Kerala High Court
Dr.Jose Goerge vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 7 January, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.8614 OF 2016(B)
PETITIONERS:
1 DR.JOSE GOERGE
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.
2 DR. BENNY JACOB
HEAD & ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY,
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
SRI.E.S.ASHRAF
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR - 686 562.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695 001.
3 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI -110 002.
4 THE MANAGER,
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691.
5 DR. DENSELY JOSE,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691.
R1 BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
R1 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB
R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANISON
R5 BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
R5 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-12-2019,
ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS. 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016, THE COURT ON
07.01.2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 &
33796 of 2016 :2:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.17807 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
THE SECRETARY
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE ASSOCIATION, KOTHAMANGALAM
COLLEGE P.O., KERALA - 686 666.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 686 562.
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 562.
3 THE REGISTRAR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 562.
4 DR.DENSELY JOSE
PRINCIPAL, MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM
COLLEGE P.O., KERALA - 686 666.
R1 BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANISON
R1 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-12-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C). NOS. 8614, 17846 & 33796 OF 2016, ,
THE COURT ON 07.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 &
33796 of 2016 :3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.17846 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
DR.DENSELY JOSE
PRINCIPAL, MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE ASSOCIATION,
KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE PO, KERALA 686 666.
BY ADVS.
SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)
SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD)
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMBPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN 686 562.
2 THE REGISTRAR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 562
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
ERNAKULAM 682 011.
4 THE MANAGER,
MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE, KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE PO,
KERALA 686 666.
5 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM , PIN 686 562
R1 BY SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB JOSE
R1, R2 & R5 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)
R3 BY SRI. JESTIN MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-12-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C). NOS. 8614, 17807 & 33796 OF 2016,
THE COURT ON 07.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 &
33796 of 2016 :4:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.33796 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
1 THE SECRETARY, MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE ASSOCIATION
KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE PO, KERALA 686 666.
2 DR.DENSELY JOSE
DRAWING & DISBURSING OFFICER, MAR ATHANASIUS COLLEGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE PO, KERALA 686 666.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)
SRI.AJU GEORGE JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN 686 562.
2 THE SYNDICATE
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM- 686 562,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED PIN 686 562.
4 THE REGISTRAR,
MAHATMA GANDHI UNVIERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
ATHIRAMPUZHA PO, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 562.
R1 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-12-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C). NOS. 8614, 17807 & 17846 OF 2016,
THE COURT ON 07.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 &
33796 of 2016 :5:
JUDGMENT
The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the appointment of one Dr. Densely Jose to the post of Principal of Mar Athanasius College, Kothamangalam and other related issues. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to pass this common judgment. The facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No. 8614 of 2016 are relied upon to dispose of the writ petitions.
2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioners are holding the post of Associate Professor in M.A College, Kothamangalam, an Aided College coming under the direct payment system and affiliated with the MG University. They are aggrieved by the appointment of the 5th respondent as the Principal of the College, since according to them, she does not possess the essential mandated qualifications in terms of the University Grants Commission Regulation, and the Mahatma Gandhi University Regulations. The Manager of M.A College, Kothamangalam issued notification in leading dailies inviting application to the post of Principal evident from Ext.P1. In the notification, it was specified that the qualifications, scale of pay and age will be as per the norms prescribed by the UGC and MG University. Immediately on issuing notification, the second W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 :6:
petitioner had addressed a letter to the Vice Chancellor of the MG University so as to bring his attention to the statutory provisions and also the selection to be conducted in accordance with law evident from Ext.P2 representation. A similar letter was addressed by the second petitioner to the MA College evident from Ext.P3. The petitioners as well as the 5th respondent i.e., Dr. Densely Jose are the applicants to the post. First petitioner submits that he had in his credit high academic credentials and was a Full Bright Fellow of New York University with large number of peer reviewed publications in national and international journals. He was a Reader and Guide for M. Phil and Ph. D degrees. Ext.P4 is the application submitted by the first petitioner in the prescribed format with the list of enclosures. The second petitioner is also having academic credentials and has large number of publication of books and articles, both national and international level. He was working as the Head of the Department of the Botany and true copy of the application submitted by the second petitioner is produced as Ext.P5. It is submitted that the 5th respondent has doctorate from the University of Rajastan and she has no credentials of publication of own articles in any reputed journals, either national or international. The faculty details of the 5 th respondent published in the web site of the college is W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 :7:
produced as Ext.P6. According to the petitioners, though the 5th respondent claimed large number of publications as her own, all the publications which she claimed are publications with joint authors, that too not published in any reputed journals. The publications downloaded from the website is produced and marked as Ext.P7. It is basically contended that a perusal and comparison of the academic credentials of the petitioners and the 5th respondent clearly indicate that they are far ahead of the 5th respondent in their achievements. It is also pointed out that MG University had adopted the UGC Regulations of minimum qualification for appointment of teachers, other academic staff in the University and Colleges, and measures for the maintenance of the standards in Higher Education, 2010 which was published on 01.08.2011. The University order is produced as Ext.P8. The regulations of the UGC so adopted by the University is produced as Ext.P9. It is also submitted that the minimum score in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based on the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) is set out in Appendix III of the Regulations. Annexure III is the Regulations as modified by the UGC as per its order dated 13.06.2003, which is produced as Ext.P10. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P10, the overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 :8:
applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on API as provided in the Regulations in Tables I to IX of Appendix III. Therefore, it is submitted that going by the credentials claimed by the 5th respondent, she never acquired or attained the 400 points score. The petitioners prepared a tabulation statement based on the credentials of the candidate, who attended the interview, which is produced as Ext.P11. The 4 th respondent i.e., M.A. College, constituted an Interview Board for selecting the candidates. The petitioners could secure the minutes of the Staff Selection Committee for selection to the post of Principal at the interview held on 13.11.2015 under the Right to Information Act from the University, which is produced as Ext.P12. It is submitted that the selection committee consisting of 5 persons have prepared a rank list with the 5th respondent as the first rank holder and the petitioners as Rank Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is also the case of the petitioners that they are appointed in the service of M.A College on 11.09.1995 and 03.01.1994 respectively and the 5th respondent on 06.06.1994. Though the 5th respondent was appointed on 06.06.1994, she availed leave without allowance and thereby, lost her seniority and placement as Lecturer Senior Scale and Lecturer Selection Scale and so W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 :9:
also Associate Professor, and there is no doubt that she is junior to the petitioners in the service of the College. It is also the case of the petitioners that the 5 th respondent is receiving lesser scale of pay since her placement as Lecturer Senior Scale and Lecturer Selection Scale is much after the petitioners, so also in the cadre of Associate Professor. It is also submitted that the selection is adopted not in terms of the UGC Regulations. That apart, it is submitted that going by Section 59 of the MG University Act, the principle to be followed in the matter of ranking the candidates is seniority- cum-fitness which has got a definite meaning and content. The appointment order issued by the College to the 5 th respondent is produced as Ext.P13. These are the basic facts projected by the petitioners to secure the following reliefs;
1. Issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibits P12 and P13.
2. To declare that since the Selection Committee was not duly constituted in accordance with the UGC Regulations and adopted by the University, the entire process of selection conducted by the Selection Committee is null and void ab initio.
3. To declare that the selection and appointment of the 5 th respondent to the post of Principal overlooking the legitimate claim of the petitioners is bad in law and that the 5th respondent is not qualified and eligible to be considered for selection, since she does not possess the qualification prescribed in the University Regulations adopted by the M.G. University
4. To declare that since the petitioners are found suitable to the post of Principal, appoint the eligible candidate from among themselves to the post of Principal.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 10 :
5. Issue a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the University not to approve the proposal for approval of appointment of the 5 th respondent to the post of Principal.
3. The 4th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioners. The paramount contention advanced by the 4 th respondent is that the writ petition is not maintainable under law, since the petitioners have got an equally efficacious remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 69 of the M.G University Act, 1985 and therefore, the petitioners are liable to be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal. That apart, it is pointed out that the petitioners and the 5th respondent are Senior Teachers working in the College from the dates specified above as Lecturers in the college. The details of the promotion given to the petitioners and the 5th respondent are also provided in the seniority list prepared by the college. The petitioners are assigned with rank Nos. 20 and 14 respectively, while the 5th respondent has been assigned rank No.16. The former Principal of College retired from service on 31.05.2015, attaining superannuation and it was thereupon that the management has appointed the 5 th respondent as Principal in charge and Drawing and Disbursing Officer in accordance with the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, by order dated 01.06.2015 and she has W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 11 :
commenced functioning as the Principal in charge of the College. It is also submitted that the college cannot function without a Principal and appropriate and relevant communications were forwarded to all the authorities, including the University and the University has issued order dated 15.06.2015, according approval of the appointment of the 5th respondent as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the College from 01.06.2005 to 31.08.2005. The Management had sought for the extension of the approval of the 5 th respondent as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer as per letter dated 31.08.2015, pursuant to which the University had issued an order dated 30.09.2015 extending the approval from 01.09.2015 to 30.11.2015. In the meanwhile, the Governing Board of the College decided to resort to direct recruitment so as to select and appoint a competent Principal and thereupon, the selection procedure has started and the petitioners and the 5th respondent applied for the post. It is also submitted that the Selection Committee was constituted consisting of the nominees of the State Government, Director of Collegiate Education and the University as well as the Management representatives. The State Government had deputed Sri. K.S. Madusoodhanan, Additional Law Secretary as its nominee on 06.08.2015. Other persons were nominated by the Director of Collegiate Education, the University as well as the W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 12 :
Management. The claim raised by the petitioners on the basis of their academic qualifications and other credentials are disputed by the 4th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the University has nominated its representatives to the statutory selection committee. The API score sheet/tabulation sheet of the marks of the applicants of the interviews serialled as item No.4 were also sought for. Serial No.5 was the pension papers of Dr. Leena George having absolutely no correlation with the consideration of the approval of the appointment of the Principal. Serial No.6 was the Equivalency certificate of Ph. D degree of Anna University of the 5 th respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the University had approved the promotions granted to the 5 th respondent to the cadre of Senior Grade Lecturer and Associate Professor during 2001 and 2009, and all the said documents had been scrutinized prior to the grant of approval. In sum and substance, the contention is that the selection of the 5 th respondent as Rank No.1 was in accordance with law. According to the 4th respondent, eventhough various letters were addressed to the respondents to approve the appointment of the 5th respondent, no action was initiated, which is causing serious prejudice to the college. The 5 th respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit almost in similar lines.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 13 :
4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and has also produced additional documents to show that the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the University Regulations and API scores were granted absolutely in violation of the regulations of the UGC. Additional reply affidavit is also filed and along with the same also, additional documents are produced.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the University and the UGC, the learned counsel counsel appearing for the College and the learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
6. The prime question arises for consideration is as to whether the University Grants Commission's Regulation dated 30.06.2010 was made applicable to the Mahatma Gandhi University and the Colleges affiliated to it. If the Regulations have come into force in accordance with Ext.P8 University Order dated 01.08.2011, then the selection to the post of Assistant Professors, Principal etc. shall be in accordance with the Regulations. Ext.P8 order of the University shows that the Government of Kerala, as per G.O.(P) No. 58/2010/H.Edn dated 27.03.2010, has issued orders revising the scale of pay of teachers in the University, affiliated W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 14 :
Colleges, teachers in Law Colleges and Engineering Colleges and Kerala Agricultural University and Teachers in Physical Education and qualified Librarians etc. in accordance with the revised UGC Scheme. It is also specified therein that the said Government Order was implemented in the University as per the order dated 03.04.2010 bearing UO No. Ad/1762 A/Ad AII/2/2009/Admn and also UO No. 1939/Ad AII/2/2009/Admn dated 22.04.2010. The University Grants Commission, as per notification bearing No. F.3-1/2009 dated 30.06.2009, has issued UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staffs in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010. As per Section 39 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 and as per Statute 1, Chapter 39 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997, the power to make or repeal the Regulations providing for the qualifications of teachers is vested with the Academic Council. It is also specified therein that the regulations promulgated by the University Grants Commission, vide its notification specified above dated 30.06.2009 were adopted in the University by the Vice-Chancellor exercising the powers conferred under Section 10(17) of Chapter 3 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985. The Government of Kerala, as per G.O.(P) No. 392/2010/H.Edn. dated 10.12.2010, have W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 15 :
accorded sanction to approve and to implement the UGC Regulations, 2010 on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staffs in the Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education, with effect from 18.09.2010 i.e., the date of publication of the said Regulations in the Government of India Gazette, subject to the exception that where there are any provision in the Regulations inconsistent with the provisions in the Government Order bearing No. 58/2010/H.Edn dated 27.03.2010, those provisions in the Government Order would override the provisions in the Regulations to the extent of such inconsistency. Government have also ordered that notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations, only those benefits, both monetary and others specified in the Government Order stated above, would be receivable. The Government Order also makes it necessary that the University shall incorporate the Regulations in the Statutes and the UGC Regulations. It is also stipulated that the full text of the Regulations issued by the UGC is appended to Ext.P8 order and the same shall be in force in the University, subject to the provisions contained as per Government Orders specified above. Therefore, it is clear that the UGC Regulations was adopted by the Mahatma Gandhi University as per Ext.P8 order, subject to the Government Orders specified above. UGC W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 16 :
Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staffs in the Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education is produced as Ext.P9.
7. Clause 3 therein deals with the recruitment and qualifications. Clause 3.2.0 prescribes the minimum qualifications and it stipulates that the minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principals, Assistant Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Directors of Physical Education and Sports, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians, Librarians will be those as prescribed by the UGC in the Regulations. Clause 3.3.0 stipulates that the minimum requirements of a good academic record, 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) at the master's level and qualifying in the National Eligibility Test (NET), or an accredited test (State Level Eligibility Test
-SLET/SET), shall remain for the appointment of Assistant Professors.
8. Clause 3.3.1 prescribes that NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/Colleges/ Institutions. However, proviso thereto states that the W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 17 :
candidates who are or have been awarded a Ph. D Degree in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted from the requirement of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions.
9. Clause 4.2.0 deals with the qualification of a Principal by Direct Recruitment and it reads thus:
i. A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks ( or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) by a recognized University. ii. A Ph. D Degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline(s) in the Institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance.
iii. Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of fifteen years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other Institutions of higher education, and iv. A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in the Regulation in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges.
10. Clause 5.1.6 deals with the formation of Selection Committee for the post of College Principal and it reads thus:
(a) The selection Committee for the post of College Principal shall have the following composition:
1. Chairperson of the Governing Body as Chairperson.
2. Two members of the Governing Body of the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of whom one shall be an W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 18 :
expert in academic administration.
3. One nominee of the Vice Chancellor who shall be a Higher Education expert. In case of Colleges notified/declared as minority educational institutions, one nominee of the Chairperson of the College from out of a panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliated University of whom one should be a subject expert.
4. Three experts consisting of the Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body of the college) out of a panel of six experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the University concerned.
5. An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/ Differently-abled categories, if any of candidates representing these categories is the applicant to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category.
(b) At least five members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum.
(c) All the selection procedures of the Selection Committee shall be completed on the day of the selection committee meeting itself, wherein, minutes are recorded along with the scoring proforma and recommendation made on the basis of merit with the list of selected and wait-listed candidates/Panel of names in order of merit, duly signed by all members of the selected committee.
(d) The term of appointment of the College Principal shall be five years with eligibility for reappointment for one more term only after a similar selection committee process.
11. Therefore, on a reading of the provisions of the UGC Regulations discussed above, it is categoric and clear that there is clear cut qualifications prescribed for the appointment of Principal by direct recruitment as well as the W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 19 :
Selection Committee to be constituted for the purpose of selection of Principal. Now, as per Table II(c) of Appendix III, the minimum scores for APIs for direct recruitment of teachers in University Departments/Colleges, Librarian/Physical Education Cadres in Universities/Colleges and weightages in Selection Committee to be considered along with other specified eligibility qualifications stipulated in the Regulation. The details of the score as per API are as follows:
Assistant Associate Professor/equivalen Professor/equivalen Professor/equivalen t cadres (stage5) t cadres (stage1) t cadres (Stage 4) Minimum API Minimum Consolidated API Consolidated API Scores Qualification as score requirement Score requirement stipulated in these of 300 points from of 400 points from regulations Category III of APIs category III of APIs Selection a) Academic a) Academic a) Academic Committee Record and Background Background criteria/weightages Research (20%) (20%) (Total Performance b) Research b) Research Weightages=100) (50%) performance Performance
b) Assessment based on based on of Domain API score API score Knowledge and quality and quality and of of Teaching publications publications Skills (30%) (40%) (40%)
c) Interview c) Assessment c) Assessment Performance of Domain of Domain (20%) Knowledge Knowledge and and Teacher Teaching Skills (20% Skills (20%) Interview
d) Interview Performance performance (20%) : (20%)
12. Ext.P10 notification is issued by the UGC dated 13.06.2013 exercising the powers under clauses (e) and (g) of W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 20 :
sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, amending the Regulations.
13. Clause 6.1.0, which deals with the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staffs in the Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter to be called 'The Principal Regulations') was amended and substituted by the following clause:-
"Clause 6.1.0: The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on the weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in this Regulations in Tables I to IX of Appendix III."
14. Clause 6.0.2 of the Principal Regulation was amended and substituted by the following clause:
"Clause 6.0.2: The universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent Colleges/affiliated Colleges (Government/Government-aided/Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. An indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS is annexed in Appendix III. The Universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers. While adopting this, Universities shall not change any of the categories or scores of the API given in Appendix III. The universities can, if they wish so, W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 21 :
increase the minimum required score or devise appropriate additional criteria for screening of candidates at any level of recruitment."
15. On a reading of the afore-quoted provisions of the UGC Regulations along with Ext.P8 order issued by the University, it is significant to note that the University Departments and affiliated Colleges shall follow the regulations issued by the UGC from time to time. Now the predominant question comes up for consideration is whether the Selection Committee was constituted by the College in accordance with the UGC Regulations, for selection to the post of Principal by direct recruitment. On a perusal of Ext.R4(L) produced by the College along with its counter affidavit, it is clear that the Selection Committee constituted by the College consists of the Manager of the College, the representatives of the Management, one Adv. K.M. Abraham and Dr. K.S. Madusoodhanan, nominee of the Government, one G. Ramesh, Joint Registrar of M.G. University and Sri. P.V. Sasi, Deputy Director of Collegiate Education. Therefore, it is categoric and clear that the Selection Committee is not constituted in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010. The Regulation mandates the appointment of the Chairperson of the Governing Body as the Chairperson. There should be two members of the Governing Body of the College to be nominated by the Chairperson of whom one shall be an expert W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 22 :
in academic administration. One nominee of the Vice- Chancellor shall be a Higher Education Expert and in case of Colleges notified or declared as minority educational institutions, one nominee of the Chairperson of the College from out of a panel of 5 names, preferably from minority communities, shall be recommended by the Vice-Chancellor of the affiliated University of whom one should be a subject expert. There should be three experts consisting of the Principal of a College, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body of the College) out of a panel of six experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the University concerned.
16. Therefore, on an analysis of the provisions of the UGC Regulations and the Selection Committee constituted by the College, it is categoric and clear that the constitution of the Committee was never in accordance with the University Grants Commission's Regulations as specified above. So also, a clear criteria is fixed as per the UGC Regulations in the matter of awarding of API scores. However, on a perusal of Ext.R4(L), it is very specific and clear that the Selection Committee has not followed the criteria fixed by the UGC Regulations for awarding the marks in accordance with the credentials produced by each of the candidates. It is also very W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 23 :
clear from Ext.R4(L) that in the column for 'Research Performance based on API Score and quality of publications', the petitioners are granted 44.16 and 37.86 respectively; whereas, the 5th respondent could score only 32.70 marks. However, in the domain knowledge and interview, while the petitioners were given 11/9 and 12/10, the 5 th respondent was given 16/18 and thus, altogether the petitioners were granted 179.6 and 221.2 respectively in the API Scores; whereas the 5th respondent was given 237.4. But, fact remains as per the API score, there should be a minimum score of 400 for a candidate and therefore, the scoring done is also violative of Appendix III of the UGC Regulations. Going by the credentials produced by the petitioners, it is explicit that the marks are not awarded in terms of the UGC Regulations and Appendix III and therefore, not correct. Learned Standing Counsel for the UGC and the University have submitted that, the UGC Regulations were adopted by the University and the stipulations entertained therein are binding on the University and the Colleges affiliated to it, and the College having not followed it, the appointment of the 5th respondent is not in accordance with law. Eventhough learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent has a case that having participated in a selection process without any objections, the petitioners are not entitled to turn around and challenge the process.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 24 :
However, I am of the view that, when a committee is not constituted in accordance with the law/laws, the said principle has no application at all. So much so, whatever consequential action taken on the basis of the selection conducted by an incompetent body, also cannot be sustained under law. That apart, since the entire procedure is totally arbitrary and illegal, the petitioners need not be relegated to any remedy available to them before the University Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the entire selection procedure and awarding of marks by the Selection Committee were not in accordance with the UGC Regulations. The UGC Regulations are clearly binding on the College in question as per Ext.P8 order passed by the Mahatma Gandhi University and also Exts.P9 and P10 UGC Regulations and the amended Regulations. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the selection procedure conducted by the 4 th respondent College is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P12 minutes of the Selection Committee dated 13.11.2015 ranking the 5 th respondent and the petitioners as rank Nos. 1 to 3 and Ext.P13 appointment order dated 16.11.2015 issued to the 5 th respondent i.e., Dr. Densely Jose. Consequently, there will be a direction to the 4 th respondent to constitute a Selection Committee in accordance W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 25 :
with the UGC Regulations discussed above and in terms of Ext.P8 order issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University dated 01.08.2011 bearing No. 4233/L/Acad/2011 at the earliest, and conduct the interview, within one month in accordance with law. Needless to say, all the consequential pay and service benefits, shall be provided to the Principal, selected by the Selection Committee, in accordance with law, from the date of appointment of the 5th respondent as per Ext.P13 order dated 16.11.2015.
17. W.P.(C) No. 17807 of 2016 is filed by the 4 th respondent College seeking to quash certain orders passed by the University and other directions to approve the appointment of Dr. Densely Jose and consequential reliefs. In view of the quashment of the minutes of the meeting and the appointment order in favour of Dr. Densely Jose, the reliefs sought for by the College in the writ petition cannot be sustained. So also, W.P.(C) No. 33796 of 2016 is also filed by the College challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the University rejecting the examination manual submitted by the College as the College does not have an approved Principal.
Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, the said writ petition has also no relevance.
18. W.P.(C) No. 17846 of 2016 is filed by Dr. Densely Jose seeking to quash certain orders passed by the University W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 26 :
and also the direction to the University to permit Dr. Densely Jose to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the College and for other consequential and related reliefs. In view of the interference with the selection and appointment order, the reliefs sought for by Dr. Densely Jose also cannot be sustained under law.
In the result, W.P.(C) No. 8614 of 2016 is allowed to the extent specified above and W.P.(C) Nos. 17846, 17807 & 33796 of 2016 of 2016 are dismissed. However, in order to avoid any stalemate, the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 17846 of 2016 dated 20.05.2016 permitting Dr. Densely Jose to function as Drawing and Disbursing Officer and the common interim order dated 03.09.2018 in the captioned writ petitions permitting her to issue necessary certificates to the students and to discharge duties as a de- facto Principal will continue to be in force till such time a decision is taken as directed above. I also make it clear that, the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the College, will not stand in the way of the College seeking appropriate orders, from the University in appointing the Principal in accordance with law.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 &
33796 of 2016 : 27 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8614/2016
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION.
EXHIBIT P2 P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
7.10.2015
EXHIBIT P3 P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.10.2015
EXHIBIT P4 P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT WITH THE LIST OF ENCLOSURES THEREIN.
EXHIBIT P5 P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT WITH THE LIST OF ENCLOSURES THEREIN EXHIBIT P6 P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P7 P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE PUBLICATIONS, WHICH THE PETITIONERS COULD DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P8 P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER. EXHIBIT P9 P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATIONS SO ADOPTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF THE UGC EXHIBIT P10 P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ALONG WITH THE AMENDED REGULATION EXHIBIT P11 P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATION STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS BASED ON THE CREDENTIALS OF CANDIDATES WHO ATTENDED THE INTERVIEW EXHIBIT P12 P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 13.11.2015 CONSISTING ITS MEMBERS.
EXHIBIT P13 P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER APPOINTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS THE PRINCIPAL OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 28 :
EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED DATED 17.10.2016. EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF REGULATIONS RELATING TO RECOGNITION OF EXAMINATIONS AND DEGREES OF OTHER UNIVERSITIES (LIST OF DEGREES FROM ANNA UNIVERSITY) EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE NORMS PRESCRIBED FOR AWARDING WEIGHTAGE MARK TO ASSISTANT PROFESSOR.
EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.06.1994 APPOINTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS LECTURER IN THE COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN THE UNIVERSITY NEWS DATED 03.01.1994.
EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF THE UGC SCHEME RELATING TO THE QUALIFICATION OF TEACHERS PRESCRIBED IN U.O NO.Ac. BII/UGC-Gen./91 DATED 16.10.1991.
EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 21.03.1994.
EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 03.10.2017. EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF THE SYNDICATE MINUTES AWARDING OF THE M.PHIL DEGREE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE ANNA UNIVERSITY DATED 05.02.1993.
EXHIBIT P23: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.08.1995 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P23(a): TRUE TYPED COPY OF EXT.P23 ORDER DATED 22.08.1995 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P24: TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 08.12.2007 OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 08.12.2017 OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P26: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.07.2018 IN SLP NOS. 18938- 18942/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P27(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OF M.PHIL DEGREE EXAMINATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE BRANCH OF CHEMISTRY DATED 25.03.1992 ISSUED BY ANNA UNIVERSITY MADRAS.
EXHIBIT P27(b): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS OF M.PHIL DEGREE EXAMINATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE BRANCH OF CHEMISTRY DATED 07.01.1993 ISSUED BY ANNA UNIVERSITY MADRAS. EXHIBIT P28: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F. NO.1-2/2009 (EC/PS) OF AUGUST, 2014 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT. R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPOINTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE AND DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE COLLEGE. EXT. R4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.01.206 OF THE 4TH W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 29 :
EXHIBIT R4(N): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF WEBSITE PUBLICATION ON ANNA UNIVERSITY PORTRAYING THE COLLEGE AFFILIATED THERETO.
EXHIBIT R4(O): TRUE COPY OF THE WEBSITE PUBLICATION PORTRAYING THE VARIOUS COURSES OFFERED BY THE ANNA UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT R4(P): TRUE COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 17.10.2008 ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R4(Q): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2017 OF THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 30 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17807/2016 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.2015 OF THE PETITIONER APPOINTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE AND DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.6.2015 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT INTIMATING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF R4 AS PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE AND DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.6.2015 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION INTIMATING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF R4 AS PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE AND DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.6.2015 OF THE ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION INTIMATING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF R4 AS PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE AND DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.6.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.9.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.8.2015 OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT NOMINATING THE ADDITIONAL LAW SECRETARY TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.6.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT NOMINATING THE JOINT REGISTRAR TO THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF TH MEETING OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 13.11.2015. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2015 OF THE PETITIONER APPOINTING R4 AS THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.12.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 31 : EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.1.2016 OF THE
PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 3RTD RESPONDENT SEEKING FOR APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PRINCIPAL.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.1.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.1.2016 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.2.2016 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 12.2.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENT OF R4.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.3.2016 OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION GRANTING AUTONOMY TO THE COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.4.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.14423 OF 2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.3.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.8614 OF 2016. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.4.2016 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.5.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.5.2016 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.5.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS) NO.29/2015/H.EDN. DATED 31.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 &
33796 of 2016 : 32 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17846/2016
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
P1 TRUE COY OF THE PETITIONER'S BIO - DATA
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE WORKSHOP AND
SEMINARS ATTENDED BY THE PETITIONER.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY
THE PETITIONER.
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLICATIONS MADE BY THE
PETITIONER,
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTENSION ACTIVITIES OF THE
PETITIONER.
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER.
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2009 ISSUED
BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.
NO.3418/BII/3/2015/ACAD DATED 15.6.2015.
P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.5595/BII/3/2015/ACAD DATD 30.9.2015 P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.11.2015 P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.3.2016 IN WPC NO.8614/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D4/2816/2016 DATED 5.5.2016 P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.5.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.
U.O.NO.2703/BVII/2016/ACAD DATED 11.5.2016 P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.U.O. NO.614/B1/ACADEMIC/2017 DATED 01.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE M.G. UNIVERSITY.
P16: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.28684/2016.
W.P.(C) Nos. 8614, 17807, 17846 & 33796 of 2016 : 33 :
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33796/2016 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2015 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER APPOINTING THE 2ND PETITIONER AS PRINCIPAL.
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.4.2015 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.3.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.8614/2016 P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15.4.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.14423 OF 2016 P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATD 20.5.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.17807 OF 2016 P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.7.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.24464 OF 2016. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.9.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.28684 OF 2016. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.5.2016 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER APPOINTING THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS OF THE COLLEGE P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.6.2016 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FORWARDING THE EXAMINATION MANUAL TO THE UNIVERSITY.
P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.10.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
P11 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.29/2015/H.EDN DATED 31.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION DATED 09.03.2016 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT REGISTRAR.
ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2703/B VII/2016/ACAD. DATED 11.05.2016.
ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 02.11.2006.
/True Copy/ PS to Judge rv