Partly allowed

Rohit M v. Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering

Kerala HC12 Dec 2019WP(C)/27966/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners challenged their non-appointment to ad-hoc faculty posts. The Court directed the college to appoint petitioners from an expired rank list due to interim relief, but dismissed the third petition regarding ad-hoc selection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appoint petitioners from the rank list within one month; dismissal of reservation challenge in ad-hoc selection.

Rohit M Vs Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.36112 OF 2015(L)

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

DHANUSHA P.B., SHYAMAL, SNRA-68, POOJAPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY SRI.K.T.POULOSE (KORATTY)

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

R1 - SRI. JESTIN MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 - SRI.R.AZAD BABU, SC, SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).38669/2015(G), WP(C).27966/2017(U), THE COURT ON 12-12-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶19

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.38669 OF 2015

¶20

PETITIONER/S:

¶21

MANOJ B., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. K.BALAKRISHNAN, AYANIMOOTIL, ANAYARA P.O., ORUVATHIL KOTTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 029.

¶22

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI SMT.S.KARTHIKA (K/465/2015) SMT.T.N.SREEKALA

¶23

RESPONDENT/S:

¶24

SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶25

R1 BY SRI.R.AZAD BABU, SC, SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).36112/2015(L), WP(C).27966/2017(U), THE COURT ON 12-12-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶28

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶32

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶33

WP(C).No.27966 OF 2017

¶34

PETITIONER/S:

¶35

ROHIT M., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. DR. MOHANDAS, AKSHAYA, KOLLAKA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLI, PIN-690 536.

¶36

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI SMT.T.N.SREEKALA

¶37

RESPONDENT/S:

¶38

SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶39

R1 BY SRI.R.AZAD BABU, SC, SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING.

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-12-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).36112/2015(L), WP(C).38669/2015(G), THE COURT ON 12-12-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶42

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Electronics & Communication Engineering at the Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram, as per the rank list drawn, and the procedure adopted for ad-hoc appointment, respectively. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. Facts and documents available from W.P.(C) No.36112 of 2015 are relied upon for the disposal of the writ petitions. Brief material facts are as follows:

¶45

Petitioner is a Post Graduate in Applied Electronics, passed in First Class with Distinction from Anna University, Chennai, in the year 2008. The 2^nd respondent is an Engineering College managed by the

¶46

State of Kerala. Case of the petitioner is that, taking into account the strength of the students and going by AICTE norms, there are 41 vacancies of

¶47

Teachers in the College. But, presently there are only

¶48

21 permanent teachers including one Professor.

¶49

Therefore, 20 vacancies are available to be filled up. Out of the 20 vacancies, 6 vacancies are filled up by

¶50

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 5 27966/17

¶51

Ad-hoc Assistant Professors. In order to fill up the vacancies, Ext.P5 rank list was prepared after a written test and interview, and published on 20.06.2013. The rank list had a validity of two years, which was extended for a further period of six months, which was due to expire on 20.12.2015. Petitioner is rank No.9 in the list and hence she is entitled to get appointment if further appointments are made applying communal rotation, being a member of Ezhava community.

¶52

It is also pointed out that, petitioner is entitled to get appointment in the next vacancy as few appointments are already made from Ext.P5 rank list, and she is Rank No.1 in the category of Ezhava. The case projected by the petitioner is that, it is a deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents with the intention to make fresh selection after denying opportunity to the candidates already selected. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

¶53

A statement and counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the rank list was

¶54

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 6 27966/17

¶55

expired on 19.12.2015. The sanctioned strength of

¶56

students for B.Tech Course in the subject Electronics & Communication is 120 per year. The number of students for the 2^nd year B.Tech Course, in the Department of Electronics and Communication is 122, whereas for the 3^rd and 4^th years, the students strength are 120 and 125 respectively. The excess number of 2 students in the 2^nd year and 5 students in the final year have occurred due to re-admission of the students discontinued earlier. Thus, the total number of students for the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th year B.Tech Course is 367. A batch of M.Tech course is also conducted in the Department of Electronics and Communication and the sanctioned strength of students per year is 18. However, as of now, only 15 students are undergoing studies each in the first and second year M.Tech Course, respectively.

¶57

It is also submitted that, the appointments of faculty members are done in the College by following the norms fixed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). As per the notification dated 05.03.2010 issued by the AICTE, viz., Ext.R2(a), the college should maintain the ratio of 1:2:6, between Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶60

Professors, in the graduate courses, whereas the ratio of Professors and Associate Professors should be 1:2, as far as the Post Graduate courses are concerned.

¶61

As stated above, there are 120 students each in the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th year B.Tech course, whereas 15 students each for the 1^st and 2^nd year M.Tech course, though the sanctioned strength is 18 students. The faculty ratio fixed by the AICTE as per the AICTE Approval Process Hand Book 2015-16, produced as Ext.R2(b), is 1:15. But, for the purpose of reckoning the above ratio of faculty cum students, the 1^st year students are excluded. By following the ratio of 1:2:6 between Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors, there must be 2 Professors, 4 Associate Professors and 18 Assistant Professors. There are two sanctioned posts of Professor, out of which, one post is occupied by a non-cadre Professor, whereas the other post is vacant. There are four sanctioned posts of Associate Professor, out of which, two are vacant. The number of sanctioned posts of Assistant Professor is 18 and there are permanent teachers in all the 18 posts of Assistant Professor. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the 2^nd respondent is

¶62

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 8 27966/17

¶63

that, as per Ext.R2(a) AICTE norms, there are

¶64

sufficient number of teachers to impart instructions to

¶65

the B.Tech students. As far as M.Tech students are

¶66

concerned, there are only 30 students, even though the sanctioned strength of PG students for the 1^st and 2^nd year is 36, and as per Ext.R2(a) norms, the teachers

¶67

must be Professors/Associate Professors in the ratio of 1:2.

¶68

It is also pointed out that, the vacancies of

¶69

Professor/Associate Professor can be filled up only by following the open selection procedures, by inviting applications from the public, on the basis of public notifications. Therefore, from Ext.P5 rank list, no

¶70

more person can be appointed to the post of Assistant

¶71

Professor, since the 2^nd respondent is bound by Ext.R2(a) norms fixed by the AICTE. However, it is

¶72

submitted that, 3 Assistant Professors are on

¶73

deputation for higher studies, with salary and allowances, and those 3 posts cannot be filled up from

¶74

Ext.P5 rank list. It was therefore that ad-hoc

¶75

teachers have been appointed to those 3 posts of Assistant Professor. One vacancy of Professor and 2

¶76

vacancies of Associate Professors could not be filled

¶77

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶78

¶79

up, but ad-hoc appointments have been made, to impart instructions to the students, to those posts also.

¶80

That apart, it is pointed out that, ad-hoc

¶81

appointments have been made to all the 6 temporary vacancies, by strictly following the procedures insisted as per Ext.R2(c) Government Order dated 07.07.2012, bearing G.O.(Ms)No.275/12/H.Edn. Further,

¶82

it is submitted that, from Ext.P5 rank list, three

¶83

candidates with Rank Nos.2, 3 and 4 were given appointment and the 2^nd respondent follows the

¶84

principles of reservation as provided in KS&SSR very strictly. Therefore, there is no sanctioned post of Assistant Professor kept vacant, and no candidate from Ext.P5 can be given appointment. The last candidate

¶85

who was given appointment from Ext.P5 rank list was in the open category, and as per the roster, the next appointment goes to SC/ST candidate, and the said turn cannot be filled up with any other candidate, including the petitioner. The next candidate for filling up the quota in SC community is Anju D.S., with rank No.16 in Ext.P5. It is also pointed out that, petitioner is rank No.9 in Ext.P5 and she belongs to Ezhava community

¶86

and her turn shall occur only after appointing Mr.

¶87

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 10 27966/17

¶88

Aravind Shekhar R., with rank No.5 in the general category from the rank list.

¶89

It is also submitted that, as per Ext.R2(d)

¶90

UGC Regulations dated 30.06.2010, where the work load of teachers has been enumerated, an Assistant Professor

¶91

should work for 16 hours, whereas an Associate Professor/Professor should work for 14 hours. So also, Ext.R2(e) notification dated 07.12.2010 bearing G.O. (P)No.389/10/H. Edn. is issued by the 1^st respondent, enumerating the work load of teachers covered by AICTE Scheme. As per clause 5.6, an Assistant Professor has

¶92

to work for 16 hours per week, whereas a Professor/Associate Professor should impart instructions for 14 hours. Therefore, as of now, there are sufficient number of teachers in the Department of Electronics and Communication, to impart instructions to the students, by following the work load insisted in Exts.R2(d) and R2(e).

¶93

That apart, it is submitted that, the ratio of 1:15 between the faculty and students insisted upon by AICTE as per Ext.R2(b) is only a desirable situation, and even if the strength of faculty is at the ratio

¶94

of 1:20 with the students, the accreditation/

¶95

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶96

¶97

recognition/approval given by the AICTE would not be withdrawn. Therefore, according to the 2^nd respondent, petitioner has not made out any case justifying interference.

¶98

A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition.

¶99

In W.P.(C) No.38669 of 2015, petitioner is

¶100

Rank No.13 in Ext.P5 rank list. The contentions raised by the petitioner therein also are almost typical in nature, and therefore, no separate discussion of facts are required.

¶101

concerned, the same is filed by an M.Tech qualified person belonging to SC community, aggrieved by declining consideration for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Ad-hoc/Guest faculty) in the Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering. The contention put forth by the petitioner therein is that, petitioner has passed B.Tech (Mechanical Engineering) with First Class (72.18% marks) and M.Tech (Production Engineering - Mechanical Engineering) with First Class and Distinction. He has also undergone training in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thumba, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶102

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶103

¶104

It was on the basis of Ext.P4 notification

¶105

dated 30.06.2017, petitioner attended a walk-ininterview held on 07.07.2017 and 14.07.2017.

¶106

Thereafter, Ext.P5 list was published including five persons for appointment as Ad-hoc Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering), however, petitioner was not included. On 18.07.2017, yet another notification was published for a walk-in-interview in the website, for

¶107

the post of Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering) and the petitioner participated in the selection process again on 27.07.2017, and later Ext.P7 list was published, however, petitioner was not included. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the petitioner is that, the policy of reservation for members of SC and ST communities are not followed, which is a necessary requirement even in ad-hoc appointments. Exts.P8 and P9 notifications are produced by the petitioner in respect of National Institute of Technology, Calicut & Thiruchirappally respectively, indicating reservation in ad-hoc appointments. Therefore, it is contended that, no reservation policy is followed, and therefore, the selection conducted is illegal and arbitrary.

¶108

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 13 27966/17

¶109

The College has filed a counter affidavit,

¶110

refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, Rule 18 of the Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering Service Rules, 2017, produced as Ext.R(a), states that the provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960, except certain Rules, of the Kerala Service Rules, 1958, shall, mutatis mutandis apply. Rule 19 of the said Rules provides for temporary appointment, which specifies that, in the absence of suitable hands under these Rules, the vacancies may be filled up by appointment on contract basis or daily wages, subject to such terms and

¶111

conditions as may be approved by the Board of Governors from time to time.

¶112

It is also pointed out that, the Director of Technical Education has issued proceedings dated 29.03.2017, specifying the norms for appointment of Assistant Professors on contract basis in Government Engineering Colleges, and it does not specify any reservation criteria for such appointments, evident

¶113

¶114

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶115

from Ext.R(b). Therefore, according to the college,

¶116

petitioner therein has not made out any case for interference in the selection made on ad-hoc basis. Other contentions are also raised.

¶117

I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36112 of 2015, learned counsel for the petitioners in the other two writ petitions, learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent College, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶118

It is an admitted fact that petitioners in

¶119

W.P.(C) Nos.36112 and 38669 of 2015 were Rank Nos.9 and 13 in the rank list prepared by the respondent college, however, they were not appointed and the rank list was about to be expired, and it was thereupon that the aforesaid two writ petitions were filed. In fact, interim orders were passed in the said writ petitions on 29.01.2016 and 18.12.2015 respectively, to the effect that the entitlement of the petitioners shall be preserved de hors the fact that the list has expired and especially since the petitioners have approached the Court prior to the expiry of the rank list.

¶120

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶121

¶122

The question to be considered is, whether the petitioners are entitled to get appointment in the respondent college. So far as the vacancy position in the college is concerned, it is virtually admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent college that six posts are filled up with ad-hoc appointments. Even going by the Rules specified above, it is clear that the ad-hoc appointments can be made only if there are no sufficient qualified candidates. It is true, the ad-hoc appointments are made on the basis of the provisions contained under the Rules, however, since a rank list was available with qualified hands, there was no option available to the college other than making the appointment from the rank list. It is also clear that, in accordance with the teacher-student ratio, 41 posts are to be made available in the college. However, the case put forth by the respondent college is that, as per the mandate of the University Grants Commission, it is only desirable for a ratio of 1:15 by and between the teacher and the student, and it can go up to 1:20, since the approval will not be withdrawn if that ratio is maintained.

¶123

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶124

¶125

In my considered opinion, in an educational institution, there should be sufficient staff strength in order to impart education to the students, failing which, the students would be put to various prejudices and difficulties. The student-teacher ratio itself is fixed in order to ensure that sufficient teaching faculty is available in a college, so as to impart education to the students. Moreover, even though the college has a case that, the first year student strength will not be taken into account to fix the ratio, there is no such provision under the UGC Regulations. However, the contention advanced by

¶126

learned Standing Counsel for the college is that, such is the practice followed in order to fix the staff strength. But such an argument cannot be countenanced in view of the specific provisions contained under the UGC Regulations, 2010 to fix the staff strength in accordance with the student ratio. So much so is the requirements contained under Ext.R2(h) accreditation formula for Undergraduate Engineering Programs (TierII), First Time Accreditation, wherein also the student

¶127

-faculty ratio is 15:1. Therefore, in that view of the matter, there is no basis for the arguments put forth

¶128

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶129

¶130

by the college.

¶131

It is also equally important to note that, when such standards are fixed for securing approval and accreditation, it has to be maintained so for continuance of the same. It is also clear that, if the student strength of the first year is taken into account, the ratio in accordance with law is not maintained by the college, which is an admitted fact, even if the argument of the college that the ratio can even be 20:1 as permitted by the UGC. That apart, it is significant to note that, the contention advanced by the petitioners that, the strength of the teachers of the college should be at least 41 is not disputed by the 2^nd respondent and so is the case of the student strength pointed out by the petitioners. Therefore, in my considered opinion, since the interest of the petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions are protected by the interim orders passed by this Court, in view of the filing of the writ petitions prior to the expiry of the ranked list, the subject matter of appointment from the ranked list is to be considered by the respondent college.

¶132

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 18 27966/17

¶133

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the Principal of the Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering to take steps to appoint the petitioners in accordance with the rank list prepared, produced as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.36112 of 2015, at the earliest, and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶134

So far as W.P.(C) No.27966 of 2017 is

¶135

concerned, it is an issue with respect to appointment on ad-hoc basis. The selection was conducted on the basis of walk-in-interview and the petitioner could not get selection. In my considered opinion, petitioner also could not point out any illegality on the part of the respondent college in conducting the selection violating the conditions and notification issued for the selection. So also, in view of the direction contained in the other two connected writ petitions to appoint the petitioners therein from the ranked list prepared, the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition may not have much bearing also.

¶136

In that view of the matter, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27966 of 2017 is not entitled to get any relief.

¶137

Therefore, the said writ petition would stand

¶138

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 19 27966/17

¶139

dismissed. However, the dismissal will not stand in the way of the petitioner, seeking appointment in accordance with law on the basis of any new selection conducted by the college in question.

¶140

SHAJI P.CHALY

¶141

JUDGE

¶142

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶143

¶144

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36112/2015

¶145

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶146

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY ANNA UNIVERSITY,CHENNAI.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY AWARDED BY COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DATED 18.02.2009.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE TEACHING STAFF OF THE RESPONDENT COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL INVITING HER FOR INTERVIEW DATED 15.05.2013.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 20.06.2013.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EXAMINATION RESULTS OF THE 5TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE EXAM RESULTS FOR 4TH SEMESTER EXAMINATION.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE EXAM RESULTS FOR 1ST AND 2ND SEMESTER CONDUCTED IN MAY 2015.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/11/2014.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXH	IBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE AICTE, PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY.
EXHIBIT R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE FACULTY STUDENT RATIO FIXED BY THE AICTE FOR B.TECH. AT PAGE NO.121 OF AICTE APPROVAL PROCESS HAND BOOK 2015-16.
EXHIBIT R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.275/12/H.EDN. DATED 07/07/2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF UGC REGULATIONS DATED 30/06/2010.

¶147

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶148

¶149

EXHIBIT R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF GO(P) NO.389/10/H.EDN. DATED 07/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE CHART DETAILING THE WORK LOAD OF THE TEACHERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R2(G) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION. EXHIBIT R2(H) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SELF ASSESSMENT REPORT (SAR) FORMAT UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING PROGRAMS FOR FIRST TIME ACCREDITATION PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION. EXHIBIT R2(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION.

¶150

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶151

¶152

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38669/2015

¶153

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶154

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED 20.06.2013 AS FOUND UPLOADED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶155

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF APPENDIX 7 OF THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION HAND BOOK 2015, DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TOTAL STRENGTH OF TEACHING STAFF CONSIST OF ONLY 18 PERMANENT FACULTY MEMBERS AND 6 AD-HOC FACULTY MEMBERS, DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT IN STATE OF HARYANA & ORS VS. MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA & ORS (REPORTED IN AIR 1994 SC 1804) RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶156

ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS HANDBOOK OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ACCREDITATION NOTES PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION UNDER THE AICTE, DURING JANUARY, 2013.

¶157

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶158

¶159

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27966/2017

¶160

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶161

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF B.TECH DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA UNDER REGISTRATION NO.40308803/09403081 DATED 12TH MARCH 2014.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PERCENTAGE CERTIFICATE BEARING REF.NO.EE 403/09403081 DATED 30.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF M. TECH DEGREE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. 0568872 DATED 2.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.1040/A2/2017/SCTE DATED 30.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES DATED 18.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE FOR A WALK-IN-INTERVIEW BEARING NO. 1040-A2-2017/SCTE DATED 18.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED FOR THE POST OF ASST. PROFESSOR ON AD-HOC/GUEST BASIS (MECHANICAL ENGINEERING) DATED 27.07.2017.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF AD-HOC FACULTY RECRUITMENT 2017 PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT, UNDER NO.P1/433/AD-HOC/FACULTY /2017 DATED 15.5.2017.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY , THRICHIRAPPALLY NO.NIL DATED NIL INDICATING RESERVATION IN AD-HOC APPOINTMENTS.
RESPONDENT'S/S EX	HIBITS:
EXHIBIT R(A)	TRUE COPY OF “SREE CHITRA THIRUNAL COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SERVICE RULES, 2017”.

¶162

W.P.(C)Nos.36112/15, 38669/15 & 27966/17

¶163

¶164

EXHIBIT R(B) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. L1/27495/16/DTE DATED 29/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Rohit M v. Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit M v. Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.v.Suhas, Vs Arjitha

Rajan Nair T.P. Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development

Saheer Babu K.T. Vs the University of Calicut

Baithan Kutty Vs Asif.K.Yousif

Surendran.P Vs Kannur University

P.K.Sukumara Panicker Vs the State of Kerala