Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Arathy Krishna D H vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute For ... on 26 May, 2025
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00537/2023
Monday this the 26th day of May 2025
CO RAM :
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Arathy Krishna.D.H.,
Aged 27 years,
W/o.Vishnu.A.H.,
Hari Bhavan, Chellamcode,
Poovathoor P.O., Nedumangad,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 561. ...Applicant
(By Advocates Mr.Varun C Vijay & Mrs.Divya Chandran)
versus
1. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Thiruvananthapuram represented by the Director,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.
2. Director,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Chalakkuzhi, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.
3. Administrative Office Gr.I (In charge)
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.
4. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Department of Science & Technology,
Technology Bhavan, New Mehruli Road,
New Delhi - 110 016.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30'
-2-
5. Mr.Chaithanya Gurram,
Residing at D.No.6-7-44 Srungarapuram,
Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh - 522 101.
6. Ms.Honey Mol Sebastian,
Residing at Palazhy Anayara Gardens Road,
Anayara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 029.
7. Mr.Umesh.B.,
Residing at Kizhakkathil Veedu,
Pullikonam, Kachani Karakulam P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 564.
8. Mr.Vaisakh Varma R.,
Residing at Manikunnil Koickal Mathilbhagom,
Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta - 689 101. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.V.Sajith Kumar [R1-3],
Mr.Aneesh.M., ACGSC [R4] & Mr.R.Sreeraj [R5-8])
This application having been heard on 8 th April, 2025 the Tribunal
on 26th May 2025 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The brief facts of the case are as under:
The applicant is a candidate who possess a PG Diploma in Journalism, which is one of the essential qualifications for selection and appointment to the post of Public Relations Officer-A in the 1 st respondent Institution. However, she was placed at rank No.5 in Annexure A-2. Rank Nos.1 to 4 do not have a PG Diploma in Public Relations and Journalism and the applicant argues that therefore, they are A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -3- unqualified and ineligible for the post. Due to their inclusion in Annexure A-2 ranklist ahead of the applicant she is denied appointment. The conditions and terms of the notifications are to be strictly followed and therefore the present OA has been filed challenging Annexure A-2 as impugned order.
2. The essential qualification and experience required for the post is as follows :
1. 60% marks in Degree from a recognised University.
2. PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism.
3. 5 years experience in Front Office Management/Public Relations in a reputed large institution.
A desirable qualification is knowledge in computer operation and publications.
As per the terms of the notification, which is produced as Annexure A-1, she has also successfully undergone the Written test and Skill test as part of the Selection Process. The final rank list of the candidates to the above post was published by the 3 rd respondent on 03.11.2023, which is produced as Annexure A-2. The applicant is ranked as Serial No.5 in Annexure A-2. The grievance of the applicant is that all the candidates from rank 1 to 4 are unqualified and ineligible to be included in the ranklist because they do not possess the essential qualification i.e, PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism as declared in Annexure A-1. As A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -4- understood by the applicant, they possess an MA degree in Journalism which is not acceptable for the selection process, as there is no specific clause in Annexure A-1 notification for accepting any higher or equivalent course in the place of PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism. In the absence of such a clause, favouring ranks 1 to 4 in Annexure A-2, persons with MA Degree in Journalism or even a BA Degree in Journalism cannot aspire for the said post as the terms and conditions stated in the notification are to be strictly followed and the same cannot be changed in the amidst of selection process. The two candidates included in Annexure A-2 ranklist who possess the second essential qualification i.e, PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism are the applicant and the candidate ranked at Serial No.7. The applicant has submitted BA Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication produced as Annexure A-3 and the PG Diploma in Journalism produced as Annexure A-4. It has been submitted that all the candidates including the applicant are having five years experience in Journalism and respondents 2 and 3 have taken a conscious decision to accept the experience in Journalism as experience in Public Relations. This is not a point of contention. The only question raised by the applicant is whether persons with ranks 1 to 4 who do not possess a PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism can be held eligible based on their MA Degree.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -5-
3. The respondents have submitted in the reply statement that the contentions of the applicant in so far as the qualifications prescribed in as a pre-condition for application submitted by the applicant is correct. They state the Institute received 45 applications for the post. The Scrutiny Committee evaluated all the applications based on the requirement of the Institute, and shortlisted 9 candidates for the Written Test/Skill Test which is also a part of the selection process, which is given in the advertisement. Pursuant to this requirement, the Written Test was conducted on 20.09.2023 and 8 candidates out of 9 had attended the Written Test. Even though the Written test was conducted for 100 marks, the cut off was prescribed at 50 marks. The Skill test which was of qualifying nature, for 100 marks, was conducted on 21.09.2023 and the cut off marks were prescribed at 50. A total of 7 candidates were shortlisted pursuant to the Written Test and Trade Test and the marks scored by the candidates are as follows :
SI. Name Written Test Trade Test
No. (Marks) (Marks)
1 Chaithanya Gurran 72 58
2 Honey Mol Sebastian 70 63
3 Umesh B 68 68
4 Vaisakh Varma R. 68 69
5 Arathy Krishna D.H. 62 53
6 Varsha J. 58 55
7 Vishnu Sharma R.S. 55 53
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30'
-6-
4. It was submitted that the marks scored by the candidates was the criteria for the inclusion in the related position in Annexure A-2 rank list. The applicant herein was placed at 5 th rank solely due to her relatively lower merit in the Written Test conducted by the Institute and therefore, there is no merit in any of the averments raised by the applicant in the Original Application, and a less meritorious candidate cannot be permitted to unsettle the appointment of a more meritorious candidate.
5. It has been argued that all 7 candidates who were included in Annexure A-2 ranklist were having the necessary qualification and experience required for the post. Even though 5 candidates out of 7 were having a Post Graduate Degree in Journalism and Mass Communicaton/Communication and Journalism, the same was a better qualification than the Diploma prescribed in the notification. Since there was no condition in the notification restraining the candidates with better qualification from applying for the post, the Scrutiny Committee had included the candidates possessing higher qualification of Degree in Journalism and subjected them to the Written Test and Interview. As per the terms of the notification, there existed only one UR vacancy for the post of Public Relations Officer-A in the Institute, and the remaining candidates were to be placed in the panel. Since the Institute was A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -7- looking for the best candidate suiting their requirements it permitted the 9 candidates shortlisted from the 45 applications received and formulated Annexure A-2 select list on the basis of the marks scored by the candidates in the Written Test. It was submitted that since the Institute has not given any undue preference to any of the candidates and had not watered down the qualifications/eligibility conditions prescribed in the notification, there is nothing illegal or arbitrary in the selection process or in Annexure A-2 rank list published by the Institute.
6. We have heard both sides extensively. According to the applicant the only issue to be decided in this O.A is while the advertisement for recruitment defines qualification as PG Diploma in Journalism, whether candidate with an MA in Journalism and Communication could be considered as eligible candidate even if it was a better or higher qualification? It has been argued at great length that while they are not contesting the merit of a Master's Degree in Journalism, it is a qualification which is different from what is prescribed in Annexure A-1 notification and hence these candidates could not have been considered at all. Annexure A-5 certificate of the University of Kerala clearly and categorically has stated that the Master of Communication and Journalism offered by the Department of Communication and A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -8- Journalism, University of Kerala, is a Post Graduate Degree Programme of two year duration and is a higher qualification compared with a Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism.
7. In support of the argument the applicant has submitted multiple case laws wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 KHC OnLine 6251 that the term 'degree' has been defined under S.22(3) the UGC Act, which states that the 'degree' means the 'Bachelor's Degree', 'Master's Degree' and the 'Doctorate Degree'. Thus, wherever the word 'degree' is used, unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would include within its scope and ambit all three. This was in a situation where the advertisement had prescribed the requirement of Graduate Degree in specified subjects and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and Intra Court Appeal filed by appellants ruling that appellants' postgraduate degrees in Microbiology or Food Science and Technology did not meet the advertisement's requirement of a graduate degree in specified subjects and has distinguished the decision on the ground that what has been prescribed is a diploma and not a degree. In the case of Bose William v. State of Kerala, 2002 KHC 378 it has been held that 'since the 3 rd respondent is senior to the additional 4 th A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -9- respondent, she can be overlooked in the matter of promotion only if she is not qualified for the higher post. Hence, it is necessary to decide whether the 3rd respondent is qualified for the post of H.S.A (Social Studies) which fell vacant on 01.04.1997. It is not disputed that the 3 rd respondent has got a Post-graduate degree in English Language and Literature with B.Ed and that the Post-graduate qualification she has got is the one recognized by the Kerala University. The qualification prescribed as per K.E.R is a degree in the concerned subject and B.Ed/LT/BT. As regards Social Studies, the concerned subject includes English Language and Literature, History, Economics, Geography, Politics etc. The word degree as it occurs in the rule is not qualified by the word Bachelors or Masters or Post Graduate. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.213 of 1997 says that the words recognized degree would include both Bachelors Degree as well as Masters Degree. As the word degree in R.2(2)(a) is not qualified by the word Bachelor or Post-graduate when we travel in the same direction as the Division Bench travelled to find out the meaning of a similar expression, I am inclined to take the view that a restricted meaning is not called for in the circumstances of this case.' In the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors., 2018 KHC 6968 it was held that 'the question which was examined was whether the SSSB erred in A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -10- not granting additional weightage for a higher qualification and it was held in this particular case that the qualification prescribed is the bare minimum requirement of the job and emphasised that it is an essential requirement, a threshold which cannot be dispensed with. The Board is entitled to assign additional weightage for a higher qualification. Whether such a weightage should be assigned is a matter for the Board to determine. The SSSB did not assign an additional weightage for a higher qualification. In not exercising an enabling power, no fault can be found with the SSSB. An enabling provision postulates a discretion which may or may not be exercised. A candidate has no vested right to assert that the Board must as a mandate assign an additional weightage to a higher qualification. Whether to do so or not is a matter for the Board to determine.'
8. Both sides have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors., 2010 KHC 5231. The decision in Jyoti K.K (supra) arises from a case where the Public Service Commission had invited applications for selection to the post of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The qualification prescribed for the post were -
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -11- '1. SSLC or its equivalent.
2. Technical qualifications -
(a) Diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognized institution after 3 years' course of study.
Or
(b) a certificate in Electrical Engineering from any one of the recognized technical schools shown below with five years service under the Kerala State Electricity Board.
(c) Mgte/Kgte in electrical light and power (higher) with five years' experience as the 2 nd Grade Overseer (Electrical) under the Board.'
9. The appellants were holders of BTech degree in Electrical Engineering or Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering. The Public Service Commission held that they were not eligible for selection. R.10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services R.1956 contained the following stipulation -
"10.(a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post."
10. It has been argued by the applicant that in the absence of a rule similar to Rule 10(a)(ii) in the Recruitment Rules for the institute the respondents cannot take benefit of this stipulation which permits A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -12- recognition of a higher qualification presupposing the acquisition of the lower qualification. It is argued by the respondents that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K (supra) permitted the recognition clearly stipulating that the possession of a higher qualification can presupposes acquisition of the lower qualification. In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Anita & Ors., (2015)2 SCC 170 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of such a stipulation, such a hypothesis could not be deduced. Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The state as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the state, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -13- a rule in the case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. Also cited in support of the contention was the case of Jomon.K.K v. Shajimon.P, 2025 KHC OnLine 6293. While dismissing the appeal on the question whether a candidate who did not hold a current Lascar's licence but was the holder of a Syrang's licence can be considered qualified to participate in the recruitment process as well as appointed for the post of Boat Lascar the Court held that on a conjoint reading of R.6 of the Special Rules and the advertisement, we find both mentioning a particular qualification ie., a current Lascar's licence, which each aspirant has to possess for being considered eligible to participate in the process of selection, thereby creating a distinct class and it is aspirants falling in such class alone who could have applied for being considered. Thus, any aspirant, even though possessing a Syrang's licence or a Driver's licence not being part of such distinct class, could not have been considered eligible. The classfication has not been shown to be and is not unreasonable.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted in the O.A and in the M.A filed by the applicant that she had not made any averment as regards the absence of statutory powers of the institute to consider applications from candidate possessing Post Graduate Degree as against A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -14- Post Graduate Diploma, but had only contended that the institute cannot consider such applications in the absence of specific clauses in the Annexure A-1 notification. However, during the course of hearing, the applicant stressed on the contention that in the absence of a specific statutory provision enabling the institute to relax the qualifications prescribed in the notification, the institute does not have any power to consider application from persons possessing Post Graduate Degree as against Post Graduate Diploma. It was argued by the respondents that as per Section 11 of the SCTIMST Act, the institute is empowered to appoint such number of officers and employees as may be necessary to discharge the functions at the institute. As per Section 31 (2)(g) of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to make rules as regards the number and the manner of appointment of employees at the institute. It was argued that the institute is empowered to create adhoc committees and standing committees to carry out the purpose of the Act, by virtue of Section 32 (1)(c). Rule 6 of the SCTIMST rules reaffirms this power. It is submitted that as per Regulation 21 of the SCTIMST Regulations, the institute is statutorily empowered to constitute various adhoc committees as specified in Schedule II of the Regulations and the Standing Committee for selection of Junior Staff is provided at Clause 'E' of Schedule II of the Regulations. The Standing Committee for selection of A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -15- Junior Staff shall meet as often as necessary for the purpose of selecting staff by interview or otherwise and formulate recommendations for appointment to all posts carrying a pay scale the maximum of which does not exceed Rs.750/- p.m., provided that in respect of selection of junior staff in the Biomedical Technology Wing of the institute, the Head of the Biomedical Technology Wing shall be the Chairman of the Committee. The pay scale of Rs.750 per month has been revised to Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- by order dated 13.02.2015 which is the Grade Pay of Public Relations Officer - A. Therefore, the Junior Staff Selection Committee is the authority competent to make recommendations as regards the modalities and appointment of staff at the institute.
12. When we go to the advertisement for the recruitment of Public Relations Officer - A produced at Annexure A-1 the essential qualification and experience have been listed as (1) 60% marks in Degree from a recognized University (2) PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism (3) 5 years experience in Front Office Management/Public Relations in a reputed large institution. These are essential qualification and experience. However, mode of selection is written test and skill test. It was argued by the respondents that while candidates holding both Post Graduate Degree and Post Graduate A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -16- Diploma were shortlisted for appearing for the Public Relations Officer
-A written test and interview subsequently all actions based only on a level playing field, some appeared in the same written test and the skill test and the ranking was based upon marks scored and that the applicant was ranked at Sl.No.5 and since there was only one vacancy, candidate at Sl.No.1 was appointed.
13. The 5th respondent has filed a detailed written statement. He is ranked at Sl.No.1 in the Annexure A-2. He has submitted that it is incorrect to state that he does not possess the essential qualification to be appointed to the post of Public Relations Officer - A in the institute. The qualification of Post Graduate Degree in Journalism and Mass Communications is a qualification higher than PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism and it takes within its sweep all the requirements that were envisaged by the institute by prescribing PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism as the qualification. The institute is the competent authority to determine what they want from their Public Relations Officer and they have the ultimate say in the matter whether the selected candidate possess the required qualifications or not and which they had determined. He has also argued that there is no need for a specific clause in the notification for accepting any higher or equivalent course. PG A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -17- Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism means and includes any higher or equivalent qualification either in Journalism or Public Relations. By prescribing a minimum qualification, the appointing authority had already spoken its mind loud and clear that anything higher or equivalent is also acceptable. The Hon'ble Apex Court had time and again made it clear that in the matter of qualifications, a hyper technical approach should not be adopted. What the applicant attempts is a too restrictive, a hyper technical interpretation and that is highly impermissible. He further submits that it cannot be argued that the rules has been changed in the midst of the selection process which is factually incorrect.
14. When we go to Annexure A-1 notification it is noticed that what has been prescribed is essential qualification, experience which has been stated as PG Diploma in Public Relations/Journalism. The question which has to be determined here as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jomon K.K (supra) is whether the classification has not been shown to be or is unreasonable. The classification between possession of PG Diploma in Journalism and Communication and PG Degree of Journalism has been shown to be unreasonable. If we go to the criteria set out in Jyoti K.K (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 7 of its decision that it is no doubt true, as stated by the A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -18- High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In para 9 of the same decision, it has been held that in the event the Government is of the view that only diploma holders should have applied to post of Sub Engineers but not all those who possess higher qualifications, either this Rule should have excluded in respect of candidates who possess higher qualifications or the position should have been made clear that degree holder shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand the Rules do not disqualify per se the holders of higher qualifications in the same faculty, it becomes clear that the Rule could be understood in an appropriate manner as stated above. In that view of the matter the order (Jyoti.K.K v. Kerala Public Service A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -19- Commission, Original Petition No.9602/1998, order dated 30.03.2000) of the High Court cannot be sustained. In this case we are not concerned with the question whether all those who possess such qualifications could have applied or not. When statutory Rules have been published and those Rules are applicable, it presupposes that everyone concerned with such appointments will be aware of such Rules or make himself aware of the Rules before making appropriate applications. The High Court, therefore, is not justified in holding that recruitment of the appellants would amount to fraud on the public.
15. It has been certified by the concerned academic authority as per Annexure A-5 that the PG Degree in Communication and Journalism is a higher qualification compared with a PG Diploma in Journalism. The entire case of the applicant rests on the premise that the candidates shortlisted by the institute are persons having higher/better qualification than what is prescribed in the notification and, therefore, they are ineligible to be considered for the post. However, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Deep Chandra Tewari & Anr., 2013 (15) SCC 557 at para 11 is relevant to the matter in issue.
A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -20- "11. We are conscious of the principle that when particular qualifications are prescribed for a post, the candidature of a candidate possessing higher qualification cannot be rejected on that basis. No doubt, normal rule would be that candidate with higher qualification is deemed to fulfil the lower qualification prescribed for a post. But that higher qualification has to be in the same channel. Further, this rule will be subject to an exception. Where the prescription of a particular qualification is found to be relevant for discharging the functions of that post and at the same time, the Government is able to demonstrate that for want of the said qualification a candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if he possesses a "better" qualification but that "better" qualification has not relevance with the function attached with the post."
16. It is clear that the institute had not excluded any candidate capable of discharging the functions mandated for the post in terms of the required qualification. The applicant as well as other candidates who have higher qualification in the same channel has also been shortlisted for the written test and skill test and the selection was solely based on the marks secured by the candidates in the written test and skill test. The PG Degree and PG Diploma are in the same stream. It is to be clearly noted that the Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism and Post Graduate Degree possessed by the other candidates is also in the same field ie. Journalism and Mass Communication. No undue advantage has been seen given to any candidate but only a level playing field through the mechanism of the selection process. In terms of the facts set out in para 3 supra, the applicant has participated and has been ranked at Sl.No.5 on the basis of A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -21- a written test and trade test where all shortlisted candidates participated on equal terms and the applicant was in no case at a disadvantage in this process.
17. Under these circumstances, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyoti.K.K (supra) and Deep Chandra Tewari (supra) would be the case laws applicable in this case. Accordingly, the O.A fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 26th day of May, 2025) V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER asp A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30' -22- List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00 537/2023
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the notification bearing No.Advt.No.P&A.11/164/JSSC/SCTIMST/2022 dated 28.12.2022.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the ranked list bearing No.P&A.11/472/JSSC/SCTIMST/2022 dated 03.11.2023 published by the 3rd respondent.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the BA Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication and Video Production pertaining to the applicant awarded by the University of Kerala dated 24.03.2017.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism pertaining to the applicant awarded by the Institute of Journalism, Thiruvananthapuram dated 05.11.2018.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the certificate bearing No.56222/ACA11/2023/UOK dated 03.10.2023 issued to one Varsha.J by the Registrar of University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
6. Annexure R-5(A) - A copy of the Degree Certificate in Visual Communications, Electronics and Computer Science possessed by the 5 th respondent.
7. Annexure R-5(B) - A copy of the Memorandum of Marks obtained by the 5th respondent during his Graduation in Visual Communications, Electronics and Computer Science.
8. Annexure R-5(C) - A copy of the Post Graduate Degree Certificate possessed by the 5th respondent.
9. Annexure R-5(D) - A copy of the Memorandum of Marks obtained by the 5th respondent during his Post Graduation in Journalism and Mass Communication.
10. Annexure R-5(E) - A copy of the offer of appointment No.P&A.II/437/SCTIMST/JSSC/2023 dated 09.11.2023.
_______________________________ A S PEETHAMBARAN 2025.05.26 11:00:24+05'30'