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
"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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
'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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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.
