Kerala High Court
Viji Kurien Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 25 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 5TH MAGHA, 1942
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
PETITIONER/S:
1 VIJI KURIEN THOMAS,
AGED 49 YEARS
SECTION OFFICER, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.
2 SUMESH M G
SECTION OFFICER, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.
3 PRAVEEN R
SECTION OFFICER, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN
SHRI.JESUDASAN K X
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS, ENGINEERING
COLLEGE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695016.
3 VINOD J K
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, M.G UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI
HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
4 VIJAYATHILAKAN B
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, M.G UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI
HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
5 JOHN A
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(HIGHER GRADE), M.G. UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
2
6 NAJEB M
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI
HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
7 LATHA P.S.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, M.G. UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI
HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686560.
8 SHEBA SINGH G J
SECTION OFFICER(HIGHER GRADE), COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
COCHIN-682022
9 SANJAY P S
SECTION OFFICER, (HIGHER GRADE), SREE SANKARA
UNIVERSITY, KALADY-683574.
10 NAHAS A
SECTION OFFICER, KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR-670567.
11 MAHAMAYA V J
SECTION OFFICER(HIGHER GRADE), UNIVERSITY OF
CALICUT, TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM-673636.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
R4, R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
R4, R7 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA
R4, R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE
R4, R7 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
R4, R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND
R4, R7 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA
R4, R7 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
R4, R7 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
R4, R7 BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-
01-2021, THE COURT ON 25-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of January 2021
The petitioners, three in number, working as Section Officers in
the 2nd respondent University, have, approached this Court seeking
the following reliefs:
I) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order
or direction, to call for the records leading to Ext.P8 and to quash
the same, declaring that the said order is not in proper
implementation of Ext.P4 and P5 judgments.
II) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent University to
maintain the seniority of the petitioners as Section Officers from
the date of joining as Section officer in 2nd respondent University
from July 2017 onwards or from the respective dates of their
joining.
III) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to implement
Ext.P4 and P5 judgments to the extent of accommodating the
petitioners in that writ petition as Section Officers maintaining
the seniority in Ext.P7 option list and in the event of any of the
section offices appointed as per Ext.P1 are to be pushed down,
their appointment alone to be effected from the date of
sanctioning the vacancy as per Ext.P6.
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
IV) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order
or direction declaring that the appointment of respondents 3
to 7 as Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars as per
Ext.P8 order on a purported implementation of Ext.P4 and P5
judgment is wrong and incorrect and without obtaining fresh
sanction from the 1st respondent government to appoint them
against fresh option.
IV) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction directing the 2 nd respondent to fill up the
vacancy of Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars in the 2 nd
respondent University by way of promotion from Section Officers
after implementing Ext.P4 and P5 judgments, basing on the
seniority from the date of appointment as Section Officers.
2. In support of the aforementioned prayers, it is averred
that the 1st and 2nd petitioners joined as Assistants in Calicut
University and promoted as Section Officers, whereas the third
petitioner also joined as Assistant in M.G.University and promoted as
Section Officer therein. While so, the 2 nd respondent APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University (KTU) invited options from employees of
Universities for being appointed as Section Officers vide order dated
24.7.2017, Ext.P1, All the petitioners were appointed as Section
Officer in the 2nd respondent University. The respondent No.3 and 4
along with the one Mr.Ajith Kumar of Kerala University challenged
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
the appointment Order Ext.P1 vide W.P.(C)No.25918/2017 as well as
Ext.P3 regarding fixation of age limit in respect to Section Officer.
This Court vide judgment dated 10.4.2018, Ext.P4 set aside the
appointment Order Ext.P1 and held that since there was no such
provisions as to maximum age for submission of options, the
appointment of persons below 51 years of age was incompetent in
view of Section 7 (v) of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological
University Act 2015 (herein after referred to as 'KTU Act, 2015' for
short). It was also held that the appointment of the Section Officers in
the 2nd respondent University should have been done on the basis of
the seniority of the petitioners and their status in Ext.P4 (therein) and
in case the contesting respondents (therein) were to be repatriated to
their parent Universities, they would be granted all service benefits
including leave in the posts held by them.
3. Vide Ext.P8 dated 12.2.2020, 2 nd respondent issued a fresh
appointment order, in compliance of the judgment aforementioned,
whereby the petitioners were also appointed as Section Officers. Cut
off date for option was fixed as 20.1.2020. It was held that some
Juniors of the Section Officers who were appointed, earlier, in the
University, were promoted to higher posts in their parent University.
Those juniors so promoted were included in the list, in higher posts.
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
The seniority and position of those senior Section Officers, for the
reason that they remained in the present University, will be restored
as and when their parent University granted permission. The order
aforementioned also clarified that the Section Officers already
appointed and remained in the present University based on the stay
orders issued by this Court shall be deemed as Section Officers and
deemed to join present University with effect from the date of these
orders and they need not reverted or go back to their parent
Universities.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that the aforementioned order is in deviation of dictum of
judgment of this court ibid, into placing the petitioner junior. In the
guise of implementing Ext.P4 judgment, 3 rd and 4th respondents have
arbitrarily been appointment as Deputy Registrars and respondents
5 to 7 as Assistant Registrars, which was never contemplated in the
judgment. In fact the petitioners have been working as Senior
Section Officers since 2017 and they ought to have been promoted to
the post of Assistant Registrar and Deputy Registrar.
5. As per Section 7 (v) of the KTU Act, it is the prerogative of
the Government to notify in the gazette to determine such
appointment, transfers and the norms thereof. The Government has
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
not issued any directives to effect appointments by way of issuing
fresh options to the post of Deputy Registrars and Assistant
Registrars in the 2nd respondent, therefore, the present appointment
of respondents 3 to 7 as Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars is
highly illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
6. The vacancies of Deputy Registrars and Assistant
Registrars in the 2nd respondent University has to be filled by
promotion from the post of Section Officers. Certain vacancies
remained unfilled and any vacancy arisen on promotion or retirement
or otherwise cannot be filled by fresh option without the sanction of
the Government. The judgment do not contain any such option nor the
2nd respondent can declare the seniority of the petitioners as Section
Officers in the parent University as on 20.1.2020 when the petitioners
were relieved from the parent University as early as in July 2017. No
reasons are forthcoming to promote respondents 3 to 7 to the post of
aforementioned. During the pendency of the writ petition the
respondents, on the basis of the legal opinion have come out with
Ext.P14 an agenda, inviting options to various categories of posts of
Universities employees and Non-teaching staff sanctioned by
Government in accordance with the provisions of the First Statutes.
In fact, for filling up the posts, the Government has to issue fresh
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
notification under Section 7 (v) of the KTU Act. Otherwise the existing
Section Officer have to be promoted on the basis of the seniority to
the post of Assistant Registrar. There is no candidate, in the existing
list, to be appointed by the option for the post of Assistant Registrar
and Deputy Registrar, therefore, the 2nd respondent can only fill up
the existing vacancies of Assistant Registrar by promotion from the
post of Section Officers and the present appointment of respondents 3
to 7 to the post of Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars
amounts to overlooking claim of petitioners in the 2 nd respondent,
thus wholly incorrect, arbitrary and illegal.
7. Per Contra Sri.Elvin Peter, learned Standing Counsel for
the 2nd respondent opposed the aforementioned prayer and disputed
the seniority lists referred in Ext.P4 judgment. It was contended that,
A.P.J. Kalam Technological University (hereinafter referred to as
University for short) was constituted by Act No.17 of 2017. Prior to
the establishment of the University, all the Engineering Colleges in
the state were affiliated to the then existing Universities in the State
of Kerala. After the establishment of the University, all those
Engineering Colleges which were affiliated to other Universities, were
affiliated, with the present University and consequently, certain non-
teaching staffs in the then existing Universities in the State were
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
affected. As per the provisions of KTU Act, the Universities which are
affected by the establishment of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological
University were incorporated in the schedule state under Section 7
(5), which include following six Universities.
1) The University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram.
2) The University of Calicut, Kozhikode.
3) The Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam.
4) The Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi.
5) The Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanscrit, Kalady.
6) The Kannur University, Kannur.
8. As provided in Section 7 (v) of the Act extracted above, the
Government issued Ext.P2 Order, according sanction for appointment
by option. Pursuant to Ext.P2 Order, the University issued notification
whereby options were invited from the non-teaching staff employed in
the six(6) Universities, for appointment. Pursuant to Ext.R2 (a)
notification, number of non-teaching staff working in the (6)
Universities stated in the schedule, submitted their option for being
appointed in the different categories of posts in the University. The
lists published by the University including the persons who had
submitted option for appointment to the post of Section Officers in
the 6 different Universities are produced herewith as Exts.R2 (b), R2
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
(c), R2 (d), R2 (e) R2 (f) and R2 (g) respectively. Ext.R2 (b) relates to
the University of Kerala where only one(1) person submitted option
for appointment to the post of Section Officer. Ext.R2 (c) is the list of
optees from Calicut University. Ext.R2 (d) is the list of options
submitted for appointment to the post of Section Officer from
Mahatma Gandhi University. Ext.R2 (e) is the list of options submitted
for appointment to the post of Section Officer from Cochin University
of Science and Technology and Ext.R2 (f) is the list of options
submitted for appointment to the post of Section Officer from Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and R2 (g) is the list of option
submitted for appointment to the post of Section Officer from Kannur
University. The aforementioned exhibits reveals that the entire service
details of the optees in their parent University including the date of
their appointment to the post of Section Officer in the parent
University, extracted in the following manner
3rd respondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 17.5.2005.
4th respondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 18.5.2006.
5th respondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 11.7.2006.
6th respondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 8.6.2010.
7th respondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 6.1.2012.
8th respondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 31.3.2010.
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
9th respondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 11.3.2011.
10threspondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 25.5.2015.
11threspondent - Date of Appointment as Section Officer on 1.9.2014.
9. The University in order to implement the directions in
Ext.P4 judgment and for the purpose of filling up the posts of Section
Officers in the University, called for willingness from among the
persons of non-teaching staff who had already exercised their option
pursuant to Ext.P2 notification issued by the University. Barring few
persons all the others exercised their willingness to be appointed in
the University. Among the optees respondents 3 to 7 had already been
promoted as Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrars in their parent
University. Hence the University issued Ext.P8 order appointing
respondents 3 to 11 in the University Service. Petitioners and other
respondents were appointed as Section Officers itself. The
respondents 3 to 7 are far seniors to the petitioners in the category of
Section Officers in their parent University with effect from the date of
their appointment to the said post. None of the juniors of the
petitioners have been promoted from the category of Section Officers
in the Calicut or MG Universities, therefore, the challenge made by
the petitioner is absolutely misconceived, frivolous and unsustainable
in law. The appointment of the petitioners as per Ext.P1 had already
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
been set aside by the judgment. The APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University has become a statute with effect from 5.8.2020 and as per
Section 16 Under Chapter IV, the remaining posts have to be filled
within six months. It is under that provision Ext.P14 notification has
been issued. Veracity of Seniority list Ext.P7 was also assailed.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refuted the same by
requesting the court to summon the record of writ petition
No.29918/2017 reflecting the seniority of the petitioner herein and
referred as Ext.P7.
11. In rebuttal, it was argued that by issuing of Ext.P8 the
seniority of the petitioners have been affected and the respondents
did not comply with the judgment Exts.P4 and P5 in letter and spirit
as there was a particular direction of maintaining the seniority as
indicated in Ext.P4(therein ).
12. I have heard the parties and appraised the paper books.
13. For understanding the controversy I accepted the request
to summon the record of W.P.(C)25918/2017 to compare the seniority
list as Ext.P4 (therein) with Ext.P7 attached with the present writ
petition. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the objection raised
by Sri.Elvin Peter is preposterous as both are same. Before I could
give my opinion it is axiomatic to extract the relevant part of the
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
judgment whereby the appointment of the petitioners was set aside as
the case of other optees, ie. the persons who wanted to exercise the
options had crossed the age of 51 were aggrieved. The same read
thus:
"9.It is a cardinal principle of service law that the rules are
bound to be fixed before the game starts and cannot be
altered during the course of the same. I am aware of the fact
that we are not dealing with the situation of an appointment
of the petitioners and the contesting respondents at the first
instance. But in view of the specific provisions of the Act, the
filling up of the posts by exercising option is a recognized
method of appointment in the 2nd respondent University.
Viewed in that manner, what we are dealing with is the case
of appointment in the 2nd respondent University and the
principle that the standards of such appointments cannot be
left to be decided during the course of the selection after the
preparation of the list, applies with full force to the situation
on hand as well. In the absence of any provision as to
maximum age for submission of options, I am of the opinion
the only reasonable criteria to be adopted for the acceptance
of options was the criteria of seniority. The decisions taken
by the Executive Committee to vary the criteria and to
appoint only persons below 51 years of age was therefore
incompetent in the light of Section 7(v) and Exhibit P2
Government Order
10.The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside. There will
be direction to respondents to accept the options for
appointment of Section Officers in the 2nd respondent
University on the basis of the seniority of the petitioners and
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
their status in Exhibit P4 list. It is made clear that the
contesting respondents, if they are repatriated to their
parent universities, will be granted all service benefits
including leave in the posts held by them and continuity of
service and will not be made to suffer for the wrong
acceptance of the option by the 2nd respondent."
14. On perusal of the Paragraph 10 it is evident that
respondents were directed to accept the options for appointment of
Section Officers in the 2nd respondent University on the basis of the
seniority of the petitioners and their status in Ext.P4 list therein.
Name of the third petitioner is only reflected in Ext.P4 list (therein),
whereas, the names of other petitioners are not seen in Ext.P4 list.
However, in the impugned order Ext.P8, it is clearly mentioned that
the seniority of the above persons in the 2 nd respondent University
will be seniority in the higher posts they were holding in the parent
University as on 20.1.2020 subject to the status of the University
issued in this regard. For the sake of brevity the conditions
enumerated in Ext.P8 issued in compliance with Judgment Ext.P4
read as under:
"It is further ordered that the seniority of the
above persons in this University will be there
seniority the highest post they were holding in
their parent University as on 20/01/2020, subject
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
to the Statutes of this University to be issued in
this regard.
It is seen that some juniors of the Section
Officers who got appointment earlier in this
University and whose appointments were set aside,
were promoted to higher posts in their parent
University. Those juniors so promoted are included
in the list above in higher posts. The seniority
and position of those senior Section Officers
superseded for the reason that they remained in
this University will be restored as and when their
parent University grants promotion to them.
Hence, the above mentioned officers are hereby
appointed against the post indicated against their
names and they are directed to report for duty
before the Registrar, APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University on or before 27/02/2020
with relieving orders from their respective parent
Universities clearing outstanding liabilities, if
any. The Service Book/details of Service Provident
Fund, Leave Salary and other mandatory deductions/
contributions etc. have to be forwarded as per
rules to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University.
The Section Officers already appointed and
remaining in this University based on the stay
orders issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
and included in the list above will be deemed as
Section Officers joined this University with
effect from the date of these orders. They need
not revert and go back to their parent
Universities, but their service from the date of
their earlier joining duty in this University to
the date of these orders will be deemed to be
their service under the parent University except
for the purpose of pay and allowances.
Orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in
judgement read as 2nd and 3 paper above are
complied with as above.
15. The statute has been promulgated on 5.8.2020, which has
not been challenged. Therefore the petitioner cannot allege that vide
impugned appointment Order Ext.P8, the seniority has been disturbed
as no documents has been placed on record to enable this Court to
form an opinion that the seniority in the parent University nor any
seniority list of respondents 3 to 7has been affected.
16. The clause for fixing such seniority is always subject to the
statute of the University, now approved by the Government with effect
from 5.8.2018. It is in that back ground the agenda was placed before
the Syndicate for inviting options by empowering Vice Chancellor.
17. I am of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner vis
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
a vis the disruption of seniority is far fetched as it is yet to be
prepared in terms of Chapter IV of Section 16, which empowers the
University to appoint staff within six months. It is not the case of the
petitioner as the staff appointed by inviting option was sufficient for
running the institutions. It was a provisional arrangement, so that the
University could commence its administrative works.
18. As far as the contention of Sri.Krishnamoorthy that
University has not complied with the provisions of Section 7 (v) of the
KUT Act and instead resorted to provision of Section 7 (3) the KUT, it
would be appropriate to extract Clause 7 of KUT Act.
7. Appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff. - (1)
Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes made
thereunder, the appointments to the posts which are not to be
made through the Kerala Public Service Commission shall be
made by the University.
(2) In making appointments to the teaching and non-teaching
posts, the University shall, mutatis mutandis, observe the
provisions of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of rule 14 and the
provisions of rules 15, 16, 17 and 17A of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, as amended from time to
time, and communal rotation shall be followed category-wise
treating all the departments as one unit.
(3) The non-teaching staff of any of the Universities specified
in the Schedule to this Act, who are affected by the
establishment of the A.RJ. Abdul Kalam Technological
University as per section 3, may give option for being appointed
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
in this University and the University may appoint them subject
to the terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(4) The teaching-non-teaching staff may be given appointment
on deputation basis to the similar posts in the University in
such manner as may be prescribed.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, the existing teaching and non-teaching staff
under any University specified in the Schedule to this Act
which comes under the jurisdiction of the University and may
be affected by the establishment of the said University may
be appointed in the University by option and the Government
may, by notification in the Gazette, determine such
appointment, transfer and the norms thereof.
19. Section 7 (3) envisage that the non-teaching staff of the
University specified in the schedule to this Act, who are affected by
the establishment of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University
as per sub Section 3, may give option for appointment in the
University and the University may appoint subject to the terms and
conditions as may be prescribed, which in this case has already been
done, whereas sub section (5) opens with a non-obstante clause
whereby appointment can be made in the University by option, and
the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, determine such
appointment, transfer and the norms thereof. In my view, perusal of
the aforementioned provisions leaves that the apprehension raised on
Ext.P14 is also far fetched, particularly when the statute got approval
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
only on 5.8.2020. After exercising the option, a caveat has also been
put on behalf of the respondents to Ext.P14, which has not been
challenged in the writ petition; it cannot be stayed or set aside. I am
in agreement with the argument of the respondents rejecting the
argument of Sri.S.Krishna Moorthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner
to the apprehension shown to Ext.P14 shall not be looked into for
adjudication raised in the writ petition. For making out the case of
inaction on the part of the University in not maintaining seniority it is
incumbent upon the petitioner to place on record the seniority list of
the respective Universities, to make out the case of violation of Article
16. For the sake of repetation no such records has been placed on
record as observed in Paragraph 14 of this judgment, enabling this
Court to form an opinion for accepting the arguments in terms of the
averments in the writ petition. For the reasons aforementioned, I do
not find any merit in this writ petition, the writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/
AMIT RAWAL
Jm/ JUDGE
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTMENT DATED
24.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 6.8.2017 GO(MS) NO.174/16
DATED 6.8.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 14TH
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2018
IN WP(C) NO.25918/2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.914/2018
DATED 25.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.9.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION LIST OF THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE M.G UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO NO. 263/2020/KTU
DATED 12.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.KTU/A/333/2016
DATED 16.6.2017
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN
WP(C) NO.24459/2017
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY
M.G.UNIVERSITY ON 14.2.2020
EXHIBIT P11A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT P11
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.2.2020
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF SUCH AN EARLIER PROMOTION
ORDER DATED 6.12.2019 FROM THE POST OF
DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO JOINT REGISTRAR.
WP(C).No.4319 OF 2020(L)
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID
SYNDICATE DECISION DATED 16.11.2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2 A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY NO. KTU/A/333/2016 DATED
11.08.2016
EXHIBIT R2 B TRUE COPY OF LIST OF OPTION SUBMITTED FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF SECTION OFFICER
FROM UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT R2 C TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OPTION SUBMITTED
FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF SECTION
OFFICER FROM CALICUT UNIVERSITY, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT R2 D TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OPTION SUBMITTED
FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF SECTION
OFFICER FROM MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT R2 E TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OPTION SUBMITTED
FORM APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF SECTION
OFFICER FROM COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI
EXHIBITP- R2 F TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OPTION SUBMITTED
FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF SECTION
OFFICER FROM SREE SNKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY
OF SANCRIT, KALADY.
EXHIBITP R2 G TRUE COPY OF LIST OF OPTION SUBMITTED FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF SECTION OFFICER
FROM KANNUR UNIVERSITY, KANNUR
EXHIBITP R2 H TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.KTU/A/333/2016
DATED 24.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P-R2 I TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
KTU/333/2016 DATED 20.01.2020 SENT BY THE
2DN RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO THE REGISTRAR
OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
