advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Monday, November 4, 2013

Service = When the appointment of one person held wrong , the other person can not be appointed automatically by way of writ of Mandamus unless in exceptional circumstances = GANAPATH SINGH GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT … APPELLANT Versus GULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS … RESPONDENTS = http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40953

Service matter - When the appointment of one person held wrong , the other person can not be appointed automatically by way of writ of Mandamus unless in exceptional circumstances  =
Shivanand challenged the aforesaid selection and appointment in a writ petition filed before the High Court, inter alia, contending  that  Masters’ Degree in Mathematics  will  not  make  Ganpat  eligible  in  terms  of  the advertisement and, therefore, his selection and appointment to the  post  of Lecturer in MCA is illegal.  Shivanand further pointed  out  that  since  he possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA and fulfils  all  other  conditions, he ought to  have  been  selected  for  appointment. =

 Ordinarily,  in  a  case
where the person appointed is found ineligible, this  Court  after  setting
aside such appointment, directs for consideration of cases of such  of  the
candidates, who have been found eligible. 
It is only in  exceptional  cases
that this Court issues mandamus for appointment. 
The case in  hand  is  not
one of those cases where the High Court ought to have issued mandamus  for appointment of Shivanand as Lecturer in MCA. 
Hence, we are of  the  opinion
that the  High  Court  rightly  held  Ganpat  ineligible  and  quashed  his
appointment. 
However, it erred  in  issuing  mandamus  for  appointment  of
Shivanand. 
Accordingly, we uphold the impugned  order  of  the  High  Court
whereby it had set aside the appointment of the appellant herein and direct
that the case of the writ petitioner Shivanand and all other candidates  be
considered in accordance with law.  
However, we  make  it  clear  that  the
selection already made shall be taken to its logical conclusion.

            In the result, we dismiss these appeals  with  modification  in
the direction as aforesaid with cost, which we assess at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees
fifty thousand) only in both the cases, payable by the appellants  in  both
the appeals equally.

                                                         REPORTABLE


                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9866 OF 2013
                        (@ SLP (C) No. 35063 of 2009)

GANAPATH SINGH
GANGARAM SINGH RAJPUT                   …          APPELLANT

                                   Versus

GULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP.
BY ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS                …      RESPONDENTS

                                    WITH
                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9867 OF 2013
                        (@ SLP (C) No. 35173 of 2009)

GULBARGA UNIVERSITY REP.
BY ITS REGISTRAR & OTHERS               …          APPELLANTS

                                   Versus

SHIVANAND & OTHERS                      …       RESPONDENTS


                               J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.


      Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as also the  Gulbarga  University,
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19/24th of November, 2009  of  the
Karnataka  High  Court  in  Writ  Appeal  No.  3216  of  2004  quashing  the
appointment of aforesaid Ganpath Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput as Lecturer  in
MCA in the Post-graduate Department of the University, have preferred  these
special leave petitions.

      Leave granted.

      Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:

      The appellant, Gulbarga University, hereinafter referred  to  as  ‘the
University’, issued notification dated May 22,  1998  inviting  applications
for appointment to various posts including the post of Lecturer in  Masters’
in Computer Application, for short, MCA.  
The  minimum  qualification,  for
appointment to the post of Lecturer and  with  which  we  are  concerned  in
these appeals, is good academic record with at least  55%  of  marks  or  an
equivalent grade at the Masters’ Degree level in the relevant  subject  from
an Indian University or an equivalent degree from a foreign University.

      Shivanand, respondent no. 3 herein, and Ganpath Singh  Gangaram  Singh
Rajput, respondent no. 3 of the writ petition  (appellant  herein),  besides
other persons offered their candidature  for  appointment  to  the  post  of
Lecturer in MCA.  
The appellant claims to have passed the M.Sc.  examination
in Mathematics with  First  Class  with  distinction.   
It  is  an  admitted
position that Shivanand possessed a post-graduate  degree  in  MCA  and  was
eligible in terms  of  the  advertisement.   
The  University,  in  terms  of
Section 53 of  the  Karnataka  Universities  Act  constituted  a  ‘Board  of
appointment’ for selecting suitable candidates.   It  consisted  of  experts
holding high positions in academic field including  a  Professor  each  from
University of Pune, Bombay University and Kuvempu University.  
The Board  of
appointment interviewed the candidates and ultimately made a  recommendation
for the appointment of the appellant, hereinafter referred to  as  ‘Ganpat’,
who admittedly did not have  a  post-graduate  degree  in  MCA,  but  had  a
Masters’ Degree in Mathematics.  
The recommendation so made was  placed  for
consideration before the Syndicate which approved his appointment.

      Shivanand challenged the aforesaid selection and appointment in a writ
petition filed before the High Court, inter alia, contending  that  Masters’
Degree in Mathematics  will  not  make  Ganpat  eligible  in  terms  of  the
advertisement and, therefore, his selection and appointment to the  post  of
Lecturer in MCA is illegal.  Shivanand further pointed  out  that  since  he
possessed a post-graduate degree in MCA and fulfils  all  other  conditions,
he ought to  have  been  selected  for  appointment.   Ganpat  as  also  the
University  resisted  the  prayer  of  Shivanand  and  contended  that   the
expression ‘relevant subject’  used  in  the  notification  would  mean  any
subject which is relevant for the purpose of holding the  post  of  Lecturer
in MCA.  It was contended that Masters’ degree in Mathematics  is  a  degree
in a relevant subject and thus Ganpat  possessed  the  basic  qualification.
While defending the  appointment  it  was  further  contended  that  in  the
syllabus for  MCA,  Mathematics  is  the  core  subject  and,  therefore,  a
candidate having a post-graduate  degree  in  Mathematics  is  eligible  for
appointment as Lecturer in MCA.  It  was  also  pointed  out  that  when  an
expert body like the Board of appointment had  found  that  a  post-graduate
degree in Mathematics is a relevant subject for  the  purpose  of  adjudging
the eligibility and the same having been approved by the Syndicate   of  the
University, a body consisting of  experts,  the  same  was  not  fit  to  be
interfered with by the High Court in  exercise  of  its  writ  jurisdiction.
The learned Single Judge  considered  the  submission,  dismissed  the  writ
petition and upheld the appointment of  Ganpat,  inter  alia,  observing  as
follows:

                  “8…….The use of the word ‘relevant subject’ in relation to
             the qualification for Lecturers’ post is the bone of contention
             between the parties.  It is also Sri. Chandrashekar’s assertion
             that it should relate only  to  a  Master  degree  in  Computer
             Applications and nothing  else,  while,  the  University  would
             contend that it could also mean such of those who have  secured
             a Masters degree in Mathematics.  It is not in dispute that the
             Head of the Department, M.C.A. is held by a person who is  also
             a Ph.D. holder in Mathematics.   It  is  not  in  dispute  that
             Mathematics is also subject which  is  taught  in  the  Masters
             degree  in  Computer  Applications  course.    What   one   can
             reasonably infer from the pleadings  of  the  parties  is  that
             ‘relevant subject’ could mean candidates who possessed  Masters
             Degree in such of those subjects as are offered in  the  M.C.A.
             course.  Mathematics being one of the subjects,  it  cannot  be
             said that Masters Degree in Mathematics  was  not  a  “relevant
             subject” and it was only a Masters in Computer Applications.


                  It would be very unreasonable to hold  “relevant  subject”
             to mean only a Masters in Computer Applications.  It would also
             be irrational to conclude that the non mention of the  specific
             educational qualification for the post of  Lecturer  in  M.C.A.
             could lead to only one  conclusion  that  a  candidate  with  a
             Masters degree in Computer Applications, alone, would meet  the
             requirement.”

      Shivanand, aggrieved by  the  same,  preferred  appeal  and  both  the
parties reiterated the same contentions.  The submission made  by  Shivanand
found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court and  while  doing  so
it observed as follows:

             “28. This is nothing sort of  trickery  and  fraud  on  persons
             applying to the post.  The University had perhaps  deliberately
             or with a design to achieve this result of selecting  a  person
             with post-graduate qualification in Mathematics, though it  had
             called for applications to fill up the post of Lecturer in  MCA
             course.  That is why the action of the University  falls  short
             of the constitutional mandate of the State being in  conformity
             with Articles 14  and  16(1)  of  the  Constitution  of  India,
             affording equal opportunity to  all  eligible  candidates.   In
             fact the method of selection made by adopting  this  procedure,
             is so flawed that it can never pass the test  before  a  Court,
             more so while in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review of
             administrative action.  We say so far the reason that the  post
             notified for being filled up by the University  in  MCA  course
             should be one with reference to the vacancy and the vacancy can
             only be in a particular subject of the department and cannot be
             generally with reference to the course.”

      Accordingly, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed  the  appeal
and quashed the appointment of Ganpat as Lecturer in MCA.

      Ms. Kiran Suri, advocate appears on behalf  of  the  appellant  Ganpat
whereas the University is represented by  Mr.  S.N.  Bhat,  advocate.   They
contend  that  Mathematics  is  a  relevant  subject  for  MCA  course  and,
therefore, a person holding post-graduate degree in Mathematics is  eligible
for appointment as Lecturer in MCA.  It  is  further  pointed  out  that  in
Gulbarga University, different Mathematics subjects are taught in  MCA  and,
therefore, it cannot be said that a person  possessing  Masters’  degree  in
Mathematics is not eligible for appointment as  Lecturer  in  MCA.   It  has
also been pointed out that as  to  whether  a  particular  qualification  is
relevant or not for holding a post is best decided by the experts  concerned
and, in the present case, Mathematics, having been recognized as a  relevant
subject for MCA course not only by  the  University  but  by  the  Board  of
appointment consisting of eminent academicians  from  various  Universities,
the Division Bench of the High Court ought not  to  have  substituted  their
opinion.  In support of  the  submission  reliance  has  been  placed  on  a
decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  B.C.  Mylarappa  v.   Dr.   R.
Venkatasubbaiah, (2008) 14 SCC 306 and  our  attention  has  been  drawn  to
Paragraph 26 of the said judgment which reads as follows:

             “26. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to  show  any  mala
             fides attributed against the members of the expert body of  the
             University. The University Authorities had also before the High
             Court in their objections to the writ petition  taken  a  stand
             that the appellant had  fully  satisfied  the  requirement  for
             appointment. In this view of the matter and in the  absence  of
             any mala fides either of the expert body of the  University  or
             of the University Authorities and in view  of  the  discussions
             made hereinabove, it would be difficult to sustain  the  orders
             of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the Board and its
             recommendations cannot be  said  to  be  illegal,  invalid  and
             without jurisdiction.”


      Yet another decision on which reliance is placed is  the  decision  of
this Court in the case of Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.)  v.  Chaudhari  Devi  Lal
University, (2008) 9 SCC 284 and our attention has been drawn  to  Paragraph
29 of the judgment which reads as follows:

             “29. It may be mentioned that on a  clarification  sought  from
             UGC whether a candidate  who  possesses  a  Masters  degree  in
             Public Administration is eligible for the post of  Lecturer  in
             Political Science and vice versa, UGC wrote a letter dated 5-3-
             1992 to the Registrar, M.D. University, Rohtak stating that the
             subjects of Political Science  and  Public  Administration  are
             interchangeable and interrelated, and a candidate who possesses
             Masters degree in Public Administration is eligible as Lecturer
             in Political Science and vice versa. Thus, this is the view  of
             UGC, which is an expert in  academic  matters,  and  the  Court
             should not sit in appeal over this opinion and take a  contrary
             view.”


      Mr. Naveen  R.  Nath,  advocate  appearing  on  behalf  of  respondent
Shivanand, however, contends that a person holding the post-graduate  degree
in Mathematics is not eligible for appointment as Lecturer in  MCA.   It  is
pointed out that the advertisement was composite and related to  appointment
of various posts in different subjects and, hence, the expression  ‘relevant
subject’ has to be understood in that context.   It  has  been  pointed  out
that the applications were invited  for  filling  the  posts  of  Professor,
Reader and Lecturer in the Department of English, Urdu, Persian,  Chemistry,
   Bio-Chemistry, Applied Electronics, Geology,  Law  etc.,  including  MCA.
According to the learned counsel, the relevant subject in the  advertisement
here  would  mean  the  subjects  for  which  applications   were   invited.
According to him, the Board of appointment misdirected itself in going  into
the question as to whether Mathematics is a relevant subject or not in  MCA.
 Accordingly, he submits that the opinion of the  Board  of  appointment  as
approved by the Syndicate is not that  sacrosanct  so  as  to  deprive  High
Court the power of judicial review.

      We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and we  do
not find any substance in the submission of  the  learned  counsel  for  the
appellant and the authorities relied on are clearly distinguishable.

      Main thrust in the appellant’s contention is that when an expert  body
i.e. Board of appointment consisting of high academicians, has found  Ganpat
eligible and qualified  and  which  has  been  approved  by  the  Syndicate,
another expert body, the High Court ought not to have acted as  a  Court  of
appeal, examined the pros and cons and come to the  conclusion  that  Ganpat
did not possess the requisite qualification.   There  is  no  difficulty  in
accepting the broad submission that academic  issues  must  be  left  to  be
decided by the expert  body  and  the  court  cannot  act  as  an  appellate
authority in such matters.  It deserves great respect. When  two  views  are
possible  and  the  expert  body  has  taken  a  view,  the  same   deserves
acceptance. However, to say that expert body’s opinion  deserves  acceptance
in all circumstances and is not subject to judicial review does  not  appeal
to  us.  In  our  constitutional  scheme  the  decision  of  the  Board   of
appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute.  Any  other  view  will
have a very dangerous consequence and one must remind itself of  the  famous
words  of  Lord  Acton  “power  corrupts   and   absolute   power   corrupts
absolutely”.

      Now we revert to the authorities  of  this  Court  relied  on  by  the
appellants.  B.C. Mylarappa (supra) deals with the appointment to  the  post
of Professor, in which one of the eligibility condition for appointment  was
’10  years’  of  experience  of  post-graduate  teaching’.   The  Board   of
appointment considered  the  selected  candidate  eligible  by  taking  into
consideration his experience as Lecturer and Research Assistant and  in  the
absence of any mala fide, this Court observed that its opinion  is  not  fit
to be rejected.  This would be evident from Paragraph 24  of  the  judgment,
which reads as follows:

             “24. There is another aspect  of  this  matter  which  is  also
             relevant for proper decision of this appeal.  We  have  already
             indicated earlier that the Board of Appointment was constituted
             with experts in this line by the University  Authorities.  They
             have considered not only the candidature of the  appellant  and
             his experience as a Lecturer and Research Assistant along  with
             others came to hold that it  was  the  appellant  who  was  the
             candidate who could satisfy the conditions for  appointment  to
             the post of Professor. Such being the  selection  made  by  the
             expert body, it is difficult for us to accept the judgments  of
             the High Court when we have failed to  notice  any  mala  fides
             attributed to the members of the expert body in  selecting  the
             appellant to the said post.”



      However, this judgment cannot be read to  mean  that  the  courts  are
denuded of the power to scrutinize the experience in a given case  and  come
to a contrary conclusion.  As stated earlier, when the  view  taken  by  the
expert body is one of the possible views, the same is fit  to  be  accepted.
Further, the yardstick would  be  different  when  it  concerns  eligibility
conditions pertaining to  ‘qualification’  and  ‘experience’.   In  case  of
experience it is best known to the expert body in the  field  in  regard  to
the actual work done  and,  therefore,  its  opinion  is  of  higher  degree
deserving acceptance ordinarily.  Hence, in our opinion, this  judgment  did
not fetter the power of the High Court.

      As regards the decision of this Court in  the  case  of  Rajbir  Singh
Dalal (supra), the same is clearly distinguishable. In  the  said  case  the
controversy  which  fell  for  consideration  was  as  to   whether   public
administration is one of the branches of Political Science and in  the  face
of the opinion of  the  expert  body  that  they  are  interchangeable,  the
conclusion of the High Court that they are distinct  and  separate  was  not
approved. This would be evident from the following  passage  from  the  said
judgment.

            “45. As  has  been  pointed  out  by  my  learned  Brother,  the
               University has in its counter-affidavit taken a  stand  that
               Public Administration is one of the  branches  of  Political
               Science  and the Selection Committee  comprised  of  eminent
               scholars had rightly chosen  the appellant for the  post  of
               Reader after considering his academic achievements and  also
               relying upon the view of the University Grants Commission in
               its letter dated  5-3-1992  stating  that  the  subjects  of
               Political   Science   and    Public    Administration    are
               interchangeable and interrelated and that  a  candidate  who
               possesses a  Masters  degree  in  Public  Administration  is
               eligible to be appointed as Lecturer in  Political  Science.
               Similarly,  a  candidate  possessing  a  Masters  degree  in
               Political Science is eligible for appointment to the post of
               Lecturer in Public Administration.


            46. Despite the aforesaid views expressed by the  expert  bodies
               such as the University and the University Grants Commission,
               the High Court has held Public Administration and  Political
               Science to be distinct and separate disciplines.….”

      In the present case, there is no such plea. Here, the plea is that  as
Mathematics is one of the subjects in MCA and, therefore, Ganpat  possessing
Masters’ degree in Mathematics is eligible.  It  is  not  the  plea  of  the
University that Masters’ degree in Mathematics is interchangeable with  MCA.
 Not only this, in the aforesaid case, this  Court  came  to  the  aforesaid
conclusion due to different eligibility criteria prescribed for  appointment
to the post of Reader and Lecturer. It was pointed out by  this  Court  that
in  the  case  of  Reader  the  requirement  was  Masters’  degree   in   an
‘appropriate subject’, whereas for appointment as Lecturer it was  ‘relevant
subject’. Said case related to the appointment of Reader. On account of  the
use of different expressions, this Court came to the conclusion  that  post-
graduate degree holder in Political Science is eligible to be  appointed  to
the post of Reader in Public Administration.  This  would  be  evident  from
paragraphs 48 and 49 of the judgment, which read as follows:

            “48. The recruitment rules followed by  the  University  clearly
               indicate that in order to be  appointed  as  Lecturer  in  a
               particular discipline a candidate must have  a  postgraduate
               degree in the relevant  subject.  On  the  other  hand,  for
               appointment to the post of Reader such a condition  has  not
               been specified.  In  fact,  in  Regulation  2  it  has  been
               generally indicated that no person shall be appointed  to  a
               teaching post in  the  University  or  in  any  institution,
               including  constituent  or  affiliated  colleges  recognized
               under the UGC Act, 1956, or any institution deemed to  be  a
               university under Section 3 of the said Act, in a subject, if
               he/she  does  not  fulfil  the   requirement   as   to   the
               qualifications for the appropriate subject.


            49.  In my view, the omission in the Regulations cannot be  said
               to be unintentional or a case of casus omissus. In my  view,
               the expression “appropriate subject” was intended  to  cover
               the post of Reader and once the expert bodies had  indicated
               that  the  appellant  who  held  a  postgraduate  degree  in
               Political Science  was eligible to be appointed to the  post
               of Reader in Public  Administration  and  had  been  rightly
               appointed to such post, it is normally not for the courts to
               question such opinion, unless it has  specialised  knowledge
               of the subject.”

                                    (underlining ours)



      This Court did not say that Political Science is the relevant  subject
for appointment as Lecturer in Public Administration.

      Having set the legal  position  in  the  right  perspective,  we  now
proceed to consider the facts of the present case. As is evident  from  the
advertisement, applications were invited for filling up  various  posts  in
different  subjects  including  the  post  of   Lecturer   in   MCA.  
The
advertisement requires post-graduate degree in the ‘relevant subject’.  The
relevant subject would, therefore, in the context  of  appointment  to  the
post of Lecturer, mean post-graduate degree in MCA.
In  our  opinion,  for
appointment to the post of Lecturer, Masters’ degree in the Mathematics  is
not the relevant subject.  The advertisement requires  Masters’  degree  in
‘relevant subject’ and not ‘appropriate subject’.
In the present case, the
Board  of  appointment  has  not  stated  that  post-graduate   degree   in
Mathematics is the relevant subject for MCA but in sum and substance it  is
equivalent to a post-graduate degree in MCA for the reason that Mathematics
is one of the subjects taught in MCA.
This, in our opinion, was beyond the
power of the Board of appointment.  It shall not make any  difference  even
if Mathematics is taught in the Masters’ of  Computer  Application  course.
The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, gravely erred  in  upholding  the
contention of Ganpat and the University that ‘relevant subject’ would  mean
‘such of those subjects as are offered in the MCA course’.
If  Mathematics
is taught in a post-graduate course  in  Commerce,  a  Masters’  degree  in
Commerce would not be relevant for appointment in Mathematics or  for  that
matter in MCA.
There may be a situation in which Masters’ degree in MCA is
differently christened and such a degree may be considered relevant but  it
would be too much to say that a candidate having  post-graduate  degree  in
any of the subjects taught in MCA would make  the  holders  of  a  Masters’
degree  in  those  subjects  as  holder  of  Masters’  degree  in  Computer
Application and, therefore, eligible for appointment.
The language of  the
advertisement is clear and explicit and does not admit any  ambiguity  and,
hence, it has to be given effect to.  Since the appellant  Ganpat  did  not
have a Masters’ degree in Computer Application, in our opinion, he was  not
entitled to be considered for appointment  as  Lecturer  in  MCA.  
We  are
aghast to see that when a candidate possessing Masters’ degree  in  MCA  is
available,  the  Board  of  appointment  had  chosen  an  unqualified   and
ineligible person for appointment in  that  subject.  
Its  recommendations
are, therefore, illegal and invalid.  Natural corollary thereof is that the
University acting on such recommendation and appointing Ganpat as  Lecturer
cannot be allowed to do so and that the Division Bench of  the  High  Court
was right in setting aside his appointment.
In our opinion, an unqualified
person cannot be appointed, whoever may be the recommendee.
We are of  the
opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in holding that
Ganpat was not eligible for appointment of Lecturer in Masters’ of Computer
Application.

      Mr.Bhat and Ms. Suri lastly  assail  the  order  of  the  High  Court
issuing mandamus for appointment of Shivanand as Lecturer  in  MCA.
 It  is
contended that after setting aside the  appointment  of  Ganpat,  the  High
Court should have directed for consideration of the case of  Shivanand  and
such other candidates who were found eligible for consideration. It is also
contended that Shivanand may have the right of consideration but  certainly
not the right of appointment.

            We find substance in this submission.
Ordinarily,  in  a  case
where the person appointed is found ineligible, this  Court  after  setting
aside such appointment, directs for consideration of cases of such  of  the
candidates, who have been found eligible. 
It is only in  exceptional  cases
that this Court issues mandamus for appointment. 
The case in  hand  is  not
one of those cases where the High Court ought to have issued mandamus  for appointment of Shivanand as Lecturer in MCA. 
Hence, we are of  the  opinion
that the  High  Court  rightly  held  Ganpat  ineligible  and  quashed  his
appointment. 
However, it erred  in  issuing  mandamus  for  appointment  of
Shivanand. 
Accordingly, we uphold the impugned  order  of  the  High  Court
whereby it had set aside the appointment of the appellant herein and direct
that the case of the writ petitioner Shivanand and all other candidates  be
considered in accordance with law.  
However, we  make  it  clear  that  the
selection already made shall be taken to its logical conclusion.

            In the result, we dismiss these appeals  with  modification  in
the direction as aforesaid with cost, which we assess at Rs.50,000/-(Rupees
fifty thousand) only in both the cases, payable by the appellants  in  both
the appeals equally.


                                                    ………………………………………………………….J
                                                    (CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD)



                                                    ………………………………………………………….J
                                                             (KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi,
November 01, 2013.

                           -----------------------
22


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.