Kerala High Court
Deputy Director Of Collegiate ... vs Dr. Leni V on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
RP NO. 1163 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2025 IN WA NO.1689 OF 2018
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV.NISHA BOSE, Sr.GP
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DR. LENI V, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS, ST. GREGORIOUS COLLEGE, KOTTARAKKARA,
RESIDING AT V.M HOUSE, CHENGAMANADU P.O, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691557
2 PRINCIPAL,ST. GREGORIOUS COLLEGE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN -
691557
3 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF, SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 26.09.2025, THE
COURT ON 8.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
This review petition is filed by the appellants in W.A. No.1689
of 2018, under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking review of the judgment
dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in that writ appeal.
2. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the
review petitioners/appellants, the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd
respondent University of Kerala.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that at the time of hearing the writ appeal, Appendix I of Ext.P1
G.O. (P) No.58/2010 /H.Edn. dated 27.03.2010 was not before
this Court, since the 1st respondent did not produce it along with
Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The review petitioners have now
produced Appendix I of Ext.P1 as Annexure A1 along with this
review petition. The calculation of salary in case of promotion from
one academic grade pay to another in the revised pay structure
shall be fixed in accordance with Clause 10 of Annexure A1. But
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
this Court had no opportunity to go through Annexure A1 at the
time of passing the judgment. Similarly, at the time of the
argument of the appeal, the review petitioners relied on
Regulation 9.10 of the UGC Regulations 2010. But in fact, it was
Regulation 10.4 which ought to have been pointed out to this
Court. If Clause 10 of Annexure A1 and Regulation 10.4 of UGC
Regulations 2010 were pointed out to this Court, the result of the
writ appeal would have been different.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent argued that this Court passed the judgment based on
previous judgments of this Court. Hence, there is no error
apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.
5. In order to understand the dispute that was involved in
the writ petition and subsequently in the writ appeal, which
ultimately resulted in the filing of this review petition, it would be
appropriate to briefly narrate the facts borne out from the
pleadings. The 1st respondent was initially appointed as Lecturer
in the college of the 2nd respondent, which is an aided college, with
effect from 06.06.1994. He was placed as Lecturer Senior Scale
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
with effect from 06.06.2000 and then as Selection Grade Lecturer
with effect from 06.06.2005. While in service, the 1 st respondent
acquired Ph.D. on 17.03.2007. The post of Selection Grade
Lecturer was meanwhile redesignated as Assistant Professor. 1 st
respondent was given placement as Associate Professor with effect
from 06.06.2008. Based on Ext.P1 Order dated 27.03.2010 issued
in implementation of 6th UGC Scheme and Ext.P2 Order dated
03.09.2013 issued clarifying Ext.P1 by the Government, by Ext.P4
order dated 23.12.2014 the 1st petitioner/1st appellant sanctioned
two advance increments to the 1st respondent and with effect
from 17.03.2007 his pay was raised to Rs.24,070/- with AGP
Rs.8,000/- from Rs.23,230/- with AGP Rs.8,000/-. However, the
said benefits were withdrawn when the 1 st respondent was placed
as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008. The 1 st
respondent, thereafter, submitted Ext.P3 representation dated
24.10.2014 to the 1st petitioner requesting to restore the benefits.
Thereupon, the 1st petitioner issued Ext.P4 letter informing him
that his pay was revised to Rs.38,800/- + AGP Rs.9,000/- with
effect from 01.09.2008, with the next increment on the normal
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
date. But, immediately after Ext.P4 communication, the 1 st
petitioner issued Ext.P5 order holding that the 1 st respondent is
not eligible for revised advance increment with effect from
01.09.2008 in view of the clarification received from the
Directorate of Collegiate Education. The 1st petitioner, therefore,
withdrew the advance increment sanctioned to the 1 st respondent
in the pay band of Rs.37,400/- - Rs.67,000/- + AGP Rs.9,000/-,
saying that the 1st respondent is eligible only for two advance
increments for acquiring Ph.D. with effect from 17.03.2007 and
for a pay of Rs.24,070/- + AGP Rs.8,000/- in the pay band of
Rs.15,600/- - Rs.39,100/- + AGP Rs.8,000/- with next increment
on normal rate. Challenging Ext.P5, the 1st respondent approached
this Court with W.P.(C) No.27269 of 2015 under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Call for the entire records leading up to Ext.P5 and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order of direction.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or directing the respondent No.3 and 4 to refix the
petitioner's pay on retaining the advance increments
granted to him on account of their acquisition of Ph.D. in the
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
revised scale when he was placed into the post of Associate
Professor with effect from 06.06.2008 and pay all monetary
benefits on account of such fixation with arrears within a
time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court".
6. In the writ petition, on behalf of the 1st petitioner, a
statement dated 25.01.2016 was filed by the Senior
Superintendent of Collegiate Education, opposing the relief sought
and producing therewith Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) documents.
Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that statement read thus:
"3. As per Para IV(1) of G.O(MS) No.597/2013/H.Edn. dated
03.09.2013 produced as Exhibit P2 in the above Writ Petition
stipulates that a teacher who was acquired Ph.D, while in
service between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008 shall be
eligible for 2 noncompound advance increments in the
revised scale of pay at the pre-revised rate of increment
from the date of their acquiring Ph.D. till 31.08.2008, and
at the revised rate of increment w.e.f 01.09.2008. The said
position was clarified by the Director of Collegiate Education
by his letter No. UGC Cell.3/1154/2015/Coll.Edn dated
06.03.2013 wherein it was clarified that, after the granting
of 2 advance increment in the revised scale at the pre-
revised rate w.e.f 01.01.2006 for teachers who had acquired
Ph.D., a further 2 advance increment w.e.f 01.09.2008
might result in financial augmentation if the same teacher
is appointed as Associate Professor on a higher scale before
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
01.09.2008. Copy of the letter issued by the Director of
Collegiate Education dated 06.03.2013 is produced herewith
and marked as Annexure R3(a) for easy reference.
4. It is submitted that the retention of advance increment in
the revised rate w.e.f 01.09.2008 cannot be allowed as the
petitioner was placed as Associate Professor w.e.f
06.06.2008. Further petitioner has also submitted his
willingness by way of an undertaking that he is ready to
refund the excess payment due to incorrect fixation of pay,
which is likely to be detected in future. Photocopy of the
undertaking submitted by the petitioner is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure R3(b) for easy reference.
5. It is respectfully submitted that Exhibit P5 was issued in
accordance with the relevant orders issued by the UGC
orders and also in accordance with the order issued by the
Government and the Director of Collegiate Education. The
3rd respondent is not in any way responsible for any kind of
disparity happened to the petitioner, while implementing the
career advancement scheme/incentive. Further as already
stated above the 3rd respondent has issued Exhibit P5 in
accordance with UGC pay revision orders as well as in the
light of Exhibit R3(a) order of the Director of Collegiate
Education and in the light of the undertaking submitted by
the petitioner."
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, the learned Single Judge passed the
impugned Judgment. In the Judgment, the learned Single
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
Judge considered the question of denial of two advance
increments to the 1st respondent after his placement from
the post of Assistant Professor to the post of Associate
Professor. By relying on the previous judgments on the
point, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition.
Paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment reads thus:
"4. The question regarding fixation of pay and denial of
advance increment on placement as Associate
Professor/Selection Grade Lecturer, has already been
considered by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment dated
09.03.2012 in W.P.(C)No.25962 of 2012, and was affirmed
in Ext.P8 judgment. I have also considered the very same
issue in the judgment in WP(c)No.31777 of 2015, where the
petitioner had acquired Ph.D. before placement as selection
grade Lecturer and it was found that the denial of benefit of
advance increment when she moved to Selection grade
cannot be accepted as it would result in an Associate
Professor, who is junior to her but who got Ph.D. subsequent
to her, would be granted non compounded advance
increment at revised rate on account of which she will have
to draw lesser pay than the junior. In that case the
respondents were directed to refix her pay on her placement
as Associate Professor, as the very purpose and intent of the
grant of incentive will be defeated in case the same is
withdrawn. The principles laid down in Ext.P7 judgment as
well as the Judgment in W.P.(c)No.31777 of 2015 and the
judgment dt. 13.10.2017 in W.P.(c)No.23409 of 2016 would
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
also be applicable in the present case. In the judgment in
WP.(C).No.23409 of 16, Ph.D was acquired by the petitioner
therein on 10.10.2006 and he was re-designated as
Associate Professor w.e.f. 15.8.2008. Though the advance
increments were denied to the petitioner saying that the
Ph.D. awarded to him on 10.10.2006 was not in accordance
with the procedure prescribed as per 2009 Regulations, it
was held that the case of the petitioner was governed by the
provisions contained in clause 10.4 of Ext.P1 order seeing
that the denial of the benefit on the ground of earlier
acquisition of Ph.D. would be discriminatory. It was also held
therein that the denial of non compounded increments to
the petitioner on par with those who acquired Ph.D.
subsequent to 01.09.2008 is illegal and directions were
issued to the respondents to sanction the non compounded
increments in tune with clause 10.4 of Ext.P1 order. In this
case, the petitioner was already granted the benefit in
Ext.P4 But it was withdrawn by Ext P5, unlawfully."
7. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned
counsel on both sides and on perusal of the materials of record,
allowed the writ petition and set aside Ext.P5 order dated
16.04.2015 issued by the 1st petitioner cancelling Ext.P4 order
dated 23.12.2014 of the said petitioner and directed the
petitioners to restore the pay and consequential benefits as in
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
Ext.P4.
8. Challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
the petitioners filed W.A.No.1689 of 2018 before this Court. After
hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record,
this Court dismissed the writ appeal by the judgment dated
29.07.2025. Paragraphs 9 to 12 and the last paragraph of the
judgment read thus:
"9. In W.P.(C) No.25962 of 2008, the issue before a learned
single Judge of this Court is withdrawal of two advance
increments granted to the writ petitioner therein on the
basis of the Government Order dated 21.12.1999 for
acquiring Ph.D. while working as Lecturer, when she moved
to Selection Grade/Reader. By Ext.P7 judgment dated
09.03.2012, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition holding that the two advance increments granted to
the petitioner therein consequent on the acquisition of
Ph.D. cannot be withdrawn when she was moved to
Selection Grade. While declining the contention of the
petitioner that she is entitled to two more advance
increments when moved to Selection Grade, the learned
Single Judge stated that she is entitled to retain two
advance increments already granted to her. Against Ext.P7,
though the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education and
others, including the State, filed appeal as W.A.No.1888 of
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
2012, by Ext.P8 judgment dated 28.08.2014, a Division
Bench of this Court confirmed the findings in Ext.P7.
10. Though the learned Senior Government Pleader would
contend that while passing Exts.P7 and P8 judgments, the
UGC Regulation was not taken into account, a similar
situation as that of the instant case arose for consideration
before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1653
of 2017. In that case also, though the learned Senior
Government Pleader placed reliance on Regulation 9.10 of
UGC Regulations 2010, the Division Bench held that the
same is intended to apply only to the grant of increments
stipulated by Regulation 9.1, which provides for the grant of
five non-compounded advance increments at the entry level
of recruitment as Assistant Professor to person, who
possess Ph.D. degree. Paragraphs 9 to 11 of that judgment
read thus:
"9. We have considered the contentions advanced
before us anxiously. We notice that, advance increments
were granted to the first respondent on acquiring her
Ph.D qualification as per the provisions of Ext.P1
Government Order. In addition to the said increments,
she became entitled to two more advance increments
when she became a Selection Grade Lecturer. Those
increments were granted as per Clauses 6.18 and 6.19
of Ext.P1. This Court has in Ext.P3 judgment found that
she was entitled to receive four increments. The said
judgment to which the appellants were also parties has
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
become final. Therefore, the only question that arises
for consideration is whether the action of the appellants
in declining to pay the said increments upon
implementation of the 6th UGC Scheme is proper or not.
10. The learned Single Judge has found that, the pay of
the first respondent was revised. It was necessary that,
her increments were also revised. The learned
Government Pleader places reliance on Regulation 9.10
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, 2010
(hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC Regulations' for
short) to point out that there is a bar against grant of
advance increments under the said Regulations, to
persons 'who have already availed the benefits of
advance increments' for possessing Ph.D/M.Phil at the
entry level under the earlier Schemes/Regulations.
However, we notice that, the said bar can have no
application to the case of the first respondent. The same
is intended to apply only to the grant of increments
stipulated by Regulation 9.1 which provides for the grant
of five non-compounded advance increments at the
entry level of recruitment as Assistant Professor to
persons who possess Ph.D Degree. Since the first
respondent is not a person who has been granted
advance increments under the said Regulation, we are
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
not satisfied that Regulation 9.10. is of any help in
advancing the case of the appellants. We do not find any
provision in the UGC Regulations justifying the action of
the appellants in denying to the first respondent the
benefit of the advance increments that she had been
receiving, on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order as
well as Ext. P3 judgment of this Court.
11. As held by the learned Single Judge, upon revision
of her pay in implementation of the 6 th UGC Scheme, it
is not merely her pay that undergoes revision, but also
her increments. Unless her increments are also revised
in the manner stipulated under the 6 th UGC Scheme, a
situation would arise where a junior teacher who
acquires Ph.D after the relevant date, would draw more
pay than persons like the first respondent for the only
reason that Ph.D. was acquired on a later date. Even
persons who are already in service who acquire the
Degree of Ph.D. after the relevant date would also
become entitled to the benefit of increments calculated
on the basis of the method stipulated by the 6 th UGC
Scheme. Therefore, the said contention cannot be
accepted." [Underline supplied]
11. In the instant case, as already noted above, the 1 st
respondent was granted two advance increments by virtue
of Ext.P4 order dated 23.12.2014. However it was cancelled
by Ext.P5 order dated 16.04.2015. When the 1 st respondent
was moved from the post of Assistant Professor to the post
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
of Associate Professor, his salary was fixed at the entry scale
of Rs.37400 + AGP 9,000/-, and by adding two advance
increments to that amount it reached to Rs.38800 + AGP
9,000/- from 37,400. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
granting of two advance increments to the 1 st respondent
after his moving to the post of Associate Professor would
amount to granting four advance increments. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent,
the non-granting of two advance increments to the 1st
respondent after his moving to the post of Associate
Professor would create junior-senior anomaly in the case of
pay, since a junior who subsequently obtains the
qualification of Ph.D./M.Phil will get more salary.
12. While analysing the facts of this case, in the light of the
judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1653 of
2017 referred to above, it is clear that the matter is covered
by the said judgment. On re-appreciation of the materials
on record and on considering the submissions made at the
Bar, we find no sufficient ground to take a different view
than that arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Therefore,
the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed".
9. The perusal of the judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed
by this Court in the writ appeal and the materials on record, we
notice that the 1st respondent produced Ext.P1 document in the
writ petition, without annexing Appendix I of that document, which
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
is now produced as Annexure A1 by the review petitioners. Hence,
this Court had no opportunity to peruse Appendix I in Ext.P1 at
the time of passing the appeal judgment. Similarly, the learned
Senior Government Pleader had relied on Regulation 9.10 in the
UGC Regulations 2010, viz., 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), at the time
of arguing the writ appeal. Regulation 10.4 was not pointed out
at that time, and hence this Court relied on Regulation 9.10 alone
while passing the judgment.
10. It is relevant to note Clause 10 of Annexure A1 for a
better understanding of the Government Order as to the fixation
of pay, when a person moves from one academic grade pay to
another in the revised pay structure by promotion, which reads
as under:
"10. Fixation of pay on placement/promotion on or after
1.1.2006: In case of placement/promotion from one
academic grade pay to another in the revised pay structure,
the fixation will be done as follows.
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
One increment equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in the pay
band and the existing academic grade pay will be computed
and rounded off to the next multiple of 10. This will be added
to the existing pay in the pay band. The academic grade pay
corresponding to the promotion post will thereafter be
granted in addition to this pay in the pay band. In cases
where promotion involves change in the pay band also the
same methodology will be followed. However, if the pay in
the pay band after adding the increment is less than the
minimum of the higher pay band to which promotion is
taking place, the pay in the pay band will be stepped to such
minimum. In view of the considerable raise in effective pay
between the two pay bands, there shall be no additional
increment on movement from the pay band 3 to pay band
4".
11. Ext.P1 was issued by the Government in terms of the
UGC Regulations 2010. Regulation 10.4 of the UGC Regulations
reads thus:
"10.4. The number of additional increment(s) on placemen
at each higher stage of AGP shall be as per the existing
Schemes/Regulations of increment on promotion from lower
pay scale to higher pay scale; however, in view of the
considerable raise in effective pay between the two pay
bands, there shall be no additional increment on movement
from the pay band of Rs.15,600 - Rs.39,100 to the pay band
of Rs.37,400 - Rs.67,000".
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
12. The pay of the 1st respondent at the time of his
placement as Associate Professor with effect from 06.06.2008 was
Rs.24580/- + AGP 8,000/-. As per Clause 10 of Annexure A1, one
increment is equal to 3% of the sum of the pay in the pay band
and the existing academic grade pay, and it should be rounded to
next multiple of 100. 3% of Rs.32580/- ie, Rs.24580 + Rs.8000
will come to Rs.977/-. So when calculating the pay as stated in
Clause 10 of Annexure A1, the pay of the 1 st respondent will be
Rs.24580/- + AGP 8000 + Rs.977/-, which will come to
Rs.25,557/-. The pay of the 1st respondent was fixed at
Rs.24,580/- by adding two advance increments while in the pay
scale of Rs.15,600-39,100 + AGP 8000 as an Assistant Professor.
Therefore, the pay @ Rs.24580 + AGP 8000 included two advance
increments already added. The pay band of the Associate
Professor, while the 1st respondent was promoted as Associate
Professor was Rs.37,400 - 67,000. Even applying the formula,
since the pay band of Associate Professor is much higher than that
of the Assistant Professor, the 1 st respondent was granted a
minimum higher pay band of Associate Professor, that is
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
Rs.37,400/- + AGP 9000. As stated in Regulation 10.4 of UGC
Regulations 2010, further additional increments cannot be
granted to the 1st respondent while moving from pay band 3 to
pay band 4 in view of considerable raise in effective pay between
the two pay bands.
13. While passing the judgment in the writ appeal, these
materials, now produced as Annexure A1 and Regulation 10.4 of
UGC Regulations 2010, were not before this Court. In the
pleadings, the 1st respondent relied on Ext.P1 Government Order
dated 27.03.2010. But as stated above, the 1st respondent did not
produce Appendix I of Ext.P1 in the writ petition, which is now
produced by the petitioners as Annexure A1. The non-production
of Appendix I along with Ext.P1, which is an inseparable part of
that document, by the 1st respondent can only be said as
suppression of a material fact. The judgment in the writ appeal
was happened to be passed in favour of the 1 st respondent only
for the reason of non-production of Appendix I of Ext.P1, which
ought to have been produced by the 1 st respondent.
14. In the judgment dated 29.07.2025 in the writ appeal,
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
this Court referred Ext.P7 judgment dated 09.03.2012 in
W.P.(C)No.25962 of 2012, Ext.P8 judgment dated 28.08.2014 in
W.A.No.1888 of 2012, and the judgment dated 21.02.2018 in W.A.
No.1653 of 2017. But while going through Exts P7 and P8
judgments, we notice that the Single Bench of this Court, as well
as the Division Bench did not consider Annexure A1 or Regulation
10.4 of the UGC regulations 2010, while passing those judgments.
Similarly, in W.A.No.1653 of 2017, Regulation 9.10 of the UGC
regulations 2010 was referred to by the Division Bench of this
Court, and not Regulation 10.4, which we have extracted in the
preceding paragraph. In such circumstances, Exts.P7 and P8
judgments as well as the judgment in W.A.No.1653 of 2017 are
not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
15. The upshot of the above discussion is that the
judgment dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.A. No.1689
of 2018 is to be reviewed and recalled, as it was happened to be
passed without noting the relevant Regulation and the
Government Order governing the field. The review
petitioners/appellants have made out sufficient ground to allow
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
the writ appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment therein.
In the result, the review petition is allowed, and the judgment
dated 29.07.2025 in W.A.No.1689 of 2018 is reviewed and
recalled. The writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned
judgment dated 05.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No. 27269 of 2015, and the
writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
RP No.1163 of 2025 2025:KER:73738
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF APPENDIX -I OF EXHIBIT P1
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 21/02/2018 IN
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F-15.4/2012(PS) PART
5 FILED DATED 11.11.2021 FROM EDUCATION
OFFICER, UNIVERSITY GRANT COMMISSION,
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
UGC IN WP(C) 13174/2024
