Dismissed

Dr.P.v.Dhanaraj v. Sreejith.P

Kerala HC16 Mar 2020WA/477/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court benched by Justice A.M. Shaffique and Justice Mary Joseph dismissed writ appeals filed by Assistant Professors challenging their initial cancellation and subsequent approval of appointment. The Single Judge's order mandating strict compliance with UGC 2009 PhD regulations and NET qualification was upheld as the selection occurred before the retrospective amendment benefits co

What did the court decide?

The appeals were dismissed; the Single Judge's judgment upholding the requirement of NET qualification or exempted PhD under 2009 Regulations was affirmed.

Dr.P.v.Dhanaraj Vs Sreejith.P — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.477 OF 2017(N)

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 26736/2013 DATED 29-11-2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:

¶10

DR.P.V.DHANARAJ SREE SOUDHAM, MAYYANNUR P O, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE 673107.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED SRI.K.M.GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 & 7:

¶13

1 SREEJITH.P S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, PATINJARAYIL HOUSE, VAKAYAD P O, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673614.

¶14

2 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT, UNIVERSITY P O, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673635.

¶15

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOZHIKODE 673001.

¶16

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶17

-:2:-

¶18

4 MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE CALICUT 673001., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CSI NORTH KERALA DIOCESE, MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CALICUT 673001.

¶19

5 THE PRINCIPAL MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CALICUT 673001.

¶20

6 DR AKHIL R KRISHNAN ATHIRA, EARAMANGALAM P O, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673612.

¶21

7 DR DEEPA M MANNARKOTH HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVE P O, KOZHIKODE 673019.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.AMBIKA BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM R1 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R1 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R6 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SR. SRI.B.VINOD, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-012020, ALONG WITH WA.526/2017, THE COURT ON 16-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶29

¶30

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

¶31

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶32

WA.No.526 OF 2017

¶33

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 26736/2013 DATED 29-11-2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶34

APPELLANT/7TH RESPONDENT:

¶35

DR. DEEPA.M MANNARAKOTH HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVE.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 019.

¶36

BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SMT.N.SANTHA

¶37

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:

¶38

1 SREEJITH.P, AGED 29, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, PATINHARAYIL HOUSE, VAKAYAD.P.O., NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 614.

¶39

2 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673376.

¶40

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶43

4 MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE CALICUT-673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CSI NORTH KERALA DIOCESE, MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CALICUT-673 001.

¶44

5 THE PRINCIPAL MALABAR CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, CALICUT-673 001.

¶45

6 DR.P.V.DHANARAJ SREE SOUDHAM, MAYYANNUR.P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 107.

¶46

7 DR.AKHIL R.KRISHNA ATHIRA, EARAMANGALAM P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673612.

¶47

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM R7 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN SRI.B.VINOD, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶48

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-012020, ALONG WITH WA.477/2017(N), THE COURT ON 16-03-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

-:5:-

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2020

¶53

Shaffique, J.

¶54

The appeals are filed by respondents 5 and 7 in WP(C) No. 26736/2013. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had issued the following directions:-

¶55

“46. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶56

(1) Ext P13 is quashed;

¶57

(2) the 1st respondent University shall place the case of the petitioner before the Syndicate for approval of his appointment with effect from 28.6.2012, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment;

¶58

(3) as the appointments of respondents 5 to 7 are not under challenge except by the petitioner, the respondents shall constitute a selection committee to consider whether respondents 5 to 7 fulfil the 5 conditions in Ext.P38 for appointment against the remaining 2 vacancies and in that event place the same before the syndicate for approval with effect from 4.5.2016 so as to enable two among them, in accordance with the rank, to continue in the posts with right to seniority and regular appointment from 4.5.2016 only;

¶59

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶60

-:6:-

¶61

(4) in case there arose any vacancy in the meanwhile the 3^rd one among respondents 5 to 7 shall be accommodated against that vacancy with effect from 4.5.2016 or thereafter from the date of occurrence of vacancy after 4.5.2016 as the case may be, in case all the 5 conditions are satisfied as above, as in the case of the first 2 as above, so that he or she is not thrown out at this distance of time.”

¶62

The facts of the case would disclose that pursuant to certain revised notifications issued by the University of Calicut (hereinafter referred to as the University), respondents 5 to 7 and the petitioner were ranked as 1 to 4 respectively. Though initially all of them were appointed, later, the said appointment came to be cancelled and respondents 5 to 7 alone were appointed against 3 retirement vacancies. As far as the petitioner was concerned, he was appointed against an eligible vacancy as per the work load that existed in Physics department. Though petitioner submitted representations, the same came to be rejected. The University subsequently approved the appointments of respondents 5 to 7 as per Ext.P13 order effective from 28/6/2012. Petitioner challenged Ext.P13 inter alia contending that altogether there were 4 retirement vacancies and therefore petitioner could have been accommodated.

¶63

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶64

-:7:-

¶65

Subsequently, the writ petition was amended inter alia contending that the respondents 5 to 7 did not have the requisite NET qualification and the Ph.D acquired by them were not in terms with the Regulations framed by University Grants Commission in the year 2009. In the light of the judgment in

¶66

P.Suseela and Others v. University Grants Commission

¶67

and Others [(2015) 8 SCC 129] and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB), the learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that in so far as respondents 5 to 7 did not acquire Ph.D in terms with the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for for awards of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009, they were not qualified for being selected.

¶68

Though the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7 had preferred separate appeals challenging the aforesaid judgment, we do not think that the appellants are entitled for any relief. Apparently, the notification inviting application for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Physics was notified on 27/8/2010 and the revised notifications were issued on 5/10/2011, 4/11/2011 and 14/3/2012, the rank list was

¶69

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶70

-:8:-

¶71

published on 6/6/2012. Therefore, at the time when the notifications were issued, the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in University and Colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2010 was in force and the appointment of Assistant Professors could have been made only if they possess NET qualification. The 2010 Regulations also provided that candidates who have been awarded Ph.D in accordance with UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009 are exempted from NET qualification. According to the appellant in WA No. No.477/2017, he had acquired Ph.D from Anna University, Chennai and therefore, the appellant is fully qualified as per the UGC Regulations, 2009. The appellant in WA No. 526/2017 has also taken up a contention that the appellant obtained admission for Ph.D course under the regular stream in University of Kerala on 19/4/2007 and was awarded Ph. D on 26/5/2011. She also contends that her Ph. D satisfies all the conditions of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the

¶72

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶73

-:9:-

¶74

Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (3^rd amendment) Regulations 2016 by which candidates who registered for M.Phil/Ph.D programme prior to 11/7/2009 be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/By laws/Regulations of the Institution awarding the degrees and such candidates shall be exempted from the minimum eligibility conditions.

¶75

In fact, the Apex Court had occasion to consider the requirement of Ph. D degree in compliance with the 2009 UGC Regulations in State of Madhya Pradesh. v. Manoj Sharma and others [(2018) 3 SCC 329] decided on 25/1/2018 wherein it was held at paragraphs 16 and 17 as under:-

¶76

“16. It has to be noticed that the amendment as made in the minimum qualification, now provides that the exemption from NET shall be given to the PhD degree-holders, only when PhD degree has been awarded to them in compliance with the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure). The above provision thus, made it mandatory that for Lecturers NET qualification is necessary and exemption shall be granted to those PhD degree-holders who have obtained PhD degree in accordance with the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure). The purpose and object of the above amendments in both the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) as well as the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment)

¶77

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶78

-:10:-

¶79

is not far to seek. There has been challenge to amendments made in the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) insofar as it denied the benefit to PhD degreeholders who had obtained PhD prior to 11-7-2009. The writ petitions were filed in different High Courts challenging the Regulations on different grounds including that the Regulations are arbitrary and violative of Article 14 which discriminate the PhD degree-holders who have obtained PhD degree prior to 117-2009 and those who obtained the degree after 11-7-2009 in accordance with the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure).

¶80

17. The challenge to the Regulations was repelled by different High Courts whereas the Allahabad High Court vide its judgment dated 6-4-2012 in Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad [Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad, 2012 SCC OnLine All 667 : (2013) 4 All LJ 635] has upheld the challenge. The appeals were filed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court [Ravindra Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 2751 : (2013) 4 RLW 3094] , the Delhi High Court [All India Researchers' Coordination Committee v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4304 : (2011) 121 DRJ 297] and the Madras High Court [P. Suseela v. UGC, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6041 : (2011) 2 CTC 593] by the candidates whose writ petitions were dismissed as well as against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 6-4-2012 [Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad, 2012 SCC OnLine All 667 : (2013) 4 All LJ 635] , upholding the contention of the candidates. This Court decided all the appeals by its judgment in P. Suseela v. UGC [P. Suseela v. UGC, (2015) 8 SCC 129 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 633 : 7 SCEC 333] . This Court upheld the judgment of the High Courts of Rajasthan [Ravindra

¶81

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶82

-:11:-

¶83

Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 2751 : (2013) 4 RLW 3094] , Madras [P. Suseela v. UGC, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6041 : (2011) 2 CTC 593] and Delhi [All India Researchers' Coordination Committee v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4304 : (2011) 121 DRJ 297] and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 6-4-2012 [Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. University of Allahabad, 2012 SCC OnLine All 667 : (2013) 4 All LJ 635] , upholding that the amendments made in the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment) were valid and there is a valid classification between the candidates who have obtained degree prior to the 2009 Regulations of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure) and those who obtained the degree in accordance with the abovesaid Regulation” .

¶84

Yet another contention urged by the appellants is based on an amendment to the Regulations made as per notification dated 11/7/2016. The Regulations is called as 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) (4^th Amendment) Regulations, 2016. Regulation 3 of the 4^th Amendment Regulations, 2016 reads as under:

¶85

“3. The proviso prescribed under Regulation 3.3.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.2.2, 4.4.2.3, 4.5.3 and 4.6.3 in the University

¶86

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶87

-:12:-

¶88

Grants Commission (Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education) (3th Amendment) Regulations, 2016 regarding exemption to the candidates registered for Ph.D. programme prior to July 11, 2009 shall stand amended and be read as under:-

¶89

“Provided further, the award of degree to candidates registered for the M.Phil/Ph.D programme prior to July 11, 2009, shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bylaws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the degree and the Ph.D candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET/SLET/SET for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professor or equivalent positions in Universities/Colleges/Institutions subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:a) Ph.D. degree of the candidate awarded in regular mode only;

¶90

b) Evaluation of the Ph.D. thesis by at least two external examiners;

¶91

c) Open Ph.D. viva voce of the candidate had been conducted;

¶92

d) Candidate has published two research papers from his/her Ph.D. work out of which at least one must be in a refereed journal;

¶93

e) Candidate has made at least two presentations in conferences/seminars, based on his/her Ph.D work. (a) to (e) as above are to be certified by the ViceChancellor/Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Dean(Academic Affairs)/Dean(University instructions).”

¶94

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶95

-:13:-

¶96

By virtue of Regulation 3 aforesaid, the proviso to 3^rd Amendment Regulations inter alia provided that those candidates who had registered for M.Phil/Ph.D Programme prior to 11^th July, 2009 shall be governed by the provisions of the then existing Ordinances/Bye laws/Regulations of the Institutions awarding the Degree and the Ph.D candidates shall be exempted from the requirement of NET qualification subject to fulfilling the specifications provided in (a) to (e) thereunder. The contention of the counsel for appellants is that this notification has retrospective operation whereas the respondents contended that in so far as in Regulation 1.3 of the Regulation it has been stated that it shall come into force with immediate effect and from the date of publication in the official gazette, it has only prospective operation. This is a case in which the interview was conducted on 3/8/2012 and the Selection Committee had finalised the selection in the meeting held on 3^rd and 4^th of August, 2012. What is being considered in the case is with reference to a selection made prior to 2016 (4^th Amendment) Regulations coming into force. Under such circumstances, we do not think that the appellants are entitled to claim any benefit based on the 2016 (4^th Amendment)

-:14:-

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

Regulations.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not think that the appellants have made out a case for interference. Appeals

¶101

are therefore dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

Rp True Copy

MARY JOSEPH JUDGE

PS to Judge

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

-:15:-

APPENDIX OF WA 477/2017

¶112

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:

¶113

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PHD INTERVIEW CALL LETTER FROM ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI.

¶114

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST DOCTORAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 21/01/2008.

¶115

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DECLARATIONS OF RESULTS OF THE COURSE WORK PAPERS BY ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI DATED 25/07/20085 AND 18/10/2008.

¶116

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SECOND DOCTORAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 23/10/2008.

¶117

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE THIRD DOCTORAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 09/11/2010.

¶118

ANNEXURE 6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SYNOPSIS OF DHANARAJ P.V. SUBMITTED TO ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI, DATED 12/11/2010.

¶119

ANNEXURE 7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF INDIAN AND FOREIGN EXAMINER'S EVALUATION REPORTS OF PHD THESIS OF DHANARAJ P.V. DATED 22/12/2010 AND 20/07/2011.

¶120

ANNEXURE 8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE FOURTH DOCTORAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 28/07/2011.

¶121

ANNEXURE 8(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CALL LETTER OF PHD PUBLIC VIVA-VOCE EXAMINATION.

¶122

ANNEXURE 8(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ATTENDANCE LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF PH.D PUBLIC VIVA-VOCE EXAMINATION DATED 08/09/2011.

¶123

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶124

-:16:-

¶125

ANNEXURE 8(C) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PH.D PUBLIC VIVA-VOCE EXAMINATION DATED 08/09/2011. ANNEXURE 9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DOWNLOADED PRINT OUT OF THE SCOPUS REVIEW OF AUTHOR DETAILS OF DHANARAJ P.V. ACCESSED ON 30/01/2017. ANNEXURE 10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AWARD LETTER FOR YOUNG SCIENTISTS FROM THE COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR) DATED 08/06/2010. ANNEXURE 10(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AWARD LETTER FOR YOUNG SCIENTISTS FROM THE INDIAN NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY (INSA) DATED 09/07/2010. ANNEXURE 11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRINT OF RESEARCH PAPER OF THE CRYSTAL OF 2 AMINOPYRIDINIUM TRICHLOROACETATE PUBLISHED IN INTERNATIONAL REFERRED JOURNAL (MATERIALS RESEACH BULLETIN 46 (2011) 726-731) ANNEXURE 11(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RESEARCH PAPER OF THE CRYSTAL OF NICOTINIUM TRIFLUROACETATE PUBLISHED IN INTERNATIONAL REFERRED JOURNAL (MATERIALS CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 129 (2011) 457-463) ANNEXURE 11(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRINT OF RESEARCH PAPER OF THE CRYSTAL OF 2- AMINOPYRIDINIUM TRIFLUOROACETATE PUBLISHED IN INTERNATIONAL REFERRED JOURNAL (ADVANCED MATERIALS RESEARCH 685 (2013) 211-215) ANNEXURE 12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AWARD LETTER OF SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP (SRF) BY CSIR DATED 23/04/2009.

¶126

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶127

-:17:-

¶128

ANNEXURE 13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH, ANNA UNIVERSITY ISSUED ON 12/09/2011. ANNEXURE 13(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, RESEARCH, ANNA UNIVERSITY ISSUED ON 12/04/2016.

¶129

ANNEXURE 13(B) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH, ANNA UNIVERSITY ISSUED ON 03/01/2017.

¶130

ANNEXURE 14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMAGE OF INFLIBNET PAGE SHOWING THE PH.D THESIS OF DHANARAJ P.V.

¶131

ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF REGULATIONS FOR DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY OF ANNA UNIVERSITY, 2004.

¶132

ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF CONSOLIDATED TABULATION SHEET FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, CONSOLIDATED FROM EXT.P13 (B).

¶133

ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22/03/2017 IN RP NO.130/2017 (N) ON THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/11/2016 IN WPC 26736/2013.

¶134

ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF ORDER UO NO 11033/2017 DATED 31/08/2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.

¶135

ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PH.D PROGRAMME. 2006 OF THE ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI.

¶136

ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION OF THE CSIR REGARDING THE SELECTION FOR JUNIOR/SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP.

¶137

-:18:-

¶138

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶139

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶140

ANNEXURE R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS OF M. PHIL CRYSTAL SCIENCE OF THE ANNA UNIVERSITY, CHENNAI. ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY UGC DATED 30/08/2016. ANNEXURE R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/05/2017. ANNEXURE R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF RIJEESH K. TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT DATED 18/04/2017. ANNEXURE R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. (IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY). ANNEXURE R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08/04/2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. (IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY).

¶141

-:19:-

¶142

WA Nos.477 & 526/17

¶143

APPENDIX OF WA 526/2017

¶144

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶145

ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY UGC DATED 30/08/2016.

¶146

ANNEXURE R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/05/2017.