(English) at the All Saints' College, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The college invited applications from female candidates
26.09.2021. The norms for the selection as above are stated to
be pursuant to the prescription issued by the University of Kerala.
applications were received. The applications were considered by
sheet. In this score sheet, candidates were included under the
open merit and community list. The petitioners in W.P(C)
open merit. The name of the 2nd petitioner also figures at serial
No.4 in the community merit list. Respondents 6, 7, and 8 in the
respondent also figuring in the community merit list. The
55 marks under community quota. They further state that
respectively, and therefore, got included in the respective quotas.
i. The 6th respondent was granted two marks each for the
publication of three articles in journals, but one article
was not published in a journal, but in a "textbook" and
hence could not be considered to be "Peer Reviewed or
UGC listed journal" as required under the norms referred
to earlier produced along with W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022
as Ext.P2. Therefore, the petitioners state that as
regards the 6th respondent, two marks have to be
deducted, in which event, she only has 58 marks, on
account of which, she is not at all to be interviewed.
ii. The 7th respondent was granted two marks each for two
articles, published in the Journal of Research in
Humanities and Social Science, which is only a
"predatory journal". Therefore, the six marks awarded
to the 7th respondent also require to be deducted, in
which event, her score would be 54.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
iii. As regards the 8th respondent, since the article published
is a "joint/co-authored one," full marks could not be
granted, and if at all, only 1.4 marks could be awarded.
Therefore, the petitioners have instituted W.P(C) No.36146 of
2022, seeking the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ,
direction, or order to call for the records leading to
the interview, selection, and appointment of
respondents 6 to 8 to the post of Assistant Professor
(English) in the 4th respondent, All Saints' College,
Thiruvananthapuram, and quash the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ
order or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to appoint
petitioners or other eligible candidates from Ext.P3
on the basis of merit or else to conduct a fresh
selection for appointment to the post of Assistant
Professor (English) in 4th respondent - All Saints'
College, Thiruvananthapuram.
The 8th respondent in W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022 was initially
appointed by the college pursuant to an appointment order dated
01.06.2022, after successfully completing the selection process.
However, a show cause memo dated 18.08.2022 is issued by the
'Manager' of the college informing that since one of the
publications was a co-authored one, only 1.4 marks could be
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
awarded, on account of which the total marks obtained by the said
respondent could only be 53.4, which is below the cut off mark of
55, on account of which the interview and the subsequent
appointment is null and void. The said respondent filed a detailed
reply essentially admitting to the entitlement for 1.4 marks for the
publication, however, stating that she was entitled to 4 marks for
the "teaching experience" with reference to her experience in
various colleges, and therefore, pointing out that the total score
should be reckoned as 55.4. The said respondent had also sought
to challenge the proceedings initiated as above by filing W.P(C)
No.30112 of 2022 before this Court, and by judgment dated
19.10.2022, this Court found that if at all, it is only the duly
constituted selection committee which could review the decision
already taken and not the Manager of the college. Therefore, the
explanation offered as above was directed to be considered by the
management of the college and to forward the same to the
committee concerned if found necessary, permitting the teacher to
continue in her position. However, the selection committee decided
to conduct a fresh interview so as to ensure "transparency,
accountability and competence in the selection process" pursuant
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
to a meeting held on 14.11.2022. The aforesaid decision of the
management is sought to be challenged by the teacher concerned,
by filing W.P(C) No. 5027 of 2023. Another applicant who had
participated in the selection process has sought to challenge the
appointment extended to the petitioner in W.P(C) No.5027 of
2023, seeking to rely on the mistake pointed out by the Manager
referred to earlier and praying for a direction to appoint her
instead, by filing W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023.
3. I have heard Sri.B.Raghunathan, the learned counsel
for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022, Sri.Renjith
Thampan, the learned senior counsel for the 6th respondent therein
and Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel instructed
by Smt.Silpa Sreekumar for the 7th and 8th respondents therein. I
have also heard Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner in W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023, as well as Sri.A.S
Shammy Raj, the learned counsel for the Manager of the college,
Sri.Thomas Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel for the
University, and Sri.N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government
Pleader.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
4. Sri. Raghunathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner
in W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022, would contend with reference to the
requirement under the norms referred to above, as well as the
averments in the writ petition and the reply affidavit, that
respondents 6, 7, and 8 ought not to have been called for the
interview. He invites the attention of this Court to the averments
in the reply affidavit, to contend that the publication by the 7th
respondent was in a "predatory journal" as would be clear from
the publication of the very same article offered for publication in
the name of an imaginary person, getting published in the same
journal. Therefore, according to him, the entire selection process
was flawed, and the writ petition requires to be allowed.
5. Sri. Thampan, the learned senior counsel appearing for
the 6th respondent, submits that the writ petition itself is liable to
be rejected, as it proceeds on the assumption that the minimum
requirement of marks for being called for the interview is a
statutory requirement. He relies on the University Grants
Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in University and Colleges and other
Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC Regulations')
pursuant to the notification dated 18.07.2018, and submits that
the only requirement or qualification prescribed as per the
Regulations is under Regulation 4.1. Since no minimum marks are
prescribed anywhere therein, the issue does not require
adjudication, according to him. He would also state that it is
ultimately since the selection committee represented by the 4th
respondent in the writ petition accepted the academic brilliance of
the 6th respondent, she was considered, and the Court ought not
interfere, as held by the Apex Court in B.C.Mylarappa Alias
Dr.Chikkamylarappa v. Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah and Others
[(2008) 14 SCC 306].
6. Sri. Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel appearing
for respondents 7 and 8, also relies on the UGC Regulations
referred to above and submits that the subjective satisfaction of
the 5th respondent is not liable to be tested by this Court. With
reference to the writ petition filed by the 8th respondent, as noticed
earlier - W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023, he states that the directions
issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment have not been acted upon
by the committee, as evidenced by the impugned proceedings at
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
Ext.P13, in the writ petition. He also relies on Exts.P15 and P16
notifications issued by Mahatma Gandhi University to contend that,
with reference to the teaching experience claimed by the
petitioner, as evidenced by the aforesaid notifications, the
petitioner was entitled to 4 marks, in which event, the petitioner
would be entitled to be considered for the interview. For the very
same reason, he says W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023 is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in W.P(C) No.13733 of 2023, would contend that the 4th
respondent in the writ petition (the petitioner in W.P(C) No.5027
of 2023) was not entitled to be called for the interview for more
than one reason. Apart from seeking to rely on the college's
finding that the 4th respondent was only entitled to 1.4 marks for
the articles published, he would state that the contention in W.P(C)
No.5027 of 2023 that the petitioner therein (4th respondent in this
case) was entitled for 4 marks as against her teaching experience
is also incorrect. He would contend that the claim for 4 marks was
raised with reference to the experience as a "Guest Lecturer" and,
going by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
Vasundhara G. v. Dr. Sallas Benjamin and Others [2010 (1)
KHC 514], the experience as a Guest Lecturer could not be
reckoned for the purpose of considering the qualification in
question. Without prejudice, he states that under the UGC
Regulations (Ext.P8), marks for teaching experience are required
to be awarded only on the basis of Table 3B under Regulation 6,
according to which, where the experience is less than one year,
the entitlement to marks shall be proportionate. Therefore, since
the 4th respondent, even according to her, only had a claim for 17
months and 6 days experience disclosed in Ext.P9 application, was
only entitled for 2.9 marks. He also relied on Section 2(1)(a) of
the Kerala University First Statute, 1977 defining the term
"academic year", and Section 2(27) of the Kerala University
Act,1974 defining the term "teacher", as well as UGC Regulations,
to contend that only a regular service can be reckoned and not the
service as a Guest Lecturer. As regards Exts.P15 and P16 relied
on in W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023, it is his submission that, in view of
the separate treatment visualised under the UGC Regulations, it is
the said Regulations that would prevail. He also relies on the
judgment of this Court in P. V. Prakasini v. KPSC and Others
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
[1993 (1) KLJ 632], as well as the judgment of the Apex Court
in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu
and Others [(2003) 7 SCC 285] to contend that the rank list
need not be set aside in total as proposed by the college, instead,
the 4th respondent requires to be removed from the list and
petitioner accommodated.
8. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the
connected records. As regards W.P(C) No.36146 of 2022, the
question of entertaining the afore writ petition arises only in a
situation where Ext.P1 notification and Ext.P2 norms fixed a
minimum cut-off mark in the initial selection process for being
considered for the interview. A perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 does
not indicate any requirement regarding a minimum cut-off mark
for being considered for the interview. Even according to the
learned counsel for the college, the cut-off mark is fixed internally.
That being so, in my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to
challenge the selection of respondents 6, 7, and 8 for interview.
This is all the more so since the petitioners do not have a case that
their candidature was more meritorious than the respondents and
therefore, they require to be considered. Therefore, with reference
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in B.C.Mylarappa
Alias Dr.Chikkamylarappa (supra), the petitioners are not
entitled to challenge the selection process. Therefore, W.P(C)
No.36146 of 2022 would stand dismissed.
9. As regards W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023, the show cause
notice at Ext.P9 was issued on the ground that the marks awarded
for the two publications were incorrect, on account of which the
petitioner therein would have only 53.4 marks, which is below the
cut-off mark of 55. Sri.Shammi Raj, the learned counsel for the
college, would argue that many candidates have secured marks
between 50 and 54, and that is why the cut-off mark of 55 was
fixed internally, and on account of the reasons stated in the show
cause notice at Ext.P9, the petitioner was not eligible for being
even interviewed. However, I notice that in the earlier round of
litigation - W.P(C) No.30112 of 2022 - by Ext.P12 judgment, this
Court had directed the management to consider Ext.P10
explanation and forward the same to the committee concerned,
clarifying that it is for the selection committee to take a decision
to review the marks earlier awarded. However, this Court notices
that in the impugned Ext.P13 minutes, the matter has not been
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
addressed with reference to the mandate under Ext.P12 judgment.
This is especially since the petitioner had, in Ext.P10 explanation,
pointed out that she was entitled to four marks under the head
"teaching experience." Though the petitioner also relied on
Exts.P15 and P16 notifications issued by MG University, the
committee did not consider the impact of the said notifications
either. Even the contention raised regarding the entitlement to
four marks towards teaching experience, as explained in Ext.P10,
is not considered while issuing Ext.P13.
10. In this regard, this Court takes note of the contentions
raised by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 13773 of 2023 that, with
reference to Table 3B to Regulation 6 of the UGC Regulations, the
petitioner is entitled to only 2.9 marks for teaching experience and
not 4 marks and consequently, the total marks of the petitioner
would be only 54.3.
11. Therefore, the issue arising for consideration as regards
the claim made by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.13773 of 2023 as
against the 4th respondent therein is as to whether the 4th
respondent therein is entitled to 4 marks towards teaching
experience. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.13733 of 2023 would
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
contend that the 4th respondent is not entitled for any marks since
her service as a Guest Lecturer does not require counting and if at
all, she is entitled for only 2.9 marks. Therefore, the first issue to
be considered is as to whether the service as a Guest Lecturer
requires to be reckoned.
12. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned senior counsel, relies on
Regulation 10.0(e) under which the previous appointment as a
Guest Lecturer is not to be reckoned. The provisions of Regulation
10.0, to the extent relevant herein reads as follows:
"10.0 Counting of Past Services for Direct Recruitment
and Promotion under CAS
Previous regular service, whether national or international,
as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or
equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or
other scientific/professional organizations such as the CSIR,
ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR and DBT, should
count for the direct recruitment and promotion under the
CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,
Professor or any other nomenclature, provided that:
..........
(e) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for
any duration."
(Underlining supplied)
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
Thus, on a reading of the afore clause, it is clear that the same
applies to "direct recruitment and promotion under the CAS" of a
teacher. Here, the dispute is not with reference to any appointment
under the CAS. Direct recruitment is specifically dealt with under
Regulation 4.1, and the limitation under Regulation 10.0(e) cannot
be made applicable for direct recruitment, which is specifically
dealt with under Regulation 4.1. At this juncture, the contentions
raised by Sri.Elvin Peter, with reference to the provisions of the
Kerala University Act, 1974 - Section 2(27) defining the term
"teacher" and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
Vasundhara (supra), requires to be considered. True, Section
2(27) of the afore Act defines the term "teacher" as a principal,
professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer,
etc., not providing for a "Guest Lecturer. It is with reference to the
identical provisions under the Calicut University Act, 1975, that the
Division Bench of this Court in Vasundhara (supra) held that
experience as a Guest Lecturer could not be reckoned for
calculating the qualification. At the same time, in the case at hand,
the appointment is admittedly being governed by the provisions of
the UGC Regulations. The exclusion of experience as a Guest
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
Lecturer has been specifically provided for under Regulation 10.0,
without extending such exclusion to other areas. In other words,
the Regulation has been framed in such a way that the previous
appointment as a Guest Lecturer requires exclusion only with
reference to the appointments under the CAS. Insofar as this is
not being specifically included under Regulation 4.1, in my opinion,
the judgment of the Division Bench in Vasundhara (supra) cannot
be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
13. In the light of the afore finding, the second challenge
raised as above requires to be addressed. The 4 th respondent
contends that with reference to her experience as a Guest Lecturer,
she was entitled for 4 marks. The experience of the 4th respondent
is claimed with reference to Exts.P3, P4 and P5 certificates
produced along with W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023. The afore
certificates cover the following periods: -
Ext.P3 - 23.07.2018 to 17.09.2018,
Ext.P4 - September 2018 to March 2019 and
Ext.P5 - 24.06.2019 to 31.03.2020
14. Sri.Elvin Peter, the learned senior counsel, on the face
of the afore certificates would seek to rely on definition of the
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
term "academic year" under Section 2(1)(a) of the Kerala
University First Statutes, 1977 as well as the treatment provided
under Table 3B of the UGC Regulations and state that the 4th
respondent was not having "full academic year" experience and
therefore, the marks requires to be reduced proportionately.
According to him, if the proportionate marks alone are extended,
the 4th respondent is only entitled to 2.9 marks. However,
Sri.Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel, states that, as is
evidenced by Exts.P15 and 16 academic calendar of the
University, the 4th respondent had the experience that was
required and hence, the 4th respondent should be extended with
four marks.
15. For an evaluation of afore contentions, the definition
of the term 'academic year', as well as the Table of the UGC
Regulations requires to be noticed as under:
"'2.(1)(a) Academic Year' means a period of twelve months
commencing from the first day of June.
Provided that in the case of teachers who are granted
extension of service till the end of the academic year, the
academic year shall mean the period of ten months from
the first day of June.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
Table:3B
Criteria for short-listing of candidates for interview for the
Post of Assistant Professors in Colleges
S. Academic Record Score
N.
1. Graduation 80%& 60% to 55% to 45% to
Above=21 less than less than less than
80%-19 60% =16 55%=10
2. Post-Graduation 80% & 60% to 55% (50% in case
Above =25 less than of SC/ST/OBC (non-
80%=23 creamy layer)/PWD)
to less than
60%=20
3. M.Phil 60% & above =07 55% to less than
60% = 05
6. Research Publications 06
(2 marks for each
research publications
published in Peer-
Reviewed or UGC-
listed Journals)
Doctoral Experience
(2 marks for one year
each)#
8. Awards
International/National 03
Level
(Awards given by
International
Organisations/Governm
ent of
India/Government of
India recognised
National Level Bodies)
(Awards given by State
Government)
#However, if the period of teaching/post-doctoral
experience is less than one year then the marks shall be
reduced proportionately."
True, the term 'academic year' means the period of twelve months
commencing from the first day of June. However, what is required
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
under Table 3B is "teaching experience". Therefore, ultimately it
is the period the candidate taught at an educational institution that
requires to be considered. Otherwise, the requirement under Table
3B ought to have been with reference to teaching experience
during an academic year. This Court is justified in arriving at this
conclusion in view of the separate treatment provided at the
footnote to the Table, which states that if the teaching experience
is less than one year, the marks require to be reduced
proportionately. With reference to this interpretation, the academic
schedule of the MG University, Kottayam, under which the colleges
in which the 4th respondent worked as a Guest Lecturer were
functioning, requires to be noticed. The certificate at Ext. P15
states that the colleges reopened after the summer vacation on
04.06.2018 and that the undergraduate programmes commenced
on 12.07.2018. With reference to the aforesaid, the 4th
respondent had teaching experience from 23.07.2018 to
17.09.2018 at Vypin Government Arts and Science College, and
thereafter at St. Paul's College till March 2019. Therefore, if at all,
there can be any deficiency, that can be only from 12.07.2018 till
23.07.2018. So also, for the next year, the classes commenced
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
from 24.06.2019 in the undergraduate stream, and the petitioner
had experience from that date onwards till the very end up to
31.03.2020 as evidenced by Ext.P5 certificate. Hence, the
reduction of marks under the note to Table 3B requires to be made
only for the period from 12.07.2018 to 23.07.2018. If it is so
reworked, the 4th respondent would be entitled for 3.9 marks
towards her teaching experience, by dividing the entitlement of 2
marks for the period during which the college functioned,
imparting teaching to the students, and reducing the entitlement
for 12 days from the total entitlement of the petitioner as under:-
Entitlement for one year. = 2 marks
Entitlement for one month. = 0.2 marks
Entitlement for one day. = 0.006 marks
Entitlement for period of 12 days to be reduced in the
year 2017-18 (12.07.2018- 23.07.2018) = 0.072
Marks for the period of entitlement claimed by the petitioner
(23.07.2018 to 31.03.2019 and
24.06.2019 to 31.03.2020) = 3.9(4-0.072)
If the marks are so reworked, the petitioner would be entitled for
55.3 marks, and since it is above the cut-off mark of 55, she was
entitled to be selected for the interview.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
16. In this connection, this Court also refers to the
judgment of the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India v.
Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., [(1987) 1
SCC 424] wherein it is held as under:-
"33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the
context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well
say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour.
Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That
interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation
match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we
know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute
must be read, first as a whole and then section by section,
clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a
statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the
glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its
scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take
colour and appear different than when the statute is looked
at without the glasses provided by the context. With these
glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover
what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word
is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the
entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can
be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so
that every word has a place and everything is in its place. It
is by looking at the definition as a whole in the setting of the
entire Act and by reference to what preceded the enactment
and the reasons for it that the Court construed the
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
expression "Prize Chit" in Srinivasa and we find no reason to
depart from the Court's construction."
Therefore, ultimately a statute requires to be provided with a
purposive/contextual construction. If such an interpretation is not
given, the teaching experience prescribed under Table 3B would
also include the period during which the college was closed.
Therefore, the definition of the term 'academic year' under Section
2(1)(a) of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 would also not
apply.
In the light of the afore discussion, these writ petitions would
stand disposed of as under: -
i. W.P.(C) Nos.36146 of 2022 and 13773 of 2023 are dismissed.
ii. W.P.(C) No.5027 of 2023 is allowed. Ext.P13 challenged therein
is quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 to seek for approval of the
petitioner's appointment from the University and disburse the
salary due to her as early as possible, at any rate, within
twelve weeks from today.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.5027 OF 2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
19.03.2018 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE
EDITOR, STUDIES IN INDIAN PLACE NAMES
(SIPN) IN MARCH 2020.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.09.2018
BY THE VYPIN GOVERNMENT ARTS & SCIENCE
COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
NO.SPC/173/TS/CERT DATED 17.05.2019
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
PRINCIPAL, ST. PAUL'S COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
NO.A2/54/2019 DATED 04.05.2020 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER BY THE GOVERNMENT ARTS AND
SCIENCE COLLEGE, VYPIN.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED
IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 26.09.2021 AND
ITS TYPED LEGIBLE COPY.
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CURRICULUM VITAE DATED
NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE MEMO NO.
APPT/ENGLISH/2022 DATED 18.08.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXHIBIT-P9 SHOW
CAUSE MEMO DATED 25.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.
APPT/ENGLISH/2022/2 DATED 20.09.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT COLLEGE TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P12 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 30112
OF 2022 DATED 19.10.2022 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P13 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS GIVEN ON
25.11.2022 (MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD
ON 14.11.2022) IN PURSUANCE TO THE
JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 30112 OF 2022.
EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE FOR
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES BEARING
NOTIFICATION NO. AC.A1/3/5478/2018 DATED
30.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.
AC.A1/3/5478/2018 DATED 30.05.2018
ISSUED BY THE M.G UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ACADEMIC SCHEDULE FOR
THE YEAR 2019-20 BEARING NOTIFICATION
NO.17016/ACA1/3/2019/ ACA1 DATED
27.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE M.G UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
NO. SPC/173/TS/2019-20/ DATED 16.11.2022
ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL, ST. PAULS COLLEGE,
KALAMASSERY.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT VIDE NO: APPENDIX II TO
U.O. NO.AC.F II/GENERAL/UGC - R-2018/2019
DATED 9.9.2021.
EXHIBIT-R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATION CERTIFICATE,
ISSUED BY THE ALOCHANA CHAKRA JOURNAL
(UNDATED) WHICH WAS PRODUCED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SELECTION COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT-R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CLONED JOURNALS
(UNDATED) ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS
COMMISSION (UGC)
EXHIBIT-R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
ORIGINAL PUBLICATION.
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE B.A. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
06.07.2013.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
19.06.2015.
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
03.09.2016.
EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY TEST
FOR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AWARDED BY THE
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED
01.02.2016.
EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D. CERTIFICATE AWARDED
BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
27.02.2023.
EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
U.G.C. REGULATIONS, 2018.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST OF CANDIDATES
SELECTED FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
(COMMUNITY MERIT) IN ENGLISH ISSUED BY THE
ALL SAINTS' COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO EXT.P6
NOTIFICATION OBTAINED BY THE ADDL. 4TH
RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13773 OF 2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT INVITING APPLICATIONS
FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSORS IN ENGLISH DATED 26.09.2021
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE B.A. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
06.07.2013.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
19.06.2015.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE B.ED. DEGREE CERTIFICATE
AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
03.09.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY
TEST FOR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AWARDED BY
THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED
01.02.2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PH.D. CERTIFICATE
AWARDED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA DATED
27.02.2023.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE OF
THE PETITIONER EVIDENCING THAT THE
PETITIONER BELONGS TO LATIN CATHOLIC
COMMUNITY.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
U.G.C. REGULATIONS, 2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO EXT.P1
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
NOTIFICATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST OF
CANDIDATES SELECTED FOR THE POST OF
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (COMMUNITY MERIT) IN
ENGLISH ISSUED BY THE ALL SAINTS'
COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED
01.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING HER AS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN ENGLISH.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
20.09.2022.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.10.2022 IN W.P. (C) NO. 30112/2022 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING
CONDUCTED ON 14.11.2022.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2023
IN W.P. (C) NO. 5027/2023 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION
COMMITTEE DATED 14.11.2022.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.36146 OF 2022
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.9.2021 IN
'THE HINDU DAILY'.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPENDIX II TO UO NO.AC.F
II/GENERAL/UGC-R 2018/2019 DATED 9.9.2021 OF 3RD
RESPONDENT-UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET FOR SELECTION OF
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (ENGLISH) IN 4TH RESPONDENT-
COLLEGE HELD ON 13.5.2022.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT EXPLORING THE MACABRE,
MALEVOLENT AND MYSTERIOUS: MULTIDISCIPLINARY
PERSPECTIVES (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE (FEMINISM THROUGH
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION IN NGUGIWA
THIONG'O'S DEVIL ON THE CROSS) PUBLISHED IN
QUEST JOURNALS BY 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GMAIL DATED 23.1.2023 ALONG
WITH CONNECTED DOCUMENTS AND ARTICLE (POLITICAL
AND RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION IN ELENA FERRANTE'S THE
LYING LIFE OF ADULTS) PUBLISHED IN QUEST
JOURNALS OF JOVANA FRODE.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ARTICLE (REPRESENTATION OF
INTERSECTIONALITY IN THE FILM MARGARITA WITH A
STRAW) BY 7TH RESPONDENT PUBLISHED IN QUEST
JOURNALS.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
2.2.2023 ALONG WITH CONNECTED DOCUMENTS AND
ARTICLE ((EXPLOITATION OF IGNORANCE IN GABRIELE
WERTMULLER'S FILM ‘PEOPLE CAN BE
DECEIVED') OF JOVANA FRODE.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
EXHIBIT P9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL
SCIENCE RESEARCH (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL RESEARCH IN
PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(C) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL RESEARCH IN AGRICULTURE
AND ANIMAL SCIENCE (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(D) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL RESEARCH IN HUMANITIES
AND SOCIAL SCIENCE (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(E) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
AND MANAGEMENT (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(F) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL RESEARCH IN
ENVIRONMENTAL AND EARTH SCIENCE (RELEVANT
PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(G) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL RESEARCH IN APPLIED
MATHEMATICS (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(H) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURE AND
CIVIL ENGINEERING (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(I) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL RESEARCH IN MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(J) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL OF ELECTRONICS AND
COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING RESEARCH (RELEVANT
PORTION).
EXHIBIT P9(K) TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
AND SIMULATION (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF UGC CONSORTIUM FOR
ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH ETHICS REPORT (RELEVANT
PORTION).
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.ENG
89/ENGLISH/APPT/2022 DATED 1.6.2022 ISSUED BY
4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 6TH RESPONDENT.
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.ENG
39/ENGLISH/APPT/2022 DATED 1.6.2022 ISSUED BY
4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.ENG
104/ENGLISH/APPT/2022 DATED 1.6.2022 ISSUED BY
4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 8TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S CHAPTER
'UNCANNY' SIGNIFIERS IN HEAVY RAIN' IN THE BOOK
'EXPLORING THE MACABRE, MALEVOLENT, AND
MYSTERIOUS: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES',
WHICH WAS PUBLISHED BY CAMBRIDGE SCHOLARS
PUBLISHING IN 2020.
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PREFACE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S
CHAPTER 'UNCANNY'' SIGNIFIERS IN HEAVY RAIN' IN
THE BOOK 'EXPLORING THE MACABRE, MALEVOLENT, AND
MYSTERIOUS: MULTIDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES'
EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
PROF.PRAKASH KONA, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
LITERATURE, SCHOOL OF LITERARY STUDIES, THE
ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY DATED
28.08.2022
EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY MATHEW HODGE
OF WILLIAM PEACE UNIVERSITY NC DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED
18.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 19.10.2022 IN
W.P.(C) NO.30112/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PROFESSOR
IN ENGLISH, IFLU, HYDERABAD DATED 23.08.2022
EXHIBIT-R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GL/ESTT/TS/245/2022
DATED 17.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY PRINCIPAL, ALL
W.P(C) No.5027 of 2023 and con.casses 2026:KER:17033
SAINTS COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 18.11.2022
BY ALL SAINTS COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
