the 6th respondent claimed only two research publications in Ext.P20 application, regarding the research publication titled "Urban Utopias; Excess and Expulsion in Neo Liberal India and Sri Lanka". It is submitted that it is a co-edited book, and the 6th respondent was eligible only for a 60% score as per Note 2 to category 3 in Ext.P3, which would be 2.40 marks. W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 20 For both publications claimed by the 6 th respondent, it is submitted that he is entitled to get only 6.40 marks as against 12 marks awarded to him.
15. Regarding post-doctoral experience, for which the 6 th respondent had been granted '1' mark against the maximum score of '2', it is submitted that the 6 th respondent was not entitled to any mark since even as per the claim of the 6 th respondent, his post-doctoral experience in Indian Institute of Advanced Studies started only from 31.08.2017 and he did not even complete one year on the last date of application, which was 04.06.2018. It is submitted that he had post-doctoral experience of only 9 months.
16. Sri.D. Kishore, appearing for the 7th respondent, who is also the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3638/2020, endorsed the arguments of the Senior Counsel. He pointed out that the 6 th respondent had applied without producing the Equivalence Certificate as was required. It is submitted that Ext.P9 Equivalence Certificate issued by the Association of Indian Universities is dated 24.08.2018, which is after the last date for submission of the application as per Ext.P1 notification. The W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 21 Eligibility Certificate issued by the M.G. University regarding the Ph.D Degree awarded to the 6th respondent is dated 15.10.2018, which is also after the last date for applying. It is pointed out that the 6th respondent applied for Eligibility Certificate to the M.G. University only in October 2018 and Ext.P9(b) produced along with W.P.(C) No.3638/2020 would show that the application was verified and accepted on 12.10.2018 by the Assistant, was verified by the Section Officer on 14.10.2018 and the application was verified and approved on 15.10.2018 by the Assistant Registrar. It is pointed out that 12.10.2018 was a Friday, that the application was verified on 14.10.2018, a Sunday, by the Section Officer, and was approved on Monday (15.10.2018) by the Assistant Registrar. Counsel referred to Ext.P10 notification dated 25.09.2016 issued by the Mahatma University, which is produced along with W.P.(C) No.3638/2020, which contains the Regulations for recognition/equivalency of academic programs. It is pointed out that as per Regulation 9, in case of Degrees obtained from Universities which are not members of Association of Indian Universities, issue of Eligibility Certificate shall be decided by the W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 22 Academic Council on the recommendation of the Chairman of Board of Studies/Convener of Expert Committee and the Dean of Faculty concerned and in the case of Degree, Diploma/other programs of Foreign Universities/institutions, issue of Eligibility Certificate shall be decided by the Academic Council on the recommendations of the Chairman of the Board of Studies/Convener of Expert Committee and the Dean of Faculty concerned. It is pointed out that Ext.P9(b) would show that the application was approved without any consideration by either the Board of Studies or the Academic Council. It is stated that the file had not even been placed before the Academic Council or the Board of Studies, and hence, such a certificate cannot be relied upon.
17. The counsel referred to the notification dated 17.03.2017, whereby the Academic Council had approved the amendment to the Regulations dated 25.09.2016. As per the amended Regulation 8(2), the Ph.D/D.Sc. Degrees in a particular topic/subject of Foreign Universities/institutions, which are members of the International Association of Universities, shall be W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 23 recognised if the name of the course/institution is included in the approved list of courses and institutions officially published by UGC/the Association of Indian Universities. As per Regulation 8(3), the Ph.D/D.Sc. Degrees in a particular topic/subject of Foreign Universities/institutions that are members of the International Association of Universities, shall be recognised as equivalent to the Ph.D/DSc./Degrees in the same subject of study as recorded in the Degree Certificate. Such application for recognition/equivalency of Ph.D/D.Sc./Degrees of Foreign Universities/institutions shall be accompanied by an Equivalence Certificate from the Association of Indian Universities. If the subject of study is not specified in the Degree Certificate/Equivalent Certificate issued by the Association of Indian Universities, the Director of Research is authorised to make recommendation in consultation with Dean/Chairman, Board of Studies (PG) if necessary, regarding the subject to which the area of research is related. The recommendation of the Director of Research should be placed before the Academic Council for approval. It is pointed out that the Regulation lays down the W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 24 procedure for the issuance of an Equivalency Certificate and recognition of courses, and that no valid Equivalency Certificate or Eligibility Certificate could have been issued without following the said procedure. The counsel relied on Ext.P13(a) produced along with the reply affidavit in W.P.(C) No.3638/2020 to submit that the 6th respondent does not have any post-doctoral experience in the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies as claimed. Another contention is that the 6th respondent has been wrongly granted marks for the Young Scientist Award as seen from Ext.P8(a) score sheet produced along with W.P.(C) No.3638/2020. The letter dated 19.06.2014, from the University of Bergen, which the 6 th respondent has produced as Ext.R4(b) along with his counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.3638/2020, shows that he did his M.Phil program in the Faculty of Social Sciences, as part of the Norad Fellowship Program. It is submitted that the Norad Fellowship Program cannot be treated as a Young Scientist Award. The Counsel submits that 15 marks are to be deducted from the marks awarded to the 6th respondent. The counsel relied on the decision in Sudhir Singh v. State of U.P. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1394], W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 25 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the basic question on eligibility has to be determined based on the cut-off date/point of time which stands crystallised by the date of the advertisement itself, being the last date of submission of application forms, unless extended by the authority concerned. The Apex Court had in the said judgment referred to the decision in State of Bihar v. Madhu Kant Ranjan [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1262], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken the view that as per the settled proposition of law, a candidate/applicant has to comply with all the conditions/eligibility criteria as per the advertisement before the cut-off date mentioned therein unless extended by the recruiting authority.
18. Sri.Surin George Ipe, appearing for the University, referring to Exts.P1 and P3, submitted that the required eligibility as per the UGC Regulations is a Masters' level with at least 55% marks and the NET qualification. It is submitted that having a Ph.D. degree would exempt a candidate from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET. It is submitted that the 6th respondent has the NET qualification in International and Area W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 26 Studies from 21.04.2014. The counsel referred to the general conditions 5 & 6 in Ext.P1 to submit that what is required to be produced along with the application is only the documents relating to the basic qualifications of Degree and Post Graduation since it is specifically stated that the applicants need not upload certificate/documents to prove their claims in the online application form. The Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners in both these cases have their Post Graduate Degree in M.A. Politics and International Relations, which is the relevant subject as per Ext.P1. The 6 th respondent also has the very same qualification. The counsel submits that the general condition No.6 in Ext.P1 application relates to the eligibility criteria and not to the M.Phil and Ph.D Degree Certificates, which are additional qualifications. It is pointed out that the proforma for submitting applications relates the educational qualifications of UG and PG Degree with the "Subject" and the research qualifications like the M.Phil and Ph.D with the "Faculty". It is submitted that the research can go beyond the subject. Regarding the overlapping of the PG and M.Phil course, the counsel referred to paragraph 5 of W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 27 the additional counter affidavit, to state that the M.Phil program at Bergen was a two-year program, and the 6 th respondent got admission before his M.A. Viva Voce. It is submitted that he was awarded his M.A.Degree in August 2005, well before the University of Bergen granted his M.Phil Degree. The M.Phil at Bergen was a four-semester program of academic courses and supervised research leading to a thesis, which was more elaborate in content, structure, and duration than the shorter 12-month Programme of the 1st Respondent University. It is also submitted that the copy of the M.Phil Degree was submitted with the hard copy of the application, and supplementary documents regarding the Programme and the Thesis were submitted by the 6 th respondent at the time of the interview. Ext.R6(c) letter, issued to the candidates before the interview, requires the candidates to produce the originals of the documents mentioned therein at the time of the interview. It is hence submitted that the contentions of the petitioners that the application submitted by the 6 th respondent should have been rejected since it was not accompanied by the Equivalency Certificate cannot be sustained. W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 28 The Standing Counsel further submitted that the 6 th respondent has continued in employment and his probation has been declared, and three research scholars are working under his guidance. It is contended that this Court cannot redo the selection process, as if in an appeal, particularly since the selection was carried out by an Expert Committee.
19. Sri P.C.Sasidharan, counsel appearing for the selected candidate (7th respondent in W.P.(C)No.6261 of 2020) referred to paragraphs 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.1 of the UGC Regulations 2010, which relate to qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Arts, Humanities, Science, Social Science, Commerce, Education, Languages, Journalism and Mass Communication and Assistant Professor in Music and Dance, to submit that in the case of the former what is stated is Masters Degree Level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university while in the case of the latter, what is stated is Masters Degree Level in the relevant subject from an Indian/Foreign University. The decisions in Gijo Ittoop v. Kerala University of Fisheries & Ors. [2018 (4) KHC 285], Sunil W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 29 Kumar P. v. Cochin Devaswom Board, Thrissur & Ors. [2016 (5) KHC 397], and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [2008 (9) SCC 284] are relied on in support. Regarding the question of equivalency, it is submitted that the 5 th respondent has specifically stated that the certificate issued to the 6th respondent is genuine. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Praveen Kumar C.P. v. KPSC [2021 (17) SCC 383] to submit that an equivalency certificate issued later is sufficient to show equivalence. The counsel contended that a 7-member Expert Committee had accepted the credentials of the 6 th respondent as sufficient for selection, and even if two views are possible, the views of the Experts cannot be interfered with. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Ganapath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University [(2014) 3 SCC 767]. It is submitted that there are no allegations of malafides against the Selection Committee, and hence the finding of the Selection Committee cannot be subjected to scrutiny as if in an appeal. It is pointed out that the challenge is made six months after the appointment, and after having participated in the selection process, the petitioners W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 30 are estopped from challenging the process. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. [2023 (17) SCC 147] and Vosto Paul v. P.S.C & Anr. [2000 KHC 857]. It is also contended that the prayers in the writ petition are in effect seeking to redo the selection process, which is not legally permissible.
20. The questions that arise for decision in these writ petitioners can be summarised as follows:
A. Whether the application submitted by the 6 th respondent should have been rejected at the threshold since the equivalence certificate regarding the Ph.D. qualification was not submitted along with?
B. Whether the Court can examine the marks awarded by the Selection Committee to each of the candidates and decide on the correctness of the same?
C. Whether the 6th respondent's Ph.D. qualification can be treated as one in the relevant subject? W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 31 D. Whether the marks awarded for the Interview are in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?
E. Whether the Selection Committee could have accepted the equivalence certificates submitted at the time of the interview and granted marks for the academic qualifications of the 6th respondent?
21. The role of the Court in matters of selection made by an expert selection committee has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P & Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 179] in the following words:
"14. Judicial review of administrative actions are permissible on the grounds of illegality, unreasonableness or irrationality and procedural irregularity. Lord Diplock 6 succinctly de- scribed each of the aforementioned grounds for judicial re- view as under:
"By "illegality" as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 32 persons, the Judges, by whom the judicial power of the State is exercisable.
By "irrationality" I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corpn., [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (CA)] unreasonableness". It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that Judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system. To justify the court's exercise of this role, resort I think is today no longer needed to Viscount Radcliffe's ingenious explanation in Edwards v. Bairstow [Edwards v. Bairstow, [1956] A.C. 14 : [1955] 3 WLR 410 (HL)], of irrationality as a ground for a court's reversal of a decision by ascribing it to an inferred though unidentifiable mistake of law by the decision-maker. "Irrationality" by now can stand on its own feet as an accepted ground on which a decision may be attacked by judicial review.
I have described the third head as "procedural impropriety"
rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an Administrative Tribunal to observe procedural W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 33 rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice. But the instant case is not concerned with the proceedings of an Administrative Tribunal at all."
15. It is equally well-settled that courts under its writ jurisdiction do not interfere with selections made by expert bodies by reassessing the comparative merits of the candidates. Interference with selections is limited to decisions vitiated by bias, malafides and violation of statutory provisions7. Additionally, this Court has also held that administrative action can be reviewed on the ground of proportionality if it affects fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
22. With the above larger principle in mind, I shall proceed to consider the questions that have been posed above. Question A: Whether the application submitted by the 6 th respondent should have been rejected at the threshold since the equivalence certificate regarding the Ph.D. qualification was not submitted along with?
Question C: Whether the 6th respondent's Ph.D. qualification can be treated as one in the relevant subject?
Question E: Whether the Selection Committee could have accepted the equivalence certificates submitted at the time of the W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 34 interview and granted marks for the academic qualifications of the 6th respondent?
23. The Questions A, C and E are intrinsically connected, and the arguments were also overlapping and are hence considered together. The petitioners argued that, going by the General Conditions in Ext.P1, the 6 th respondent ought to have submitted the equivalence certificate regarding degrees obtained from Universities/Institutions outside the State of Kerala along with the application. Condition No.5 of Ext.P1 says that the last date for online submission of applications will be 4.6.2018. It further says that the applicants need not upload certificates/documents in proof of claim mentioned in the online application form. It is further stated that 8 hard copies of the duly completed online application and self-attested copies of all certificates and documents shall be sent to the Deputy Registrar II (Administration), Mahatma Gandhi University, on or before 9.6.2018. Condition No.6 says that the degrees obtained from Universities/Institutions outside the State of Kerala shall be accompanied by the required equivalence certificate obtained from W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 35 the University. According to the petitioners, the said requirement would relate to all certificates and documents and not merely the certificates required to prove the minimum eligibility. According to them, the document to prove the Ph.D. qualification granted by a Foreign University should have been accompanied by an equivalence certificate. The counsel for the University submits that the above conditions apply only to the minimum qualification, which is the Master's Degree in a relevant subject. Referring to the UGC Regulations, para.4.4.4.1, it is submitted that the requirement was a Master's Degree level in a relevant subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited Foreign University, along with clearing of the NET. Reading the above conditions along with the general conditions in Ext.P1, it is submitted that if a candidate's minimum qualification is an equivalent Master's Degree from a Foreign University, the equivalence certificate necessarily has to accompany the application and there is no requirement that the equivalence certificates concerning the Ph.D. Degree should also accompany the application. It is further submitted that the relevance of Ph.D. W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 36 Degree at the stage of sending the application is only to see whether the candidate has to submit details of the NET qualification. It is submitted that in the case at hand, the petitioners in both these writ petitions, as well as the 6 th respondent, have the minimum qualification of a Master's Degree as well as the NET qualification, and the application of the 6 th respondent could not have been rejected at the threshold.
24. In Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, [(2001) 8 SCC 546], which was relied on by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the stage at which the equivalence of Foreign degree is to be considered and whether reliance can be placed on a book published by the Association of Indian University which said that the BA (Hons.) degree possessed by the appellant is not equivalent to Master's degree of Aligarh University, to say that the appellant before the Court lacked essential qualification for appointment as Lecturer. The Apex Court held that the contents of the publication, apart from the book itself, cannot be ascribed with any official sanctity or binding force or authority and that the High Court failed W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 37 to take into account the fact that the appellant had already obtained M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees from the respondent University. It was found that at the time of his admission to M.Phil. leading to Ph.D. course in the Department of Philosophy, the question of equivalence in qualification was examined in detail and the Academic Council approved his admission to M.Phil. or Ph.D. course. The Court held that the equivalence of qualification has to be determined before a person is allowed to undergo a course. The above question does not arise in this case and the dictum laid down does not have any application.
25. In Prakash Chand Meena & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 484], it was held that the equivalence clarified or declared subsequently, cannot be the basis for selection and that the equivalent qualification should be recognized as such in the Recruitment Rules or Government Order existing on or before the initiation of recruitment process. On facts, the court was considering selection to the post of Physical Training Inspector Grade III for which the qualification prescribed was a Certificate in Physical Education apart from Senior W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 38 Secondary Certificate of Board of Secondary Education. After the selection process started, a news item was published stating that persons with graduation or Diploma in Physical Education can also be considered since the said qualification was higher than the Certificate in Physical Education. This resulted in the select list containing only persons with the said qualifications and the certificate holders being seriously affected. The above change of criterion after selection process was frowned upon by the Apex Court. The above judgment is also distinguishable on facts, since in the case on hand the basic qualification has not in any manner been changed after the selection process started.
26. In Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab [2010 (11) SCC 455], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, and that equality cannot be claimed in illegality. The Court also held that post-haste action in making allotment within 48 hours of the application leads to a presumption of malafides. The Senior Counsel submitted that the above decision applies to the facts of the case, since the action on the application for issuance of equivalence certificate and the grant of W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 39 the same within a couple of days, suggested malafides.
27. In Dr.B.L.Asawa (supra), the appellant's application to the post of Lecturer in Forensic Medicine was rejected, stating that he did not possess the necessary academic qualification. The appellant possessed an MD Degree in Forensic Medicine from the University of Bihar, Muzaffarpur and was working as a Lecturer in Forensic Medicine in a Government Medical College in Rajasthan on a temporary basis. The application was rejected since the MD degree in Forensic Medicine was not one granted by the University of Rajasthan, and was not recognized by the University of Rajasthan, as an equivalent qualification. It was the admitted case that the University of Rajasthan was not conducting Post Graduate Examinations in the subject Forensic Medicine. It was also admitted that the University of Bihar was one duly established by Statute and the MD Degree in Forensic Medicine was included in the schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Apex Court held that there can be a declaration of equivalence only as between a qualification obtained from a body different from the one awarded by the concerned University, and hence, the rejection W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 40 of the application of the appellant was not justified.
28. In Mukul Kumar Tyagi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the sufficiency of self-certification of equivalence of the qualification. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the issue is of the equivalence of a qualification, which is a mandatory qualification of a post, there should be yardsticks declaring equivalent or equivalence, which has to be declared by a body entrusted with such jurisdiction and that is competent to declare equivalence of a qualification. The Court further held that in the absence of such a declaration, the employer must prescribe the methodology for determining the equivalent qualification. The above judgment cannot be applied to a case where there is no dispute regarding the mandatory qualification for the post i.e., post graduation.
29. In Hitendra Kumar Bhatt (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a cut-off date by which all the requirements relating to qualifications must be obtained, cannot be ignored in an individual case. The Court held that there may be persons who would have applied had they known that the date for W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 41 acquiring the qualification was flexible. The Apex Court held that the continuance in service on account of interim orders of the court cannot be a reason not to disturb an appointment, which was made wrongly. The above dictum cannot be applied to the facts of this case. The case at hand is not one where the date for acquiring the required minimum qualification has been relaxed. The situation that other people could have applied for the post also does not arise, since the required qualification was post-graduation, regarding which there is no dispute. The issue involved is whether marks could have been given for additional qualifications like Ph.D and M.Phil, if the candidate had not produced the equivalence certificate along with the application.
30. In Mohd. Sartaj (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the equivalence of a degree, declared almost 10 years after the appointment, cannot be considered to decide on the equivalence. In the said case, persons were appointed in 1984 as Urdu Teachers based on Moallimm - e - Urdu qualification granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, while the required qualification was that of BTC. The appointment was cancelled within a month for want of W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 42 necessary qualification. The order of cancellation was stayed by the Court. Pending the proceedings, in 1994 orders were issued by the Government declaring equivalence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the equivalence of degree of Moallim-e- Urdu granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh with that of BTC in the year 1994, would not entail the benefit to the appellants on the date they were appointed. That was also a case where the equivalence regarding the minimum mandatory qualification was declared much later, and the case is distinguishable from the facts of these cases.
31. In Ext.P45 judgment in W.A.No.957/2020, a Division Bench of this Court, held that allowing a candidate to submit research publications at the time of the interview, without mentioning the details of the same in the application, amounts to a relaxation which was not permissible. This Court held that it would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game commenced. In the case at hand, the question is whether the equivalence certificate regarding a qualification, other than the minimum eligibility qualification, was required to be submitted W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 43 along with the application. The dictum in the writ appeal would be applicable only if it is held that, as per the UGC Regulation, the equivalence certificate regarding the Ph.D qualification was required to be submitted along with the application.
32. In Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the proposition that the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of application is a well-established one, which was affirmed in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168]. The judgment in Harpal Kaur Chahal (supra) also lays down the same proposition. The above judgments will not apply to the facts of this case. In the case at hand, the question involved is whether the equivalence certificate regarding an additional qualification can be submitted after the last date for submission of the application. There is no contention that the 6th respondent did not possess the minimum eligibility of Masters Degree in the relevant subject on the date of the application.
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 44
33. To buttress the submission that the 6 th respondent did not possess the eligibility qualifications at the time of submission of the application and hence not eligible to be considered for the post, reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Misra (supra). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules, an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, prescribed under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. In Dy. Director of Public Instruction and District Recruitment Authority v. Shaik Moula [(2006) 12 SCC 370], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whether a particular qualification is equivalent to another must be specifically indicated and cannot be inferred. The above decisions also do not take the case of the petitioners any further.
34. The Senior Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi (supra) to submit that the W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 45 recruitment rules should be strictly complied with. The apex Court made the observations while dealing with the promotion to the Indian Police Service. The Apex Court held that the eligibility for recruitment to the Indian Police Service, is a condition of recruitment and not a condition of service and that seniority, though, normally an incidence of service, Seniority Rules, Recruitment Rules and Promotion Regulations form part of the conditions of recruitment to the Indian Police Service by promotion, which should be strictly complied with before becoming eligible for consideration for promotion and are not relaxable. There can be no dispute with the above proposition. The question would still be whether there is any violation of the recruitment rules or whether the conditions were relaxed in the case of the 6 th respondent. The decisions in Sudhir Singh (supra) and Madhu Kant Ranjan (supra) referred to by the Senior Counsel again, would not take the case of the petitioners forward, since the said judgments regarding the cut-off date for the purpose of basic eligibility.
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 46
35. Sri P.C.Sasidharan, appearing for the 6th respondent, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra). The said decision was concerning the question whether the requirement of a Master's degree in the relevant subject is to apply for appointment to the post of Reader, since the expression "the relevant subject" was not mentioned in the qualifications for appointment to the post of Reader. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was required to be read into the requirement. The said judgment will not strictly apply to the facts involved in this case. The Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ganapath Singh (supra). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether Mathematics will be "a relevant subject", for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Master of Computer Application. In paragraph 22 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the learned Single Judge of the High Court erred in accepting the argument that "relevant subject" would mean "such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA course". The notification considered by the Court was for appointment as Lecturer for the W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 47 Master of Computer Application course. In the case at hand, there is no dispute regarding the relevant subject when it comes to the eligibility qualification. The issue raised is only regarding the M.Phil. and Ph.D. qualifications.
36. In Praveen Kumar (supra), relied on by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the Apex Court held that the word "equivalence" in its plain meaning implies something which is equal to another and in the field of academics, application of the principle of equivalency in relation to degrees in two subjects would mean that they had the same standing or status all along, unless the official instrument according equivalency specifies a date from which the respective subjects would be treated as such, in express terms or by implication. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government Orders that specifically declared that the B.Ed. degrees of the candidates were equivalent to the designated subject which formed part of the employment notification, will have to be interpreted as clarificatory in nature and cannot be construed to have elevated the status or position of the degree they already had, after the declaration was made in the W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 48 Government Orders. The court held that the orders only recognised an existing situation so far as the nature of the degrees was concerned and did not create fresh value for the degrees which the appellants possessed. Based on the above legal principle, it is argued that submission of the equivalency certificate on a subsequent date will not in any manner change the factum of equivalency.
37. The Standing Counsel for the University pointed out that in University Grants Commission & Ors. v. Anand J.Illickan & Ors. [2015 KHC 477], a Division Bench of this Court considered the authority of the Association of Indian Universities to grant equivalence and held that such an authority has been statutorily recognized by the UGC Regulations 2010. It is hence submitted that the contention that the Association did not have any authority to grant equivalence cannot be countenanced.
38. Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side and the dictum laid down in the aforesaid cases, I find that the submission of the Standing Counsel for the University that there is no requirement to submit the equivalence W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 49 certificate relating to the Ph.D. degree along with the application is well-founded. The relevance of Ph.D. is to grant additional marks for academic qualifications. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in accepting the documents relating to the equivalence of the extra qualifications, after the last date for submission of applications. It is not the minimum qualification required to apply for the post. Any person having the prescribed Master's Degree and the NET qualification could have applied for the post. I hence hold that merely because the equivalence certificate relating to the Ph.D. qualification was not submitted along with the application, the application submitted by the 6th respondent could not have been rejected at the threshold.
39. Coming to the question whether the candidate should have Ph.D. Qualification in the "relevant subject" prescribed for the Masters degree, Exts.P1 and P2 do not say that Ph.D. is an essential qualification for the post. As already observed, the relevance of Ph.D. is for exemption from NET qualification. Admittedly, the petitioners and the 6th respondent have the required qualification of Masters degree in the relevant subject and W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 50 the corresponding NET qualification. The only question would then be whether marks can be awarded for the Ph.D. qualification of the 6th respondent, obtained from a Foreign University. The 6 th respondent has produced materials to show that the Ph.D. obtained by him is equated with the Doctor of Philosophy Degree in the corresponding field in an Indian University (Ext.P9) and that the said degree has been recognized by the Mahatma Gandhi University [Ext.P9(a)]. It can be seen from the application form submitted by the candidates that when it comes to the required educational qualifications the candidate has to specify the "subject" and when it comes to research qualifications like M.Phil and Ph.D, the candidate has to specify the "Faculty" and not the "subject". The contention that the research qualification should also be in the "relevant subject" is not correct. I find justification in the argument advanced by the Standing Counsel for the University in this regard.
40. In Dr.Bhanu Prasad Panda v. Chancellor, Sambalpur University & Ors. [(2001) 8 SCC 532], relied upon by the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the appellant before the W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 51 Apex Court was appointed as Lecturer in Political Science under the Department of Political Science and Public Administration. The appointment was annulled, finding that the appellant's minimum academic qualification was in Public Administration and not Political Science, though both subjects came under the same department. The High Court dismissed the challenge to the cancellation of the appointment, and the appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the requirement under the UGC Regulations, held that what is decisive is the minimum qualification in the relevant subject, which is Political Science; that subject matter-wise, it is different from Public Administration, and hence, the subject Public Administration cannot be treated as the relevant subject. Since, in the case on hand, the petitioner as well as respondents 6 and 7 have the minimum academic qualification in the relevant subject, i.e., their post graduate degree, the dictum laid down does not apply to the facts of this case. In this context, it is worthwhile to note the judgment in Sunil Kumar P. (supra), referred to by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 52 considered the difference between the words "a relevant subject"
and "the relevant subject" and held that the latter expression may be restrictive, while the former will take within its fold allied subjects that may have a close logical relationship with the particular subject, and that of the Division Bench of this Court in Gijo Ittoop (supra), where the Court after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganapath Singh (supra) and Rajbir Singh Dalal (supra), held that the words "a relevant subject", would mean that every such relevant subject can also be reckoned. If the said analogy is applied in the case of the Ph.D. degree of the 6th respondent, though it is not an essential qualification, there can be no dispute that the subject falls within the same faculty and is a relevant subject. Even otherwise, the question as to whether the Ph.D. qualification of the 6 th respondent is to be awarded marks is not a matter on which this Court should be offering its views, since it is not within the expertise of this Court. The matter has been considered by the Expert Selection Committee, and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee.
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 53
41. The Senior Counsel placed reliance on paragraph 56 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Jagdish Balaram Bahira [(2017) 8 SCC 670] to submit that the prescription of eligibility criteria has a significant public element in enabling the State to choose the best amongst competing claims. The Apex Court had observed that the selection of ineligible persons is a manifestation of a systemic failure and has a deleterious effect on good governance, that the selection of a person who is not eligible allows someone who is ineligible to gain access to scarce public resources, that the rights of eligible persons are violated since a person who is not eligible for the post is selected and that an illegality is perpetrated by bestowing benefits upon an imposter undeservingly. The above judgment was rendered in a fact situation where a person had obtained employment based on a false claim regarding caste status. The dictum cannot be applied to the facts of this case since such a situation does not arise in these writ petitions.
42. Coming to the question of whether the Selection Committee could have accepted the equivalence certificates W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 54 submitted at the time of the interview and granted marks for the academic qualifications of the 6th respondent, as already found, there was no requirement to submit the equivalence certificate along with the application. Ext.R6(c) Interview Memo issued by the University to the candidates lists out the documents that are to be produced at the time of the interview, which include the original certificates relating to the academic qualifications, the equivalence certificate, and other documents to prove the claims made in the application form. This is the procedure followed in the case of all the candidates and the Selection Committee was bound to consider the documents produced and arrive at an informed decision. The acceptance of the documents at the time of the interview cannot, hence, be found fault with, and the question is answered against the petitioners.
Question No.B: Whether the Court can examine the marks awarded by the Selection Committee to each of the candidates and decide on the correctness of the same?
43. The question whether this Court can, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 55 examine the marks awarded by the Selection Committee, as if in an appeal, is no longer res integra. In Pradeep Singh Dehal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [2019 KHC 6928], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered Section 39 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the UGC Regulations 2010, in the context of selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The question involved was regarding the awarding of marks for publications. The Apex Court held that awarding marks for publications falls within the domain of the experts, and the Court does not sit in the armchair of the experts to award marks for publications.
44. In Mary Senteria v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2011 (4) KLT 740], a learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering a case relating to the appointment to the post of Professor in the University, held that the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of the academicians, when the dispute relates educational affairs.
45. In Jasvinder Singh v. State of J&K [2003(2) SCC 132], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 56 specific allegations of any mala fides or bias against the Board constituted for selection or anyone in the Board, it cannot be held that a conscious effort was made to bring some candidates within the selection zone. The Court also observed that there is no guarantee that a person who fared well in the written test, will or should be presumed to have fared well in the viva-voce test also.
46. In the decision in Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra) relied upon by Sri P.C.Sasidharan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after participating in the interview without demur or protest, the same cannot be challenged subsequently, merely for the reason that the personal evaluation of the candidate about his performance was higher than the marks awarded by the Selection panel. In paragraph 37 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"37. Thus, courts while exercising the power of judicial review cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva voce are excessive and not corresponding to their performance in such test. The assessment and evaluation of the performance of candidates appearing before the Selection Committee/Interview Board should be best left to W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 57 the members of the committee. In light of the position that a Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken pursuant to a reasonably sound selection process, the following grounds raised by the writ petitioners, which are based on an attack of subjective criteria employed by the Selection Board/interview panel in assessing the suitability of candidates, namely, (i) that the candidates who had done their postgraduation had been awarded 10 marks and in the viva voce, such PG candidates had been granted either 18 marks or 20 marks out of 20; (ii) that although the writ petitioners had performed exceptionally well in the interview, the authorities had acted in an arbitrary manner while carrying out the selection process, would not hold any water.
47. The petitioners are not entitled to raise any contention regarding the marks granted in the interview or the total marks allotted for the performance in the interview. The Hon'ble Supreme Court frowned upon the action of the High Court in calling for the selection records and undertaking a fact-finding exercise, and rendering findings regarding the marks awarded to specific individuals and that too not based on the pleadings, and held that the writ court ought not do such things in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that while exercising the power of judicial review, the Courts cannot W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 58 step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role to examine whether the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce are excessive and not corresponding to the performance in the test and that such aspects should be left to the members of the Committee. True, the Counsel for the petitioners have argued in length regarding the correctness or otherwise of the marks awarded to the candidates under several heads. In view of the law declared in the above judgments, this Court will not be legally justified in examining the award of marks for the candidates by the Selection Committee and redo the selection process by adding or reducing marks to each of the candidates. These are all matters within the realm of the Expert Selection Committee.
Question D: Whether the marks awarded for the interview are in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?
48. In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that allocating 50 marks for interview as against 100 marks for written test, so that the marks allocated for the oral interview came to 33 1/3 per cent W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 59 of the total number of marks considered for making the selection, was excessive. The Apex Court held that allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, cannot be accepted by the court as free from the vice of arbitrariness, considering the deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism which were very much on the increase. The Court observed that even for selection of candidates for the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Police Service, where the personality of the candidate and his personal characteristics and traits are extremely relevant for the purpose of selection, the marks allocated for oral interview are 250 as against 1800 marks for the written examination, constituting only 12.2 per cent of the total marks taken into consideration for the purpose of making the selection. The Apex Court was of the view that, under the then existing circumstances, allocation of more than 15 percent of the total marks for the oral interview would be arbitrary and unreasonable and would be liable to be struck down as constitutionally invalid.
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 60
49. In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot strike down the selections made on the ground that the evaluation of the merits of the candidates in the viva voce examination might be arbitrary. The Court pointed out that it cannot sit in judgment over the marks awarded by interviewing bodies unless it is proved or obvious that the marking is plainly and indubitably arbitrary or affected by oblique motives.
50. In Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 662], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that allocation of more than 15% for viva voce would be unreasonable and held that the allocation of 25% marks was arbitrary and excessive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering selection to subordinate service from among candidates fresh from schools/colleges, where there was a composite process of written exam and viva voce. In the case at hand, no written exam is involved for the selection. The maximum mark allocated for the interview is only 20% and it cannot be said to be excessive in the selection process for appointment as Assistant Professor. W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 61
51. The judgment in Ajay Hasia (supra) has been distinguished in several subsequent judgments. In Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Patna [(2024) 7 SCC 262], the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted with approval the opinion expressed by the Apex Court in an earlier decision in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan [(1981) 4 SCC 159], and observed that the ratio in Ajay Hasia (supra), in the context of college admission, may not have much bearing on recruitment for judicial vacancies where oral interviews play an important role to test the personality and calibre of the aspirant to judicial posts.
52. It is apposite in this context to extract the following paragraph from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P. [(2000) 7 SCC 719];
"22. It is difficult to accept the omnibus contention that selection on the basis of viva voce only is arbitrary and illegal and that since allocation of 15% marks for interview was held to be arbitrary by this Court, selections solely based on interview is a fortiori illegal. It will be useful to bear in mind that there is no rule of thumb with regard to allotment of percentage of marks for interview. It depends on several factors and the question of permissible percentage of marks for an interview-test has to be decided on the facts of each W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 62 case. However, the decisions of this Court with regard to reasonableness of percentage of marks allotted for interview in cases of admission to educational institutions/schools will not afford a proper guidance in determining the permissible percentage of marks for interview in cases of selection/appointment to the posts in various services. Even in this class, there may be two categories: (i) when the selection is by both a written test and viva voce; and (ii) by viva voce alone. The courts have frowned upon prescribing higher percentage of marks for interview when selection is on the basis of both oral interview and a written test. But, where oral interview alone has been the criteria for selection/appointment/promotion to any posts in senior positions the question of higher percentage of marks for interview does not arise. Therefore, we think it an exercise in futility to discuss these cases -- Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of T.N. [(1971) 1 SCC 38] and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] -- relied upon by Mr Goswami, which deal with admission to educational institutions/schools and also cases where prescribed method of recruitment was written test followed by an interview -- Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1985) 4 SCC 417 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 88] ; D.V. Bakshi v. Union of India [(1993) 3 SCC 663 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 991 : (1993) 25 ATC 206] and Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 165 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 937 :
(1994) 27 ATC 547] ."
53. In the light of the judgments discussed above, there is W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 63 no illegality in the allocation of marks for the interview in the case on hand, and the procedure followed was consistent with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
54. Having answered the questions that were posed in paragraph 20, I shall, for the sake of completion, refer to some ancillary arguments that were raised by the counsel for the petitioners based on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In R.S. Dass v. Union of India [1986 Supp SCC 617], the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the argument that in a selection based on merit, in the absence of reasons, there will be lack of objectivity in the selection process, leading to discriminatory treatment by the selection committee, and held that there can be no presumption regarding arbitrary exercise of power since the machinery designed for preparation of Select List under the regulations for promotion to All India Service, ensures objective and impartial selection. The Court further observed that where power is vested in a high authority, there is a presumption that the same would be exercised reasonably, and if the selection is made on extraneous considerations and arbitrarily, the courts have W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 64 ample power to strike down the same, which is an adequate safeguard. The above decision can be applied only if it can be held on facts that there has been an arbitrary exercise of power by the Selection Committee or that the selection has been on extraneous considerations. There is no material available in these cases to come to such a conclusion. Regarding the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the University that the probation of the 6 th respondent has been declared, as there was no stay of the appointment, the Senior Counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment in Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Siemens Limited v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited and others (2014) 11 SCC 288, and submitted that when a matter is pending adjudication before a court of law, nothing can be done which might disturb the course of justice by either interfering with the judicial process or prejudging the merits of the case or by usurping the functions of the court having seisin over the proceedings. In view of the findings rendered on the questions posed in paragraph 20, it is not necessary to go into the above aspect. The judgment in Vijay Syal & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2003) 9 SCC W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 65 401], was referred to by the Senior Counsel to submit that the court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits and any attempt by any party to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and conceal material facts will have to take the consequences. The said judgment is also not relevant on the facts of the case.
The petitioners are hence not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions, and the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE dsn W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 66 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3638/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28/4/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF 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.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FURTHERANCE TO EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL SCORE SHEET FOR
DIRECT RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSORS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.AD.AII/5038/2017/ADMN.(4) DATED
2/6/2019 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3970/AD
A2/2019/MGU DATED 17/8/2019 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 24/8/2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES FOR THE PH.D DEGREE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 15/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE PH.D DEGREE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION NO.32831 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF ELIGIBILITY W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 67 CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS FOR
RECOGNITION/EQUIVALENCY OF ACADEMIC
PROGRAMMES, 2016 DATED 25/9/2016 ALONG
WITH THE AMENDMENT NOTIFICATION DATED
17/3/2017.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED
26/10/2019 SOUGHT BY ANISH KUMAR S.BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 2/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11(B) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11. EXHIBIT P11(C) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11(A).
EXHIBIT P11(D) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED
25/9/2019 SOUGHT BY RAJASEKHARAN K.
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P11(E) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED
3/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11(F) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT
P11(D).
EXHIBIT P11(G) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT
P11(E).
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
NO.4449/AD A2/2019/MGU DATED 23/9/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 22.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY SRI. KIRAN V.S. BEFORE THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER OF INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY.
Exhibit P13(A) COMMUNICATION DATED 26.11.2019 ISSUED FROM THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDY TO SRI. KIRAN V.S. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE. EXHIBIT R4(B):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF THE 4TH W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 68 RESPONDENT WITH COPIES OF DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT R4(C): COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS OF THE MG UNIVERSITY FOR OBTAINING EQUIVALENCE/ ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE AND COURSE RECOGNITION.
EXHIBIT R4(D):- COPY OF THE SELECTION INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 26/6/2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(E):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 31.5.2018 (1.11 PM) BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH MG UNIVERSITY RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE. EXHIBIT R4(E)(1): COPY OF EMAIL DATED 2.6.2018 (3.47 PM) FROM MG UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE. EXHIBIT R4(E)(2): COPY OF EMAIL DATED 3.10.2018 (7.05 PM) FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO M G UNIVERSITY RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE. EXHIBIT R4(E)(3): COPY OF EMAIL DATED 8.10.2018 (4.31 PM) FROM MG UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE. EXHIBIT R4(E)(4):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 8.10.2018 (4.54 PM) FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO M G UNIVERSITY RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE. EXHIBIT R4(E)(5):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 10.10.2018 (4.15 PM) FROM M G UNIVERSITY TO 4TH RESPONDENT RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE. EXHIBIT R4(E)(6):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 10.10.2018 (5.35 PM) FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO M G UNIVERSITY RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE. EXHIBIT R4(F): COPY OF EXTRACT "HOW-IT-WORKS" FROM THE HOME PAGE OF LAMBERT ACADEMIC PUBLISHING (LAP) WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT R4(G):- COPY OF EMAIL FROM A.M.VARGHESE TO LAMBERT ACADEMIC PUBLISHING (LAP) DATED 30/06/2022 (12.46 PM).
EXHIBITR4(G)(1):- COPY OF EMAIL FROM LAMBERT ACADEMIC PUBLISHING (LAP) TO A.M.GEEVARGHESE DATED 30/06/2022 (2.19 PM).
Exhibit R4(G)(2) COPY OF EMAIL FROM A.M.GEEVARGHESE TO LAMBERT ACADEMIC PUBLISHING (LAP) DATED 30/06/2022 (2.47 PM).
Exhibit R4(G)(3) COPY OF EMAIL FROM LAMBERT ACADEMIC PUBLISHING (LAP) TO A.M.GEEVARGHESE DATED W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 69 02/07/2022 (10.27 PM).
Exhibit R4(G)(4) COPY OF EMAIL FROM LAMBERT ACADEMIC PUBLISHING (LAP) TO A.M.GEEVARGHESE DATED 04/07/2022 (8.40 PM).
Exhibit R4(H) COPY OF THE TABULATED ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD RANKINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN.
Exhibit R4(i) COPY OF MG UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED
30/10/2021 RELATING TO THE ONLINE
PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR
EQUIVALENCE/ELIGIBILITY.
Exhibit R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2021
DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE UGC DATED 28-11-2018.
EXHIBIT R4(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE UGC DATED 14-01-2019.
EXHIBIT R4(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE UGC DATED 14-06-2019.
EXHIBIT R4(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE UGC DATED 16-09-2019.
EXHIBIT R4(O) A TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE UGC DATED 08-06-2018.
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020
2025:KER:52774
70
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6261/2020
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO
AD.AIII(1)/5038/2017/ADMN(4) DATED
28.04.2018 RETRIEVED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEB- SITE OF 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF UGC REGULATIONS 2010, ALONG WITH APPENDIX-III-TABLES I,II AND III EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.ACADEMIC LEGISLATION/2552/S/52/96 DATED 22.10.1998 ALONGWITH RELEVANT PAGES OF CHAPTER 3 OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY STATUES,1997 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.01.2006 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY ALONGWITH IN M.A POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS FINAL TRANSCRIPT OF GRADES DATED 31.10.2005 EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK CERTIFICATE DATED 04.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY CERTIFICATE DATED 08.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.07.2006 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.173-1/2006 (1C-
II) DATED 11.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, UGC EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.07.2007 OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COMMONWEALTH, SCHOLARSHIPS.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 14.09.2007 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.060/A/159 DATED 22.01.2012 OF THE OFFICER COMMANDING, 7 KERALA GIRLS BN NCC, THRISSUR W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 71 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CALL LETTER NO.AD.AII/1/5038/2017/ADM(4) DATED 26.06.2019 OF THE ASST. REGISTRAR II (ADMN) MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3970/AD A2/ 2019/MGU DATED 17.08.2019 OF THE ASST.REGISTRAR II (ADMN) MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE ROJESH BABU TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MG UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.AD.AII/1/1438/RTI/ADMN DATED 07.09.2019 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR -II (ADMN) AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET IN RESPECT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET IN RESPECT OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4449/AD A2/2019/MGU DATED 23.09.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-II (ADMINISTRATION), M.G.UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ANNEXED TO IT FURNISHED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO SRI.ROJESH BABU EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE GRADE POINT AND PERCENTAGE EQUIVALENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.12.2017 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR VIII(EXAMS, MG UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 24.08.2018 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES, NEW DELHI EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13.3.1995 OF THE ASST.EDUCATIONAL ADVISOR (T) W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 72 EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.10.2019 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY BIJOY PHILIP EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.AD AIX/2/2313/RTI/ADMN DATED 11.11.2019 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR II (ADMN) EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE NO.32831 DATED 15.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, MG UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE MANAK PUBLICATIONS EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF UGC APPROVED (OLD) LIST OF JOURNALS PUBLISHED IN THE WEB-SITE OF UGC EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND POLITICS PRINT OUT COPY OF THE OFFICIAL WEB-SITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT-
UNIVERSITY Exhibit P30 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIP COMMISSION IN THE UK (CSC) PROVIDES THE MAIN UK GOVERNMENT SCHOLARSHIP SCHEME LED BY INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF GOVERNMENT OF UK Exhibit P31 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CURRICULUM VITAE SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P32 PHOTOCOPY OF THE U.O.NO.448/AX/3/2017/
ACADEMIC DATED 24--1-2017 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P33 PHOTOCOPY OF THE M.PHIL PROGRAMME IN SOCIAL
ANTHROPOLOGY FOR STUDENTS FROM INDIA
INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE SENIOR
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN.
Exhibit P34 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF 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, 2018-NOTIFICATION DATED 18-07-2018 Exhibit P35 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE NO.F.I-1/2018 W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 73 (JOURNAL/CARE) DATED 16-09-2019 OF THE SECRETARY (OFFICIATING) UGC RETRIEVED FROM THE UGC WEBSITE.
Exhibit P36 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVER PAGE AUTHORS OF THE TITLE OF 'REGIONAL INTEGRATION AND ENERGY SECURITY: THE EUROPEAN UNION EXPERIENCE' Exhibit P37 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC APPROVED (OLD) LIST OF JOURNALS.
Exhibit P38 TRUE COPY OF THE RESEARCH PAPER REGIONALISM AND REGIONAL COOPERATION IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT FURNISHED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
Exhibit P39 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PVC/RTI/ APPEAL/32/2019 DATED 03.12.2019 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY & PRO VICE CHANCELLOR. Exhibit P40 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THETHE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE REGISTRATION OF SERIAL PUBLICATIONS-CIEPS PRINTOUT TAKEN FROM THE WEB-SITE OF ISSN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE (HTTPS://WWW.ISSN.ORG).
Exhibit P41 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PRINT-OUT TAKEN FROM THE OFFICIAL WEB-SITE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ISBN AGENCY (HTTPS://WWW.ISBN INTERNATIONAL.ORG) Exhibit P42 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.PU/ DPIS/2017-18/156 DATED 07.08.2017-DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P43 TRUE COPY OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES: A BIANNUAL JOURNAL OF SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES.
Exhibit P44 TRUE COPY OF THE HOME PAGE OF SCHOOL OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND POLITICS,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
Exhibit P45 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2022 IN
W.A. NO.957/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P46 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ON
EQUIVALENCY OF DEGREES NO.9-3/2016 (CPP-II) DATED 19.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 74 UGC.
Exhibit P47 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES
SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND
POLITICS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
Exhibit P48 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY PROFILE AND CONTACT
DETAILS RETRIEVED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF MANAK PUBLICATIONS BOOK PUBLISHER AND DISTRIBUTER.
Exhibit P49 TRUE COPY OF THE USA INCOME TAX RETURN FOR AN S CORPORATION OF MANAK PUBLICATION, INC. Exhibit P50 TRUE COPY OF THE 2022 ANNUAL REPORT FOR MANAK PUBLICATION, INC BEARING ID NO.801993852 OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS FILING ENDORSEMENT.
Exhibit P51 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D64577/18 OF THE
ZONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION, ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P52 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED
4.10.2019 ADDRESSED TO SRI.ROJESH BABU.
EXHIBIT P53 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION (CHAPTER 1) OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT, RETRIEVED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P54 A TRUE COPY OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES EXHIBIT P55 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES CONTAINING REGULATION 10 UNDER CAS-10.1-(A) TO (G) OF THE U.G.C. (MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND OTHER MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION) REGULATIONS, 2010 Exhibit P56 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 4-10- 2019 OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR - II (ADMN.) & PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Exhibit P57 TRUE COPY OF CURRICULUM VITAE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P58 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18-10- 2019 OF MUSAFAR ALI.M.T FILED UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P59 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-11-2019 OF W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 75 THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & DEPUTY REGISTRAR - II (ADMN) EXHIBIT P60: A TRUE COPY OF LIST OF PHD FACULTY/SUBJECT PUBLISHED UNDER THE RESEARCH PORTAL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT- UNIVERSITY RETERIVED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT- UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P61 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE UGC (MINIMUM STANDARDS AND PROCEDURE FOR AWARDS OF M.PHIL/PH.D DEGREE)REGULATION, 2016. RESPONDENTS' EXTS:
EXHIBIT R6(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT R6(B):- COPY OF THE TABULATED ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD RANKINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN EXHIBIT R6(C):- COPY OF THE SELECTION INTERVIEW MEMO DATED 26/6/2019 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R6(D):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT WITH COPIES OF DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT R6(E):- COPY OF INSTRUCTIONS OF THE MG
UNIVERSITY FOR OBTAINING
EQUIVALENCE/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE AND COURSE RECOGNITION.
EXHIBIT R6(E)(A):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 121 31.5.2018 (1.11 PM) FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO M G UNIVERSITY RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE EXHIBIT R6(E)(A)(1):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 2.6.2018 (3.47 PM) FROM M G UNIVERSITY TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE EXHIBIT R6(E)(A)(2):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 3.10.2018 (7.05 PM) FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO M G UNIVERSITY RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE EXHIBIT R6(E)(A)(3):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 8.10.2018 (4.31 PM) FROM M G UNIVERSITY TO THE 6TH W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 76 RESPONDENT RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN. DEGREE EXHIBIT R6(E)(A)(4):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 8.10.2018 (4.54 PM) FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO MG UNIVERSITY RELATED TO ÉQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE EXHIBIT R6(E)(A)(5):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 10.10.2018 (4.15 PM) FROM M G UNIVERSITY TO 6TH RESPONDENT RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE EXHIBIT R6(E)(A)(6):- COPY OF EMAIL DATED 10.10.2018 (5.35 PM) FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO M G UNIVERSITY RELATED TO EQUIVALENCE OF FOREIGN DEGREE EXHIBIT R6(F):- COPY OF EMAIL FROM A M GEEVARGHESE TO MANAK PUBLISHERS DATED 31.08.2021 (2.34 AM) EXHIBIT_R6(F)(1):- COPY OF EMAIL FROM MANAK PUBLISHERS TO A M GEEVARGHESE DATED 31.08.2021 (2.40 PM) EXHIBIT R6(F)(2):- COPY OF EMAIL FROM MANAK PUBLISHERS TO A M GEEVARGHESE DATED 02.09.2021 (4.07 AM) EXHIBIT R6(F)(3):- COPY OF EMAIL FROM A M GEEVARGHESE TO MANAK PUBLISHERS DATED 06.09.2021 (2.35 AM) EXHIBIT R6(F)(4):- COPY OF EMAIL FROM MANAK PUBLISHERS TO A M GEEVARGHESE DATED 06.09.2021 (1.05 AM) EXHIBIT R6(G):- COPY OF RTI APPLICATION OF A M GEEVARGHESE DATED 01.07.2020 EXHIBIT R6(G)A:- COPY OF RESPONSE TO RTI APPLICATION OF A M GEEVARGHESE EXHIBIT R6(H):- COPY OF RTI APPLICATION OF A M GEEVARGHESE DATED 01.07.2020 EXHIBIT R6(H)A:- COPY OF RTI RESPONSE DATED 17.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY EXHIBIT R6(I):- COPY OF RTI APPLICATION OF A M GEEVARGHESE DATED 11.03.2020 W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 77 EXHIBIT R6(I)A:- COPY OF RTI RESPONSE DATED 18.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R6(J):- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/3/2021 DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN FURTHERANCE TO EXHIBIT P1.
EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL SCORE SHEET FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT PROFESSORS. EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3970/AD A2/2019/MGU DATED 17.8.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(e) THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(g) TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 24.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES FOR THE PH.D DEGREE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE
DATED 15.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT FOR THE PH.DEGREE OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(i) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION
NO. 32831 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT R7(j) TRUE COPY OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS FOR RECOGNITION/EQUIVALENCY OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMMES, 2016 DATED 25.9.2016 ALONG WITH THE AMENDMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 17.3.2017.
EXHIBIT R7(k) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 26.10.2019 SOUGHT BY ANISH KUMAR. S BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R7(l) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 2.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C)Nos.3638 & 6261 of 2020 2025:KER:52774 78 EXHIBIT R7(m) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R7(K). EXHIBIT R7(n) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R7(l) EXHIBIT R7(o) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 25.9.2019 SOUGHT BY RAJASEKHARAN K BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R7(p) TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 3.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(q) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R7(o) EXHIBIT R7(r) THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R7(p).
EXHIBIT R7(s) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
NO.4449/AD A2/2019/MGU DATED 23.9.2019
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(ADMINISTRATION) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.