Kerala High Court
Mahesh M.R vs State Of Kerala on 28 November, 2019
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.20018 OF 2013(B)
PETITIONER/S:
1 MAHESH M.R.,
AGED 33 YEARS,
S/O. REGHUNANDANAN NAIR, MAMBILAYIL HOUSE,
MANJAPRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581.
2 SASI K.V., AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. VILAKKELY, THONIPPATTU HOUSE,
MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 661.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THRISSUR-680 001.
4 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPPALAM,
MALAPPURAM-676 505.
5 THE REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENJIPPALAM,
MALAPPURAM-676 505.
6 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWAM, GURUVAYOOR-680 101.
W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 2
7 THE ADMINISTRATOR,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, OFFICE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR-680 101.
8 THE ASSISTANT MANAGER,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, OFFICE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR-680 101.
9 SELECTION COMMITTEE,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, OFFICE OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYOOR-680 101, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
(K.SIVASANKARAN, MEMBER OF GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
MANAGING COMMITTEE).
10 THE PRINCIPAL,
SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE, GURUVAYUR, PIN-680 101.
11 KALAMOL,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MALAYALAM),
SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE, GURUVAYUR-680 101.
12 REENA M.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MALAYALAM),
SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE, GURUVAYUR-680 101.
13 SREELATHA E.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MALAYALAM),
SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE, GURUVAYUR-680 101.
14 MAYA S. NAIR,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (MALAYALAM),
SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE, GURUVAYUR-680 101.
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R3 - SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SENIOR
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 & R5 - SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC
R6 TO R10 - SRI.P.GOPAL
R11 TO R14 - SRI.B.MOHANLAL
R11 TO R14 - SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
R6-9 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28-11-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).21431/2015(D), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.21431 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
1 KALAMOL T.K.,
AGED 31 YEARS,
W/O. SAJEEVAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE,
GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT VALAKKADAVIL
HOUSE, ALAGAPPA NAGAR P.O., THRISSUR-680 302.
2 REENA A.M.,
W/O. SAJEESH NARAYANAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE,
GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT KURINHAGOTTE MANA,
PERINGOLAM, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 571.
3 SREELATHA E.,
W/O. RAJESH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE,
GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT PUNNOKKIL HOUSE,
PARALAM P.O., VENGINISSERY, THRISSUR-680 563.
4 MAYA S. NAIR,
W/O. K.S. JAYAGANESAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM, SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE,
GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT GANESH NILAYAM,
AKALUR P.O., PALAKKAD-679 302.
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
THRISSUR, THRISSUR P.O.-680 001.
W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 4
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENJIPALAM,
KOZHIKKODE-673 635.
4 THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
MANAGING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATOR AND SECRETARY, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 101.
BY ADVS.
R1-2 - SMT. MARY BEENA JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
R3 - SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC
R4 - SRI.P.GOPAL
SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28-11-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).20018/2013(B), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 5
JUDGMENT
The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the selection conducted by the Guruvayur Devaswom to the post of Assistant Professor (Malayalam) in the Sree Krishna College, Guruvayur. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment.
2. W.P.(C) No.20018 of 2013 is filed by the petitioners who have failed to secure the appointment, whereas the connected writ petition is filed by the persons who have secured appointment, seeking direction for payment of salary and other attendant benefits consequent to the appointment. The facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No.20018 of 2013 are relied upon and the decision taken in the said writ petition will decide the fate of the other case.
3. Petitioners as per Ext.P1 notification issued by the Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom, Guruvayur applied to the post of Assistant Professor (Malayalam) at Sree Krishna College, Guruvayur. According to the 1st petitioner, though the interview was scheduled on 25.02.2013 at 2 p.m. and the interview for 2nd petitioner was scheduled on 26.02.2013 at 8.30 a.m., petitioners did not receive interview card on time. W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 6 Anyhow, the 1st petitioner was permitted to attend the interview on 26.02.2013. However, the 2nd petitioner had to approach this Court and secured Ext.P4 judgment whereby a direction was issued to provide an opportunity to him to attend the interview. Consequently, on 17.04.2013 a rank list of 9 candidates to the post of Assistant Professor (Malayalam) was published, in which the petitioners are ranked at Sl.Nos.5 and 6 respectively. Out of the 9 candidates, rank Nos.1 to 4 are respondents 11 to 14 and they are appointed by the 7th respondent at the college.
4. According to the petitioners, there were only three notified vacancies. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners is that, as per Ext.P5 order dated 03.02.2012 issued by the University of Calicut, providing guidelines for selection of Assistant Professor and for awarding index marks during the selection process is 100, out of which, 25 marks are set apart for interview alone and 5 marks for pedagogical skills. Out of the 25 marks set apart for interview, 10 marks are set apart for assessment of subject expert and the remaining 15 for all the other members together. Except the marks of interview, 1 st petitioner obtained 42.1 and 2nd petitioner obtained 40 W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 7 marks. At the same time, respondents 11 to 14 respectively secured 27.2, 28.2, 27.9 and 25.6 marks only.
5. The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, if the marks of interview of respondents 11 to 14 are excluded, petitioners will be placed at Rank Nos.1 and 2 respectively. It is also alleged that, in order to overcome the merit of the petitioners in other counts, the selection committee arbitrarily assigned marks to respondents 11 to 14 in the interview and pedagogical skills. The 2nd petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community, and had the communal reservation was made applicable for appointment, the 2nd petitioner would have definitely got appointment. Other contentions are also raised to the effect that due to favouritism shown by the selection committee alone, respondents 11 to 14 were selected as Rank Nos.1 to 4. Therefore, petitioners seek intervention of this Court by striking down the selection. It is also submitted that, even though representations were submitted before the educational authorities, no action was initiated, which persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court.
6. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 8 respondents 6 and 7, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. It is also pointed out that, applications were invited from eligible hands for filling up the vacancies of teaching posts in various faculties in terms of Statute 3 of Calicut University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 (hereinafter called, 'the First Statute, 1979'). The number of vacancies of Assistant Professor (Malayalam) notified in Ext.P1 was 3. The Management received 87 applications, and on scrutiny, 5 applications were found defective, and they were rejected. The Management constituted a selection committee in terms of the Statute, 1979, and the members of the selection committee consisted of two representatives of Educational Agency, a Government nominee, subject expert nominated by the educational agency from the panel forwarded by the Calicut University and the Principal of the College. Only 41 candidates appeared for interview. The selection committee interviewed the candidates on 25.02.2013, 26.02.2013 and on 17.04.2013 and assessed the performance of each candidates appeared before them and marks were awarded based on their performance, as per the norms laid down by the W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 9 Calicut University and a select list was prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by them.
7. It is also pointed out that, respondents 11 to 14 performed better than the petitioners, in the interview, and it was thereupon that they were given appropriate ranks. The minutes of the selection committee dated 17.04.2013 is produced as Ext.R6(a), and the minutes was accepted by the Educational Agency in the meeting held on 17.04.2013, evident from Ext.R6(b). It is also pointed out that, respondents 11 to 13 i.e., rank Nos.1 to 3 were appointed as Assistant Professor in the vacancies notified in Ext.P1 notification. The validity of the select list was for a period of one year or till a fresh select list is drawn up, whichever is later. Therefore, the select list was in force till 16.04.2014, and during the validity of the select list, one vacancy of Assistant Professor (Malayalam) arose in the college on account of the retirement of one Dr. K.Sankaranunni on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012, and thereupon, respondent No.14, i.e., rank No.4 was appointed in the said vacancy. So also, it is submitted that, rank No.1 as per the select list i.e., Smt. Kalamol was relieved from the college on W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 10 09.06.2014. Therefore, according to the said respondents, the allegations made by the petitioners in respect of the marks awarded for the interview has no factual or legal foundation justifying interference of this Court exercising the power of judicial discretion.
8. Respondents 11 to 14 have also filed a detailed counter affidavit, almost in similar lines and also submitting that the selection was conducted in terms of Statute 1979 of the Calicut University.
9. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition.
10. As I have pointed out earlier, W.P.(C) No.21431 of 2015 is filed by respondents 11 to 14 in the other connected writ petition, seeking direction to the respondents to pay salary and all other attendant benefits to the said petitioners. Anyhow, an interim order was passed by this court on 16.07.2015 directing the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Thrissur to pay the current salary of the petitioners in the post concerned. I am also informed that the said direction is complied with. However, learned counsel for the petitioners therein submitted that, they are entitled to get the entire salary from their date of appointment and all other W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 11 attendant benefits.
11. The Government have filed a counter affidavit in the said writ petition, basically contending that the interim order was complied with and also submitting that the selection conducted is in accordance with law and the salary and other benefits were not disbursed to the petitioners, since there is no approval of the University for the appointments made.
12. I have heard Sri. C.A. Chacko, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20018 of 2013 and Sri. B. Mohan Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21431 of 2015, Smt. Mary Beena Joseph, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University and Sri. P. Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the Guruvayur Devaswom. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
13. The question emerges for consideration is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to the interview conducted by the selection committee. Having gone through the pleadings put forth by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.20018 of 2013, I am convinced that there are no established circumstances of malafides made out by the petitioners against the selection committee. W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 12 There is no case for the petitioners that the selection committee was constituted not in accordance with the provisions of Statute, 1979. Therefore, the faint allegation made in the writ petition that the selection committee was not constituted properly has no legs to stand, and I have to take that the selection committee was constituted in accordance with law.
14. On an appreciation of the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is true, petitioners have secured less marks in the interview and more marks in the other selection process. Ext.P5 is the guidelines fixed by the University, and marks are set apart under various heads, which are as follows:
Scheme of Weightage
1. Academic Qualifications 40 Marks 55% and above (or an equivalent grade in a One fourth of the point scale wherever grading system is percentage of total followed) at the Master's Degree level in a marks secured for the relevant subject from an Indian University, basic qualification, or an equivalent degree from an accredited shall be awarded as Foreign University. marks (Appropriate weightage should be given for Grades, on the basis of CGPA awarded) a. NET Nil b. NET + M.Phil 5 Marks c. NET + Ph.D 10 Marks d. M.Phil (before 1992) Nil.W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 13
e. Ph.D (before 1993) 10 Marks
f. JRF/SRF/M.Litt/D. Litt/D.Sc 5 Marks
g. M.Phil + Ph.D (without NET/JRF) 5 Marks
(The marks for Academic Qualifications should be limited to 40).
2. Publications: 1 mark for each paper published in international and national publications in books and/or research/policy 8 Marks papers in indexed/ISBN/ISSN numbered journals and/or referred journals and for ISBN/ISSN numbered books (subject to a maximum of 8 marks)
3. Presentations: 1 mark for each paper presented in national/international level seminars/conferences organized by reputed/recognized institutions & funded by 4 Marks the agencies like UGC/DST etc. or the Union & State Governments.
(subject to a maximum of 4 marks, Evidence of seminar/conference proceedings to be submitted along with application)
4. Research Projects: funded by Government/Government agencies (After post 5 Marks graduation) (1 mark each for each project subject to a maximum of 5 marks)
5. Experience: 1 mark for each completed year of approved U.G./P.G teaching 10 Marks service/Post doctoral research/Guest Lecturer service in Govt./Aided Colleges/University Teaching Departments* *One Academic year is considered as one year service.
6. Additional approved P.G. Degree 3 Marks
7. Pedagogical Skills (demonstrated by 5 Marks teaching methodology etc.)
8. Interview 25 Marks Total 100 Marks W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 14
15. Therefore, on an appreciation of the contentions put forth by the petitioners, it is clearly evident that marks other than the interview and Pedagogical Skills (demonstrated by teaching methodology etc.), are to be awarded under various heads like, Publications, Presentations, Research Projects and Experience. There is no allegation of any nature in the matter of awarding marks for other heads, than the interview and Pedagogical Skills. Therefore, there is a clear cut methodology adopted by the University in the matter of awarding marks under various heads. So far as the participation of the applicants in the interview and Pedagogical Skills are concerned, it is absolutely the satisfaction of the selection committee to assess each and every applicant in accordance with the performance made by them in the said process, the conduct and behaviour and also the answers given by them to the questions put by the selection committee members. Therefore, it is clear that, in an interview, the performance is that what matters, and each and every candidate is evaluated and assessed by the selection committee members in accordance with the perceptions achieved by them on the basis of the answers given and other circumstances that W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 15 weighed with the selection committee, which thus means, there is absolute discretion to the selection committee members in the matter of providing marks.
16. The selection committee members were the best evaluators in order to identify the persons who have efficiently performed in the interview, and therefore, unless and until serious malafides, irrationality or illegality are able to be demonstrated in the matter of conduct of interview, a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere with the selection process conducted. In my considered opinion, nowhere in the writ petition, any established malafide or other illegal circumstances are pointed out by the petitioners so as to make any interference exercising the power of judicial discretion. Therefore, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I do not think the petitioners have made out any case of illegality, arbitrariness or any palpable error, enabling this court to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. As I have pointed out earlier, W.P.(C) No.21431 of 2015 is filed seeking payment of salary and all other attendant benefits to the petitioners who were appointed to the post of Assistant Professor W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 16 (Malayalam). It is clear from the contentions put forth by the respective parties that the appointments were made in accordance with the select list prepared by the selection committee, and the rank list has a validity of one year and the appointments were made, also within the validity of the rank list. Having found that there is no illegality or any other legal infirmity in the matter of preparing the rank list, I am of the considered view, petitioners are entitled to get all other attendant benefits in terms of their appointment.
18. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps to approve the appointment of the petitioners 2 to 4, who are still in the service of the college in question, at the earliest, and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st petitioner was relieved and she is at present working in some other college. Needless to say, the arrears of salary and all other attendant benefits shall be paid to the petitioners immediately thereafter, in accordance with their entitlement.
W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 17Resultantly, W.P.(C) No.20018 of 2013 is dismissed and W.P.(C) No.21431 of 2015 is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20018/2013 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 10-2-2012 ISSUED BY R7.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD OF 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD OF 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT. 1-4-13 IN WPC 5899/13.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA II/F3/3788/11 DT.3-2-12 ISSUED BY R5.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DT.4-6-13.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF INFORMATION OFFICER DT. 5-7-13.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DT. 4-6-13.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF INFORMATION OFFICER DT.4-7-13.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF ONE DEVADAS DT.11-6-13 ALONG WITH REPLY DT.10-7-13.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S APPEAL BEFORE R7 DT.15-7-13.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.10-7-13 SENT TO R2 WITH COPY TO R1.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 17.4.2013.
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 17.4.2013 OF THE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.
EXHIBIT R13(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH RESPONDENT.W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 19
EXHIBIT R13(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R13(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R13(D) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R13(E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.NO.1885/2015/ADMN. DATED 24.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE RESPONDENTS 11 TO 14.
EXHIBIT R13(F) THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.7.2015 IN WPC.NO.21431/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.W.P.(C)Nos.20018/13 & 21431/15 20
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21431/2015 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.28-5- 2013 ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.28-5- 2013 ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.28-5- 2013 ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.28-5- 2013 ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O.1885/2015/ADMN.DT.24-2-2015 ISSUED BY R3 TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY BILL OF THE PETITIONERS FORWARDED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE, GURUVAYUR AS PER COMMUNICATION NO.A1/2213/2015 DT.7-3-2015.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16-6-2015 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE R2.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R2 THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL AND THE COMMUNICATION NO.G1/2079/2015 DT.16-6-2015.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B-
1257/2015 DT.18-6-2015 ISSUED BY R2 TO R1 AND THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5-5635/15 DATED 15.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF PETITIONERS.