Kerala High Court
Dr.Thara K. Simon vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 8 April, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KER 384
Author: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021/18TH CHAITHRA, 1943
W.A.No.133 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2021 IN W.P(C).NO.22872/2020(H)
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.THARA K. SIMON
AGED 54 YEARS
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, ALUVA,
W/O.DR.JACOB ELIAS, RESIDING AT POOMTHOTTAM, 12, JYOTHIR
NAGAR, U.C COLLEGE P.O.,ALUVA-680 102
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMAGANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS,
KOTTAYAM-686 560
3 THE UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE,
ALUVA ,POST BOX NO.5, ALUVA-683 102,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
4 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION(UGC),
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW
DELHI-110 002
5 DR.DAVID SAJ MATHEW P.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. P.T.MATHEW, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/HEAD,
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY AND DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER,
U C COLLEGE, ALUVA, RESIDING AT PULIKKAPARMABIL, FATHIMA
NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 005
R1-2 BY SHRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY
R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE
R3 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI
R4 BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAIBY PAUL
R5 BY ADV. SMT.ANITA GLENDA PHILIP
BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH BABU (SR).
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29-03-2021, THE COURT ON 08-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.133/2021 :: 2 ::
'C.R.'
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.22872/202 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.1.2021 of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:
2. The appellant entered the service of the 3 rd respondent College as Lecturer in Botany on 24.1.1994. She was promoted as Senior Grade Lecturer on 27.7.1998, as Selection Grade Lecturer on 27.7.2003 and as Associate Professor on 27.7.2006. After completing 24 years of service, she was considered for promotion as Principal, and appointed as such, with effect from 1.4.2018. When the appointment of the appellant as Principal was forwarded to the 1 st respondent University for approval in accordance with Section 59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, the same was rejected by the Syndicate of the University by proceedings dated W.A.No.133/2021 :: 3 ::
2.6.2018, which was produced as Ext.P6 in the Writ Petition.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.18732/2018, which was disposed by Ext.P7 judgment that quashed Ext.P6 order and required the Syndicate to reconsider the matter on merit. In purported compliance with the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, the Syndicate once again considered the matter and rejected the proposal for approval of the appellant's appointment by an order dated 16.8.2018. The said rejection order was produced as Ext.P10 in the writ petition. The appellant therefore again approached this Court through W.P. (C).No.28807/2018, when a learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P10 order and directed a fresh assessment of the merits of the appellant to be done by a Committee appointed by the learned Single Judge. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was impugned before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1311/2019, and by Ext.P11 judgment, the Division Bench allowed the Writ Appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and directing the University to consider the matter afresh in the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench. The specific directions to the University are contained in W.A.No.133/2021 :: 4 ::
paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of Ext.P11 judgment, which read as follows:
"14. Based on the above mentioned conclusions, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned herein. Accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby allowed and the writ petition is also allowed. Ext.P17 order passed by the University rejecting approval of the appointment of the appellant as Principal is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent University is directed to reconsider the matter and to take fresh decision. The appellant shall submit her objections against the report of the Expert Committee with respect to appraisal of API score made therein, to the 1st respondent, along with a copy of this judgment, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
15. The competent authority in the University, who is vested with powers for approval of appointment shall consider such objections, vis-a-vis the report of the Expert Committee, on the basis of the UGC Regulations-4th amendment, which came into effect as on 11th July, 2016, and which provides the guidelines (parameters) for appraisal of the API score. A decision in this regard shall be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Needless to observe that, if the competent authority arrives at a conclusion that the appellant is lacking the requisite API score of 400, as on the date on which she was appointed as Principal of the College, the authority will be entitled to refuse approval of the appointment. On the other hand, if it is found that the appellant satisfies the requisite score, the appointment should be approved.
16. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the report submitted by the Expert Committee appointed by this court, the 3rd respondent had already terminated the appellant from the post of Principal. It is also mentioned that now the charge of the Principal is assigned to another Associate Professor, the 13th respondent herein. The 3rd respondent is directed to maintain status quo as such, till the University takes a final decision in accordance with the directions contained hereinabove and the same is communicated to the appellant and to the 3rd respondent."
3. In purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P11 judgment, the appellant submitted her representation W.A.No.133/2021 :: 5 ::
dated 18.2.2020 [Ext.P12], and a Sub Committee that was constituted to look into the matter, considered the said representation, and recommended a rejection of the proposal that sought approval to the appointment of the appellant. The appellant was thereafter served with Ext.P14 communication, which indicated that the recommendations of the Sub Committee were approved by the Vice Chancellor of the University in exercise of his power under Section 10(17) of Chapter III of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. It is the said order (Ext.P14) that was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, it was the contention of the appellant that Ext.P14 order was passed in derogation of the positive directions issued by the Division Bench in Ext.P11 judgment, and that the API score of the appellant was reckoned by the Syndicate of the University ignoring the provisions of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (4th Amendment), Regulations, 2016 [hereinafter W.A.No.133/2021 :: 6 ::
referred to as the '2016 Regulations'] produced as Ext.P13 in the writ petition. In particular, it was pointed out that the computation of the scores under Categories II and III in Appendix III : Table I was flawed. It was further pointed out that while the appellant had claimed a cumulative score of 1398.8 [323.8 + 1075] under Categories II and III (erroneously shown as 1120 [45 + 1075] in Ext.P5), the score accepted by the University, as borne out from Exts.P10 and P14 was only 273 [45 + 228]. The contention therefore was that if the Syndicate of the University had correctly computed the API score as contemplated under the 2016 Regulations, the appellant would have obtained an API score of more than 400, which was the requirement for appointment as Principal.
5. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, confined his examination to the scores awarded under Category II of Table I under Appendix III to the 2016 Regulations, and did not consider the correctness of the marks awarded under Category III of the said Table. With regard to the scores computed under Category II, the learned Single Judge found that the total scores under Category II that dealt with Professional Development, Co-Curricular and Extension W.A.No.133/2021 :: 7 ::
Activities could not exceed 45 under all the heads put together, since the maximum API score contemplated under the various heads under Category II was 15 each. Referring to the scores computed under Category III, the learned Single Judge found that the Sub Committee of the Syndicate of the University that considered the matter was the one that was constituted as per the directions in Ext.P11 judgment, and since the said Sub Committee had considered the matter, it was not proper for the Court to substitute its wisdom for that of the Sub Committee. The learned Judge did not deem it necessary to examine the legality of the University's decision to acknowledge only reduced scores under Category III since, in the opinion of the learned Judge, that was beyond the scope of judicial review, particularly in relation to decisions of academic bodies.
6. Before us, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that while the learned Single Judge erred in not examining the contentions with regard to the API scores awarded under Category III, the findings of the learned Single Judge as regards the API scores awarded under Category II are erroneous and contrary to the 2016 W.A.No.133/2021 :: 8 ::
Regulations. It is reiterated that the computation of the API score under Category II had to be arrived at by computing the actual API score obtained by the appellant during each year in the assessment period, and adding the scores so obtained to obtain the total score. The Syndicate of the University, on the other hand, found that the maximum API score that could be claimed under Category II [a, b and c] was 15 each, and hence, the total score that could have been claimed under Category II was 45. On a perusal of Ext.P13 Regulations, we are of the view that the stand taken by the University is correct. Ext.P13 Notification unambiguously prescribes a maximum API score of 15 under each sub heading while indicating that the computation of the actual score had to be arrived at by reckoning the number of hours actually spent in each academic year falling within the assessment period, and dividing the resultant number by 10. In other words, assuming that a person has actually spent 20 hours in an academic year, over 10 academic years that fell within the assessment period, 200 then the actual score of that person would be /10 = 20. The maximum API score that could be claimed, however, could not be more than 15. The use of the phrase "maximum API score"
clearly indicates that, irrespective of the actual score W.A.No.133/2021 :: 9 ::
computed in the manner indicated under the Regulations, the maximum API score that can be claimed under each sub heading, under Category II, is only 15. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the said finding of the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned before us.
7. As regards Category III, while we are aware of the inherent limitations that inform the exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot shut our eyes to glaring disparities that are noticed in the evaluation done by the University in the instant case. No doubt, if the evaluation was done in strict adherence to the UGC guidelines in vogue, we would not have deemed it necessary to second guess the decision of the University. The discipline required of us while exercising our jurisdiction mandates that we refrain from interfering with the decisions of experts in academic matters. In the instant case, however, we find that the applicable guidelines were ignored by the University, and extraneous criteria relied upon, to disallow the marks claimed by the appellant under Category III. The said aspect assumes greater significance when we find that this is the third round of litigation, pursuant to the remand of the W.A.No.133/2021 :: 10 ::
matter to the University on two previous occasions, leading us to doubt the utility of a further remit of the matter to the University. We make it clear that all that we propose to do is to correct the apparent errors noticed in the evaluation done by the University. We do not intend to interfere with the evaluation done by the University or undertake an independent evaluation in lieu thereof, for we are not equipped to undertake such an exercise.
8. In Category III (A) that deals with Research Papers published in Refereed Journals as notified by the UGC or other Reputed Journals as notified by the UGC, while the appellant had claimed a total of 402 points under various sub headings, the University, in Ext.P10 order, found that she was entitled only to 130 points . To begin with, it can be seen from Ext.P10 itself that the figure of '130' is a mistake occasioned while adding the scores awarded under various sub-headings. The actual figure should read '147.5'. That apart, we find that the disallowance of the marks claimed by the appellant under this Category is premised largely on the contention that the appellant had claimed marks in respect of papers that were published in Journals that were not listed in the list of W.A.No.133/2021 :: 11 ::
approved Journals after May, 2018, when the UGC had undertaken an exercise of deleting certain Journals from its list of approved Journals, and publishing a separate list of those deleted Journals The other reason cited by the Syndicate of the University to disallow the marks claimed by the appellant is that the appellant had claimed points towards Impact Factor in respect of the papers published by her in Journals that did not feature in the list maintained by Thomson Reuters, which according to the University is the only list that can be looked into for ascertaining the impact factor of the journal concerned. The appellant, however, has produced material before us that would clearly suggest the papers mentioned against Sl.Nos.2 and 4 in Category III (A) in Ext.P5, were published in the 'International Journal of Advanced Research' that was included in the UGC approved list of Journals in 2017, although the said Journal is not seen included subsequently, either in the list of approved Journals published in 2018 or in the list of Journals removed by the UGC in 2018. Inasmuch as the evaluation of the appellant under this Category had to be in accordance with the norms prevailing prior to May 2018, when 4305 Journals were removed from the list of approved Journals, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be W.A.No.133/2021 :: 12 ::
denied the marks admittedly attributable to papers published in a Journal that was included in the list of approved Journals of the UGC when the appellant's request for approval of her appointment originally came up for consideration before the Syndicate of the University. As against 45 marks and 37.5 marks claimed by the appellant under Sl. Nos.2 and 4, the University chose not to grant any mark for the said papers published by the appellant. We are of the view that, in the absence of any other reason, and since the papers were published in a Journal that was included in the list of approved Journals of the UGC in 2017, the appellant would be entitled to the marks claimed inclusive of the points towards the Impact Factor of the said Journals. This is more so because the regulations contemplate the grant of fixed marks if the prescribed criteria are satisfied and the University does not have any discretion to award lesser marks than what is claimed if the verifiable criteria are found satisfied in the case of any candidate.
9. As regards the claim of the appellant in respect of the papers against Sl.Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 14, we find that reduced marks, from what was claimed by the appellant, were granted W.A.No.133/2021 :: 13 ::
in relation to the said papers, on the ground that the appellant could not claim the weightage towards impact factor of the journal concerned owing to the journal not being included in the list maintained by Thomson Reuters. It is significant to note in this connection that in the 2016 Regulations, there was no specification of any such criteria as a condition for claiming weightage points towards Impact Factor. On the contrary, the mention of a specific criteria to that effect, is seen for the first time only in the Notification dated 18.7.2018 of the UGC [produced as Annexure-A5 in the Writ Appeal] that supersedes the 2016 Regulations, wherein it is clearly mentioned that API scores would be awarded only in respect of papers published in peer reviewed or UGC listed Journals, and further that the Impact Factor is to be determined as per the Thomson Reuters list. In other words, the specification of the criteria regarding inclusion in Thomson Reuters list was made for the first time only in the Notification dated 18.7.2018, and hence, the appellant could not have been evaluated based on a criterion that was neither specified by the UGC nor mentioned in the notification calling for her application for appointment to the post of Principal. Consequently, the appellant had to be given the due weightage points for impact factor based on the W.A.No.133/2021 :: 14 ::
impact factor indicated in the website of the publishers of the Journals concerned. On a perusal of the material made available before us to show the Impact Factor notified in the website of the publishers of the Journals in question, we find that the Impact Factor claimed by the appellant is the same as the one published by the publisher concerned on its website, and hence, the University was not justified in disallowing the weightage points claimed towards Impact Factor. Ext.P13 Regulations clearly indicate that the API score for a paper in refereed Journals would be augmented by points granted depending upon the Impact Factor for the Journals in question. We are therefore of the view that, in respect of the Journals mentioned against Sl.Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 14, the scores awarded by the University have to be augmented by the points related to the applicable Impact Factor, and when so augmented, the marks awarded would be 45 [Sl.No.3], 22.5 [Sl.No.5], 17.5 [Sl.No.6], 22.5 [Sl.No.7], 37.5 [Sl.No.9] and 22.5 [Sl.No.14] . Taken together with the marks awarded by the University for the other papers, the undisputed score under this Category would be 285 as against 147.5 admitted in Ext.P10 order [mistakenly shown as 130 therein].
W.A.No.133/2021 :: 15 ::
10. In Ext.P10, the University has also accepted the award of 30 marks under Category III (B), 10 marks under Category III (C) and 60 marks under Category III (D) and we see no reason to upset the said evaluation. Further, under Category III (E) (i) that deals with Fellowships, Awards and Invited Lectures delivered in Conferences/Seminars, although the appellant claimed 20 points, we find that the University was justified in refusing to award any point on the ground that the said Fellowships do not qualify for the award of marks in terms of Ext.P13 Regulations. Under Category III (E) (ii), however, which deals with Invited lectures/papers, we find that apart from the 28 marks that was awarded under this head, by the University, the claim in respect of the lectures mentioned against Sl.Nos.6, 8 and 19 in Ext.P5 was disallowed for the reason that the said lectures were given by the appellant as part of a Visiting Program, and further, that she had not produced any evidence to show that she had been invited for giving the lectures in question. We note from Ext.P5 claim of the appellant that the the lectures were given in the Department of Biology at the Paul Quinine College in Texas, Hope College, Holland, MI, USA and at the University of Mysore respectively. While there is no dispute with regard to W.A.No.133/2021 :: 16 ::
the lectures given by the appellant at the said Institutions, we feel that the mere fact that the appellant did not produce the Invitation letter that called upon her to speak at the said Forums cannot be a reason to deny the points in respect of the said lecturers more so when there was no such requirement in Ext.P13 Regulations. The points disallowed on that count alone add up to 19, and when they are added to the 28 points already awarded under the said Category, the appellant would have to be conceded 47 points under Category III (E) (ii).
11. Lastly under Category III (F) that deals with Development of E-learning Delivery Process/Material, while the appellant had claimed 40 marks towards development of 4 items of e-learning resource in Botany and had declared that she had uploaded the same in the website of the College, the claim has been denied by the University on the ground that the e-learning material was uploaded after the appellant was appointed as Principal of the College. We find that it is not in dispute that the e-learning resources were uploaded by the appellant and that the details of the website where it was uploaded was furnished in Ext.P5 claim itself. The appellant's claim in the prescribed proforma was forwarded by the College W.A.No.133/2021 :: 17 ::
itself to the University along with a covering letter seeking approval to the appointment of the appellant. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that it would be uncharitable and unfair on the part of the University to now contend that the e-learning resources developed cannot be considered while evaluating the merit of the appellant. We also note that the appellant had also expressed her willingness to produce the CD's in respect of the uploaded resource material if the University had any doubt with regard to the existence of the same. The stand of the University in Ext.P14 does not indicate that they had any doubt regarding the existence of the material. We therefore feel that the appellant should be entitled to the 40 points claimed by her under the said Category III (F).
12. Thus, if the points conceded to the appellant under Category II and III are aggregated, the resultant figure would be 45 + 472 = 517, which is more than the score of 400 that is required for granting approval to the appellant's appointment as Principal.
13. Before parting with this case, we must address one W.A.No.133/2021 :: 18 ::
last argument that was made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the educational institution in question. He would point out that the institution being a minority educational institution, it is entitled to pick a candidate of its choice as Principal, based on the rights guaranteed under Article 30 of our Constitution. While the content of the right under the said provision cannot be disputed, we fail to see the relevance of the said submission on the facts of the present case especially when it was the educational agency itself that chose, and appointed the appellant as Principal in the first place. There was no compulsion on the educational agency to do so. The exercise of their choice in favour of the appellant not having been under any duress or other compelling circumstances, we cannot find an infringement of their rights under Article 30 in the instant case. On the contrary, we are indeed puzzled with the said argument on behalf of the educational institution which, we would have thought would have attempted to justify its own appointment of the appellant rather than seeking to justify the stand of the University that an approval to the said appointment cannot be granted.
In the result, we are of the view that Ext.P14 cannot be W.A.No.133/2021 :: 19 ::
legally sustained, and for the reasons stated in this judgment, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, and the Writ Appeal is allowed, by quashing Ext.P14 order. We also direct the University to approve the appointment of the appellant as Principal of the Union Christian College, Aluva, with effect from 1.4.2018, within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
prp/
W.A.No.133/2021 :: 20 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE UGC LIST OF APPROVED JOURNALS AS ON AUGUST 2017. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PUBLICATION OF ELSEVIER AS AVAILABLE IN THE WEBSITE.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.05.2011. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT OF THE API SCORE IN THE CASE OF DR.JOJO K. JOSEPH DATED 30.5.2018.
ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE UGC REGULATIONS 2018 DATED 18.07.2018.
ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF CHAPTER ACCEPTANCE DATED 22.1.2018.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A): TRUE COPY OF LIST OF JOURNALS REMOVED FROM UGC APPROVED LIST OF JOURNAL DATED MAY, 2019. ANNEXURE R1(B): TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ARTICLE "A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON ANTHOPHILES OF SELECTED TROPICAL VEGETABLE CROPS" AUTHORED BY RIMA JOSEPH AND THARA K. SIMON.
ANNEXURE R1(C): TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF "VIABILITY, GERMINATION AND REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF DIFFERENT SPECIES OF SIDA LINN., AND ITS SUBSTITUTED"
AUTHORED BY K.P.LISSY AND THARA K. SIMON.
W.A.No.133/2021 :: 21 ::
ANNEXURE R1(D): TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT "AQUATIC AND SEMI AQUATIC MACROPHYTIC FLORA OF BRACKISH WATERS OF KODNGALLUR, THRISSUR DIST., KERALA" AUTHORED BY VAHEEDA K K., AND THARA K. SIMON.
ANNEXURE R5(A): TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION DATED 12.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R5(B): TRUE COPY OF THE PERFORMA FOR THE POST OF PRINCIPAL DATED 14.08.2020.
ANNEXURE R5(C): TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R5(D): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.01.2021.
ANNEXURE R1(E): COPY OF THE FACING SHEET OF THE JOURNAL "ANNALS OF PLAN SCIENCES" WHICH IS A WEB JOURNAL HAVING ISN 2287-688X.
ANNEXURE R1(F): COPY OF PRINT OUT OF THE GLOBAL IMPACT FACTOR ASSESSED BY THE INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES FOR THE JOURNAL "ANNALS OF PLANT RESOURCES HAVING ISN 227
- 688 X. ANNEXURE R1(G): COPY OF THE FACING SHEET OF THE JOURNAL "ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION" HAVING ISN: PRINT
- 0257-7941.
ANNEXURE R1(H): COPY OF THE PRINT OUT FROM THE WEB SITE OF UNITED BOARD FOR CHRISTIAN HIGHER EDUCATION IN ASIA (UBCHA).
ANNEXURE R1(I): COPY OF THE UGC GUIDELINES FOR 3-CONTENT DEVELOPMENT (2007-2012).
EXHIBIT R1(J): DETAILS REGARDING THE JOURNALS MENTIONED IN COLUMN 2 OF TABLE III(A) IN EXHIBIT P5 ARE PRESENTED HEREWITH IN TABULAR FORM.
ANNEXURE R1(K): A PRINTOUT OF RELEVANT PAGES OF "BEALL'S LIST".
ANNEXURE R1(L): A PRINTOUT OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF W.A.No.133/2021 :: 22 ::
THE WEBSITE OF JOURNAL "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CREATIVE RESEARCH THOUGHTS" HAVING ISSN 2320-2882.
ANNEXURE R1(M): A PRINTOUT OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE WEBSITE OF JOURNAL "ANNALS OF PLANT SCIENCES" HAVING ISSN. 2287-688X.
ANNEXURE R5(E): SERIAL NO.3, MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING B. THE FRONT PAGE OF MY PUBLISHED PAPER ALONG WITH THE HOME PAGE OF THE JOURNAL "MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING:B".
ANNEXURE R5(F): SERIAL NO.9, CHEMICAL PHYSICS. THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPER AND THE HOME PAGE OF HTE JOURNAL CHEMICAL PHYSICS.
ANNEXURE R5(G): SERIAL NO.10, CRYSTENGCOMM. THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPER AND THE HOME PAGE OF THE JOURNAL CRYSTENGGCOMM.
ANNEXURE R5(H): TRUE COPY OF THE ONE AMONG THE CERTIFICATE TO SHOW THE PROOF FOR ATTENDING THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND SEMINARS IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE HELD DURING OCTOBER 29-31, 2010.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE