Kerala High Court
Dr.Thara K.Simon vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 7 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.22872 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER:
DR.THARA K.SIMON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, ALUVA,
W/O DR. JACOB ELIAS, RESIDING AT
POOMTHOTTAM, 12, JYOTHIR NAGAR,
U C COLLEGE. P O, ALUVA-680102.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,PRIYADARSHINI
HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560, REPRESENTED
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560,
3 THE UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, ALUVA, POST BOX
NO.5, ALUVA-683102, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
ADDL.4 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BAHADUR SHAH
ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002.
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02-12-2020
ADDL.5 Dr.DAVID SAJ MATHEW.P., AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O P.T.MATHEW, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/HEAD,
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY & DRAWING AND DISBURSING
OFFICER, UC COLLEGE, ALUVA, RESIDING AT
PULIKKAPARAMBIL, FATHIMA NAGAR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680 005.
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.01.2021 IN IA 2/2020
WPC 22872/20 2
R1 & R2 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC
R3 BY SRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R3 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
R4 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC
R5 BY ADV.SRI. JAIBY PAUL
R5 BY ADV.SMT.ANITA GLENDA PHILIP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 22872/20 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of January 2021
Among the plethora of pleadings and materials on record is a
singular question as to whether the Academic Performance Index
(API) marks of the petitioner, granted by the competent Committee
and affirmed by the subsequent 'Approval Sub Committee' of the
Mahatma Gandhi University ('the University' for short), has been
assessed correctly or otherwise.
2. The petitioner is an aspirant to the post of Principal in the
third respondent - Union Christian College, Aluva ('the College' for
short) and she impugns Exhibit P14 order of the University, which
finds that she has not obtained the minimum eligible API marks that
would entitle her to be so appointed.
3. The petitioner asserts that assessment of the API marks
recorded in Exhibit P14 is inaccurate and contrary to the specific
mandate of the University Grants Commission (UGC), as stipulated in
Exhibit P13 Notification dated 11.07.2016 and therefore, prays that
this Court may set aside Exhibit P14 and declare that she is entitled
to the minimum API marks, if not much more, than what is required
under the said Notification.
4. I have heard Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel,
instructed by Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas, appearing for the petitioner,
Sri.Asok M.Cheriyan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
University, Sri.S.Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by
Sri.Saji Varghese, appearing for the third respondent,
Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
fourth respondent and Sri.Jaiby Paul, learned counsel appearing for
the fifth respondent.
5. As has been indicated above, the resolution of the
controversy in issue would pivot more or less substantially in the
manner in which Exhibit P13 Notification will require to be
interpreted. This Notification brings into parturition the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (4 th
Amendment), Regulations, 2016 ('the Regulations' for short).
6. As per the afore Regulations, the API score of a teacher is
to be calculated in the manner as provided in Appendix III and this
appendix III contains Tables I, II(A), II(B) and III.
7. Table I provides for certain common criteria for
assessment of the API marks for promotion as well as for direct
recruitment and it has three sub Categories, namely, (I) Teaching,
Learning and Evaluation Related Activities, (II) Professional
Development, Co-curricular and Extension Activities and (III)
Research and Academic Contributions. The specific manner of scoring
of marks is postulated in these Categories.
8. As far as this case is concerned, it is conceded by the
petitioner that Category I is not applicable, since she has to rely
solely on the scores which would be eligible to her under Categories
II and III.
9. When one examines the Notification/Regulations, Category
II provides for 15 API marks for an academic year, which is basically
calculated on the actual hours spent for teaching and other related
activities, while Category III provides API marks for each publication
and other academic inputs.
10. The controversy in this case essentially revolves on the
grant of marks to the petitioner under Categories II and III. While the
petitioner claims that she is entitled to larger marks than what has
been granted to her under Category III, the University, through
Exhibit P14, has found otherwise; while, as regards Category II, the
petitioner claims that she is entitled to 45 marks per year, thus to a
cumulative total of more than 650, since she has put in fifteen years
of service.
11. Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
took me through Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations in detail and
tried to impress upon me that, though in Table I of Category II of
Appendix III 45 marks is fixed as the maximum for each year, there is
nothing therein to indicate that the cumulative total period of service
cannot be taken into account. In other words, the learned Senior
Counsel asserts that the petitioner is not entitled to 45 marks alone,
but to nearly 650 marks for the fifteen years she has put in. He
fortifies this argument by relying upon Table II(A) of Exhibit P13
Notification/Regulations, as per which, a minimum of 100 API marks
is required for Category II and a minimum of 400 API marks is
required for Category III, leading to a minimum cumulative mark of
600 for Categories II and III together, for being considered for
promotion to the post of Professor/Principal.
12. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that
this would luculently indicate that what is relevant for Category II is
not the marks for one year but the cumulative marks for the entire
period of service because, otherwise, according to him, a minimum of
100 API marks under that Category would become impossible, going
by Table II(A) of Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations.
13. Sri.P.Ravindran adds to the above submissions by
predicating that the marks given under Category III is also incorrect
and that Exhibit P14 has merely gone by the report of the earlier
Expert Committee, which has been found to be incompetent by a
learned Division Bench of this Court, as is evident from Exhibit P11
judgment. He thus closed his arguments by praying that Exhibit P14
be set aside and the University be directed to re-evaluate the API
marks of the petitioner, based on Exhibit P13 Notification/
Regulations, taking note of her length of service as far as Category II
is concerned.
14. Sri.S.Ramesh Babu, learned Senior Counsel, submitted
that the the third respondent College is interested in solely ensuring
that an eligible person is appointed as its Principal and that, on
account of the pendency of this writ petition and various interim
orders issued therein, the said appointment has been held up, which
is now causing irreparable damage and concern to the College,
particularly because, this is its centenary year. He submitted that
going by Exhibit P14, there can be no doubt that the petitioner is not
entitled to be appointed as the Principal, since she does not obtain the
minimum of 400 API marks, as required in Exhibit P13 Notification/
Regulations. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.
15. Sri.Asok M.Cheriyan, learned Standing Counsel for the
University, commenced his arguments in emphatic support of Exhibit
P14 order and asserted that the details of the marks allotted to the
petitioner have been enumerated therein, in seriatim. He thus
beseeched this Court not to go into the merits of the decision now
taken by the University since marks have been allotted by the
authority vested with the jurisdiction and competence to do so and
prayed that this writ petition be dismissed, especially because the
petitioner's objections to the first Evaluation Committee had been
specifically taken note of by the Approval Sub Committee appointed
by the Syndicate of the University, leading to the decision recorded in
Exhibit P14, which had been now accepted by the Vice Chancellor in
exercise of his powers under Section 10(17) Chapter III of the
Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985.
16. Sri.Jaiby Paul, learned counsel appearing for the fifth
respondent, submitted that though he does not wish to join the
controversy in this case, his client supports Exhibit P14 order, since it
records the accurate assessment of API marks as far as the petitioner
is concerned.
17. Finally, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel
for the UGC, submitted that, evidently, even when Table I of Appendix
III in Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations itemizes the Categories and
the manner in which API marks can be scored by the teachers - both
for promotion under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), as also
for direct recruitment/promotion. Table II(A) specifies for the
minimum API marks for the former, while Table II(B) provides the
minimum API marks for the latter. He submitted that, therefore, the
petitioner's assessment is to be made on the touchstone of Table I and
Table II(B) in Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations and that Table II(A)
does not apply to her, in any manner, whatsoever. He thus contended
that the submissions of Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel,
would have no legs to stand on because the petitioner is not entitled
to rely upon Table II(A) in support of her case and that she will have
to bank upon solely on Table II(B), if she requires any benefit as
prayed for. He also, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed, contending that the stand taken by the University, as
reflected in Exhibit P14, is irreproachable.
18. I have considered the afore submissions and have also
gone through the lengthy materials and pleadings available on record.
19. As I have prefatorily said in this judgment, the real
question is whether the petitioner is entitled to 45 marks for each
year of her period of service under Category II of Table I of Appendix
III in Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations or whether she is entitled
to 45 marks alone.
20. Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, no doubt, argues
that the petitioner is entitled to 45 marks per year for the fifteen
years of service and he relies vehemently for this purpose on Table
II(A) of Appendix III in Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations. He does
so to drive home the point that as per this Table, the minimum eligible
API marks for a teacher in Category II is 100 per assessment year and
that this would be impossible to achieve if only 45 marks is allotted as
the maximum for the entire period.
21. I have no doubt that the above argument, at first blush,
looks very attractive, but loses its sheen thereafter because, Table
II(A) of Appendix III in Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations begins
with the heading: 'promotion of teachers under Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) in University Departments and Colleges and
Weightages for Expert Assessment'. Obviously, therefore, Table II(A)
provides only for evaluation of API marks in the CAS stream and since
the petitioner admittedly has no claim under this head, she cannot
seek that same method should be adopted in her case, even though
Table II(B) may apply to her.
22. That said, Table II(B) of Appendix III in Exhibit P13
Notification/Regulations is under the heading: ' minimum scores for
API for direct recruitment of teachers in University Departments and
College and Weightages in Selection Committees to be considered
along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the
Regulation'. It is also not disputed that this Table would apply to the
petitioner, though the contention is that, while calculating the API
marks under it, the stipulation in Table II(B) must also be applied. I
am afraid that this contention cannot obtain favour for various
reasons as I will presently state.
23. As per Table II(A), the minimum API score for Categories
II and III is 600 points per assessment year, while, as per Table II(B),
the minimum API is 400 points, but without specifying the period.
There is a marked difference in the manner in which these two Tables
operate because, in the case of a teacher aspiring for promotion
under the CAS, her entire period of service will have to be taken into
account for the purpose of evaluating the minimum API marks under
Category II, while in the case of a teacher aspiring for promotion
(which is considered as direct recruitment by the UGC), she will get
the benefit of a maximum of 45 marks for the assessment year in
question. Therefore, even though Table II(A) provides for a minimum
of 100 API marks under Category II, it would not apply to the
petitioner, since she is not aspiring for a CAS promotion, but only for
a regular promotion/direct recruitment as the Principal of the third
respondent College.
24. There can be no doubt on this because, as I have said
above, Table I of Appendix III in Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations
specifies the common parameters and criteria as far as teachers in
both these streams are concerned, while Table II(A) is confined to
teachers seeking promotion under CAS and Table II(B) is confined to
the teachers who seek regular promotion/direct recruitment as
Professors and Principals of various Colleges.
25. I am, therefore, firm that this Court cannot accede to the
submissions of Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, that the
petitioner is entitled to the assessment of API marks as per Table II(A)
of Appendix III in Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations. I can only,
therefore, repel the same, as being without merit.
26. Coming to the second limb of the argument of the learned
Senior Counsel Sri.P.Ravindran, he asserts that the mark allotted to
the petitioner under Category III is also incorrect.
27. Before I affirmatively speak on this, I must first record
the previous history of this case.
28. It is admitted that the petitioner was initially evaluated by
a Committee appointed by the University, the copy of its report being
on record as Exhibit R1(b). This report was challenged by the
petitioner by filing W.P.(C)No.28807/2018, which led to Exhibit P11
judgment and this was taken up in appeal before a learned Division
Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1311/2019. This appeal was allowed
with the following observations and directions:
"13. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent College
that, the appellant had challenged the order of termination passed
by the 3rd respondent, based on the report of the Expert
Committee constituted by this Court, in a separate writ petition.
Learned Standing Counsel had further raised a contention that the
appellant had not raised any specific ground in the Memorandum
of writ appeal against constitution of the Expert Committee by this
Court. However, we take note of the fact that the learned Single
Judge had already quashed Ext.P17 proceedings of the University.
Therefore, it is necessary to have a reappraisal of the eligibility of
the appellant, in order to decide the question as to whether her
appointment can be approved or not. In that adjudication, it
becomes relevant as to what should be the method through which
such reappraisal need to be done. We are of the considered
opinion that, the approval of appointment is a matter which comes
within the competence of the University. Decision in this regard
need to be taken by the Syndicate or by the Vice Chancellor in
exercise of power under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi
University Act,1985. In the case at hand, if the court finds that the
decision taken in this regard by the Syndicate or by the Vice
Chancellor is illegal or erroneous in any manner, proper course
ought to have been adopted is to remit the matter back to the
University for taking a proper decision in a legally acceptable
manner. We find that there was no need for this Court to constitute
a committee of its own, to make a reappraisal. Such a course
adopted by the learned Single Judge will amount to permitting an
external authority to usurp into the powers vested on the
University. On an active consideration of the factual situations
prevailing, we are of the opinion that Ext.P17 order passed by the
University suffers from illegality and impropriety, apart from it
violates principles of natural justice. When the appellant claimed
API score of 1218 based on proforma submitted with supporting
documents, its evaluation ought to have been made with
opportunity of hearing afforded to her, especially when the
committee found that the claim made is not sustainable and the
allowable score is only 273. Further, before accepting the report of
the Expert Committee, the University ought to have supplied a
copy of the report of the committee to the appellant and could
have afforded her with an opportunity to file objections, if any
against such report. Since these requisite formalities and
procedures were not complied with, mere acceptance of the report
made by the Vice Chancellor based on the recommendation of the
sub committee, cannot be sustained as legal and proper. We think
it only appropriate to direct the competent authority in the
University to afford the appellant with an opportunity to question
correctness of the appraisal made by the Expert Committee. It is
just and proper that the competent authority in the University
shall look into such objections and to take an appropriate decision
based on the parameters settled through the UGC Regulations for
appraisal of the API score based on Performance Based Appraisal
System(PBAS).
14. Based on the above mentioned conclusions, we are inclined to
interfere with the judgment impugned herein. Accordingly, the writ
appeal is hereby allowed and the writ petition is also allowed.
Ext.P17 order passed by the University rejecting approval of the
appointment of the appellant as Principal is hereby quashed. The
1st respondent University is directed to reconsider the matter and
to take fresh decision. The appellant shall submit her objections
against the report of the Expert Committee with respect to
appraisal of API score made therein, to the 1st respondent, along
with a copy of this judgment, within one week from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
15. The competent authority in the University, who is vested with
powers for approval of appointment shall consider such objections,
vis-a-vis the report of the Expert Committee, on the basis of the
UGC Regulations-4th amendment, which came into effect as on
11th July, 2016, and which provides the guidelines (parameters)
for appraisal of the API score. A decision in this regard shall be
taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the
appellant. Needless to observe that, if the competent authority
arrives at a conclusion that the appellant is lacking the requisite
API score of 400, as on the date on which she was appointed as
Principal of the College, the authority will be entitled to refuse
approval of the appointment. On the other hand, if it is found that
the appellant satisfies the requisite score, the appointment should
be approved."
29. In obedience to the above directions of the learned
Division Bench, the Syndicate of the University constituted an
'Approval Sub Committee' to consider the objections of the petitioner,
namely Exhibit P12 and to assess whether the API marks earlier
granted to the petitioner by the Committee was proper or otherwise.
It is after completing this exercise that the Approval Sub Committee
placed their recommendations before the Syndicate, which finally led
to Exhibit P14 order.
30. Before going forward, I must certainly address one more
corollary submission of Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, that
Exhibit P14 has been issued by an incompetent authority. He submits
that going by the provisions of the Act, it is only the 'Approval Sub
Committee' which should have taken a decision - it having been
constituted by the Syndicate - but that Exhibit P14 has been issued by
the Vice Chancellor invoking his powers under Section 10(17)
Chapter III of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel says that,
therefore, Exhibit P14, in any event of the matter, is in error.
31. To answer this contention, I must certainly go through
Exhibit P14 and on doing so, it becomes inevitable that the 'Approval
Sub Committee' had gone through the objections of the petitioner and
had made certain recommendations to the Syndicate of the University,
which, in turn, forwarded the same to the Vice Chancellor. Therefore,
even if the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel are
acceded to, the only consequence would be that the 'Approval Sub
Committee' will have to pass an order on its own, rather than place its
recommendations before the Syndicate or the Vice Chancellor.
However, this would be of no real effect at all because, as is manifest
from Exhibit P14, the said Committee had already taken a decision
and had made their recommendations to the Syndicate of the
University approving the earlier findings of the initial Committee.
Hence, even though Exhibit P14 has been issued by the Vice
Chancellor, he has done so implicitly in terms of the recommendations
of the Approval Sub Committee and I cannot, therefore, find it to be
vitiated for the reasons now asserted by the learned Senior Counsel.
32. Thus moving on, the sole surviving question is whether
the API marks given to the petitioner under Category III would
require any interference by this Court. As rightly stated by the
learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ramesh Babu and by Sri.Asok
M.Cheriyan, assessment of the marks under Category III has been
made by the 'Approval Sub Committee', which is the designated and
competent committee constituted by the Syndicate of the University.
Further, this Committee has been constituted as per the directions of
the learned Division Bench in Exhibit P11 judgment and liberty had
been given to the petitioner to place her objections to the earlier
findings of the Evaluation Committee before it.
33. It is, therefore, ineluctable that the 'Approval Sub
Committee' is the competent one to consider all the relevant aspects
and going by the well established canons of jurisprudence, it would be
impossible for this Court to substitute its wisdom for that of the said
Committee.
34. Even that being so, I have gone through the objections
raised by the petitioner before the said Committee, namely Exhibit
P12 and also the recommendations made by it in Exhibit P14 order.
There is no doubt that the petitioner has sought for larger API marks
under several heads in Category III and that the Committee has
considered each of these objections, thus framing its
recommendations, which have been extracted in Exhibit P14, in the
following manner:
35. It is needless for any further expatiation that this Court is
incompetent to go into the merits of the decision taken by the
'Approval Sub Committee', being without access to the factual
materials and documents assessed upon by it. This is more so since,
while exercising the powers of judicial review, this Court can only
scrutinise the decision making process and not the decision of a
competent authority.
36. I must, at this time, also record that even though a
submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner at the Bar that
her objections had not been specifically dealt with by the 'Approval
Sub Committee', particulars thereof have not been pleaded nor has
the specifics of such assertions been argued.
37. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner had
earlier challenged the decision of the Evaluation Committee
appointed by the Syndicate of the University, which was then directed
to be re-considered by a competent authority of the University as per
Exhibit P11 judgment. When that authority, which is the 'Approval
Sub Committee', has found on the same lines as the initial Committee,
I am certain that it would not be prudent for this Court to examine
these aspects in greater detail as if I am sitting in judgment or appeal
over the findings of the Approval Sub Committee of the University.
This is especially for the added reason that the petitioner has no case
that this Committee is incompetent or lacking in power to assess her
API marks based on Exhibit P13 Notification/Regulations.
In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I
cannot find the petitioner to have made out a case warranting
interference by this Court and consequently, dismiss this writ petition
approving Exhibit P14; thus leaving liberty to the competent
respondent to effect consequential action, in terms of the said order,
as per law.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2018
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXPERIENCE
ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF THE COLLEGE DATED
10.04.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY CUM FITNESS
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DATED
01.04.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FORWARDED BY THE
MANAGER TO THE UNIVERSITY DATED 30.04.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 26.04.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY REJECTING THE APPROVAL OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 2.6.2018 UO NO.4494/B2/02/
ACADEMIC/2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.
18732/2018 DATED 08.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 06.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE TEH 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 07.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY U O NO.9191/B2/02/ACADEMIC/2018
DATED 16.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT IN
W A NO 1311 /2019 DATED 14.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF M
G UNIVERSITY DATED 18.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
UGC NOTIFICATION ALONG WITH APPENDIX III
DATED 11.07.2016.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY NO.3578/AC/B2/2020/MGU DATED
6.8.2020.
EXHIBIT P14(a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE SUB COMMITTEE APPENDED TO
EXT.P14 DATED 18.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF
THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHANCELLOR DATED
19.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P16. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE COLLEGE STANDING COUNCIL HELD ON
11.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE
MANAGER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGE DATED
24.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE NATIONAL
COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (NCLT) NO.CP/17/KOB/
2020 DATED 22.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P19 RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2010
IN EXPLANATORY NOTE TO TABLE II(a) AND
TABLE II(b)
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
CALICUT UNIVERSITY DATED 13.03.2020 NO.
46251/GA-II-H1/2020/Admn
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE
CALICUT UNIVERSITY DATED 13.03.2020 NO.
40523/GA-II-H2/2019/Admn
EXHIBIT P22 RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS PRIOR
TO ITS AMENDMENT APPENDIX-III TABLE I
PROPOSED SCORES FOR API IN RECRUITMENTS AND
CAS PROMOTIONS OF UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE
TEACHERS (PAGES 2525 TO 2534)
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC 28807/2018
DATED 23.01.2019
EXHIBIT R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE THREE-
MEMBER COMMITTEE DATED 14.03.2019
EXHIBIT R3(a) ORDER F.NO.491/2010/46116 OF THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS DATED 28.9.2010 DECARING THAT
THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS A MINORITY
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION COVERED UNDER
ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE DATED 4.11.2020
EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
1.7.2020 PASSEDBY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO 13114/2020
EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 16.10.2020 EXTENDING EXHIBIT
R3(c) FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF ONE MONTH
EXHIBIT R4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23.01.2019
IN WPC NO.28807 OF 2018
EXHIBIT R4 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
18.03.2019
EXHIBIT R4 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
21.03.2019 IN WPC NO 8693 OF 2019
EXHIBIT R4 (d) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWLY ISSUED ORDER
EXTENDING APPOINTMENT OF THIS RESPONDENT
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY DATED
22.10.2020
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
