High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-06-06Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set asi...

Corporate Educational Agency v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2022-06-06
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed; the impugned orders are set aside. The competent Authority of the University is directed to reconsider the proposals for approval of the appointments of the 2nd petitioners in their respective colleges, based on seniority or relinquishment, after affording hearing to all parties, and to pass fresh orders expeditiously, not later than two months from receipt of a copy of the judgment. If a 2nd petitioner becomes senior due to retirement or relinquishment, their approval must be considered from that date. The judge clarifies that the decision on the Corporate Educational Agency’s overall competence to select remains open for future consideration in light of Supreme Court declarations if necessary.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; directions issued to the University to reconsider appointments with hearing and issue fresh orders within two months; open questions on agency competence to appoint to be addressed per Supreme Court guidance if necessary.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Corporate Educational Agency (Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha & Newman College, Thodupuzha), represented by its Manager
Dr. Thomson Joseph, Principal-in-Charge, Newman College, Thodupuzha
Dr. Thomas K.V., Principal-in-Charge, Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha

Respondents

Mahatma Gandhi University, represented by its Registrar
Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Baby Isaac Illickal
• Isaac Kuruvilla Illikal

Counsels for Respondents

• Surin George Ipe, SC, M.G. University

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions challenge orders of Mahatma Gandhi University denying approval to appointments of Principal-in-Charge at two aided minority colleges run by Corporate Educational Agency (Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha, and Newman College, Thodupuzha). The petitioners propose two different appointees as Principal-in-Charge in each case, with one petitioner in each matter alleging seniority or relinquishment by predecessors. The central legal question is whether an aided minority educational institution affiliated to a University may appoint a Principal-in-Charge of its choice, as it can appoint a Principal, while balancing University regulations. The court recalls that the right to appointment of a Principal by a minority institution is a fundamental right, as proclaimed in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, with statutory resonance in the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, which mandate direct recruitment for Principal posts but admit minority institutions to maintain their own choice subject to minimum qualifications. The Respondents contend that direct recruitment must prevail and the absence of a Government Nominee in the Selection Committee is fatal; the petitioners counter that seniority and qualification should govern, and that the Senior/Superior candidates deserve consideration. The judge sets aside the impugned orders, directing the University to reconsider the appointments after hearing, ensuring compliance with the law and within two months, while maintaining that certain issues, like the Agency’s competence to appoint, may be revisited following further Supreme Court guidance.

Provisions of Law Cited

T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others [(2002) 8 SCC 481]University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 (UGC Regulations 2018)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Right of minority educational institutions to appoint a person of their choice is fundamental (per T.M.A. Pai Foundation).
Direct recruitment requirement for Principal posts under UGC Regulations 2018, subject to minority institutions’ rights.
Seniority principle for appointing Principal-in-Charge; absence of Government Nominee on Selection Committee is not automatically fatal to the process.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Corporate Educational Agency contends that minority institutions have a fundamental right to appoint personnel of their choice for the Principal-in-Charge role in aided colleges, subject to minimum qualifications. Direct recruitment norms under the 2018 UGC Regulations apply to Principal posts, not necessarily to the interim Principal-in-Charge mechanism; hence, seniority and qualifications within the institutions should prevail. The Agency argues that the 2nd petitioners were selected on basis of merit and seniority, and that the process should be tested for fairness rather than formalities like a Government Nominee in the Selection Committee. It seeks setting aside the University orders and a direction to reconsider the proposals after hearing, with relief extending to the possibility of seniority-based advancement and recognition of relinquishments.

Contentions of Respondents

MG University defends the view that the direct recruitment regime should guide appointments to Principal posts, and that absence of a Government Nominee in the Selection Committee should not collapse the process. It asserts that the 2nd petitioners were not the senior-most or properly selected, and that the matters require reconsideration under the UGC framework. The University argues the need for senior and qualified candidates for the post of Principal-in-Charge is essential for academic integrity and administrative efficiency.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others v. State of Karnataka and others	(2002) 8 SCC 481	Positive	Used as the foundational authority recognizing the fundamental right of minority educational institutions to appoint personnel of their choice.
Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose	2007 (1) SCC 386	Mentioned Only	Listed as an exhibit; not explicitly relied upon in the core reasoning presented in the text provided.
Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew	2017 (15) SCC 595	Mentioned Only	Included as an exhibit; not directly cited in the judgment’s reasoning in the supplied excerpt.
Chandana Das Malakar v. State of West Bengal & ORS	Civil Appeal No. 2858 of 2007, dated 25.09.2019	Mentioned Only	Listed as an appendix exhibit; not shown as a central precedent in the main judgment text.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Corporate Educational Agency v. Mahatma Gandhi University and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 13968 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, (NIRMALA COLLEGE, MUVATTUPUZHA & NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, CATHOLIC BISHOP'S HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686 691. 2 DR.THOMSON JOSEPH, PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE, NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA-685 584. BY ADVS. BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560. 2 VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 560. BY ADV SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI SURIN GEORGE IPE-SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).30179/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 30179 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, (NIRMALA COLLEGE, MUVATTUPUZHA AND NEWMAN COLLEGE, THODUPUZHA), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER DIOCESE OF KOTHAMANGALAM, CATHOLIC BISHOP'S HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM 686 691. 2 DR. THOMAS K.V., PRINCIPAL -IN CHARGE, NIRMALA COLLEGE, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661. BY ADVS. BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O. KOTTAYAM 686 560. 2 VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, P.O. KOTTAYAM 686 560. BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE ## **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **3** THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).13968/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **4** ## **JUDGMENT** The Corporate Educational Agency, running two different Colleges, namely Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha and Newman College, Thodupuzha, along with the persons they have appointed as the Principals-in-Charge of the said colleges are the petitioners in these two cases. 2. The cause of action impelled in the afore writ petitions, has its genesis in an attempt made by the 1[st] petitioner – Agency, to appoint 'Principal-in-Charge' of the above colleges. W.P.(C)No.30179 of 2021 relates to Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha, whereas W.P.(C)No.13968 of 2021 relates to the Newman College, Thodupuzha. 3. Though there are intrinsic differences in the facts involved in these cases, the legal issue involved is similar, if not identical. **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **5** 4. The fundamental question raised for consideration of this Court is whether an Aided Minority Educational Institution, affiliated to the University, can appoint anyone of their choice as the Principal-in-Charge, as they can in the case of a principal. 5. As far as the post of the Principal is concerned, the law is now well settled, starting from the declarations of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2002) 8 SCC 481]**_ , that the right of a Minority Educational Institution to appoint a person of their choice is a fundamental one. In fact, this obtains statutory recognition because, under the Regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC) of the year 2018, it has been made mandatory that all appointments to the post of Principal in Aided Colleges be done only through direct recruitment; and that as far as the Minority Institutions are concerned, they can make a choice of their own, subject to the inviolable requirement that such appointees must have the **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **6** minimum qualifications prescribed. 6. Coming to the cases at hand, it is admitted that the 2nd petitioner in both these cases are the appointees proposed by the 1st petitioner – Corporate Educational Agency. It is admitted that both these appointees were not the senior most faculty in their respective colleges and that when proposals were submitted by the 1st petitioner – Corporate Educational Agency for approval of such appointments, objections were raised on this count. However, it transpires that the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13968 of 2021 subsequently became the senior most; while the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30179 of 2021, now claims to be the senior most, based on the relinquishment letters of two senior professors. 7. The petitioners allege that in spite of the above, the University has issued the impugned orders refusing approval to the appointments, saying that the appointees are not the senior **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **7** most. 8. The petitioners thus pray that these writ petitions be allowed and the orders impugned be set aside. 9. I have heard Sri.Isaac Kuruvila Illikal – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these cases and Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University. 10. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the MG University, began his submissions in support of the orders impugned, arguing that the privilege available to the Aided Minority Institutions to appoint a Principal of their choice through direct recruitment, would not apply _pari materia_ or even _mutatis mutandis,_ when it comes to the appointment of Principal-in-Charge. He explained that a Principal-in-Charge can only be appointed through promotion; while, under the 2018 **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **8** UGC Regulations, appointment of a Principal has to be through direct recruitment. He submitted that this inherent difference would justify the stand of the University, that only the senior most faculty, who is qualified, can be chosen and appointed as the Principal-in-Charge. Of course, he also has an adscititious argument that the appontments of the 2[nd] petitioner in these cases were not proper, since the Selection Committee was constituted by the Colleges without a Government Nominee being in it. 11. On the second of the afore contentions of the University, it is my firm view that absence of a Government Nominee in the Selection Committee cannot be fatal to its decisions because, even going by their stand, it is the senior most qualified person who has to be offered the post of Principal-in-Charge. Indubitably, therefore, the element of selection is extremely attenuated in this process, and it is **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **9** basically seniority which holds the field. In that sense, even if there was no Government Nominee in the Selection Process, it would be of no real consequence, had the 2[nd] petitioner in these writ petitions been the senior most and qualified to the post of Principal-in-Charge. 12. In the afore perspective, what becomes relevant is whether the 2[nd] petitioner in these cases is entitled to be affirmed as Pincipals-in-Charge of the respective Colleges and whether they were the senior most for such purpose, holding necessary qualifications. These aspects have not been touched upon in the impugned orders and am, therefore, certain that the entire issue will have to be reconsidered by the competent Authority of the University appropriately. 13. When I say as afore, I am also fully cognizant of the submissions of Sri.Isaac Kuruvila Illikal that, as far as the 2nd petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13968 of 2021 is concerned, he has now **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **10** retired from service and that since he was fully qualified to be a Principal-in-Charge – being the senior most, qualified person, the University must be directed to consider his approval in such position, so that he can obtain eligible benefits thereafter. Certainly, this is an aspect which the University will also have to consider. Resultantly, I order these writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders; with resultant directions to the competent Authority of the University to reconsider the proposals for approval of the appointments of the 2nd petitioner in their respective Colleges, in the cases based on their afore contentions, particularly that both of them were the senior most – either in the seniority list or through the relinquishment of their seniors; and after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, as also the 1st petitioner – Corporate Educational Agency; thus culminating in appropriate orders and necessary **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **11** action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is without need to state so specifically, that, if, during the afore exercise, it is found that either of the 2nd petitioner is not the senior most at the time of his/her appointment, but subsequently became so either on account of retirement or relinquishment, their approval from such dates must be considered by the competent Authority of the University. I also deem it necessary to clarify that this Court has not considered or dealt with the competence of the Corporate Educational Agency to select and appoint a person of their choice as the Principal of the Colleges and that these aspects are left open to be decided in terms of the declarations of law by the Honourable Supreme Court, if it becomes so necessary in future. I have chosen to clarify because, Sri.Isaac Kuruvila **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **12** Illikal impelled a speculative grievance before me that my afore observations would be misconstrued by the University to mean that they would apply in case of appointments to the post of Principal also. ## **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** ANB ## **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **13** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13968/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE DIRECT| |---|---| ||PAYMENT AGREEMENT.| |Exhibit P2|PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINORITY CERTIFICATE| ||DATED 15.07.2010 ISSUED TO NEWMAN COLLEGE,| ||THODUPUZHA.| |Exhibit P3|PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||01.04.2019.| |Exhibit P4|PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY| ||THE 1SST RESPONDENT DATED 21.09.2020.| |Exhibit P5|PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT DATED 17.03.2020.| |Exhibit P 6|PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 25.05.2020| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P 6a|PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED| ||01.04.2019 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P 7|PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID PROPOSAL DATED| ||30.09.2020 FORWARDED BY THE 1ST| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P 8|PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED| ||21.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P9|PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX| ||COURT IN SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN| ||CATHOLIC COLLEGE V. T.JOSE 2007 91) SCC| **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** ## **14** 386. - Exhibit P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IN MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY V.JAMES MATHEW, 2017 (15) SCC 595 2017 (4) KHC 83 (SC). - Exhibit P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN CHANDANA DAS MALAKAR V.STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO.2858 OF 2007 DATED 25.09.2019. - Exhibit P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 04.12.2020 IN WPC NO.22776/2020. - Exhibit P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 07.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. Exhibit P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.04.2021. Exhibit P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2021. ## **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** ## **15** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30179/2021** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1||PHOTO COPY OF THE M.SC.| |---|---|---| |||MATHEMATICS, DEGREE CERTIFICATE| |||OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD.| |||12.05.1991.| |Exhibit P1|(A)|PHOTO COPY OF THE PH.D.| |||CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND| |||PETITIONER DT. 14.03.1999.| |Exhibit P2||PHOTO COPY OF THE DIRECT PAYMENT| |||AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE| |||IST PETITIONER AND THE| |||GOVERNMENT DTD. 27.09.1972.| |Exhibit P3||PHOTO COPY OF THE MINORITY| |||CERTIFICATE DTD. 15.07.2010| |||ISSUED TO NIRMAL COLLEGE,| |||MUVATTUPUZHA.| |Exhibit P4||PHOTO COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT| |||ORDER DTD. 01.07.2020 OF THE 2ND| |||PETITIONER AS THE PRINCIPAL.| |Exhibit P5||PHOTO COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT| |||ORDER DT. 01.07.2020 OF THE 2ND| |||PETITIONER AS PRINCIPAL IN| |||CHARGE OF THE COLLEGE.| |Exhibit P6||PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.| |||17.03.2020 OF THE IST RESPONDENT| |||WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** ## **16** |Exhibit P7|PHOTOCOPIES OF THE| |---|---| ||RELINQUISHMENT LETTERS SUBMITTED| ||BY THE SENIOR TEACHERS OF THE| ||COLLEGE WITH ENGLISH| ||TRANSLATION.| |Exhibit P8|PHOTO COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DTD.| ||15.10.2020 WITH ENGLISH| ||TRANSLATION.| |Exhibit P9|PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE| ||IST RESPONDENT DTD. 15.11.2020| ||WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| |Exhibit P10|PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||21.06.2021 OF THE IST PETITIONER| ||TO THE IST RESPONDENT WITH| ||ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| |Exhibit P11|PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE| ||1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2021| ||WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| |Exhibit P12|PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF| ||THE APEX COURT IN SECRETARY| ||MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLIC| ||COLLEGE V.T. JOSE 2007 (1) SCC| ||386.| |Exhibit P13|PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN| ||MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL| ||AGENCY V. JAMES MATHEW, 2017(15)| ||SCC 595 : 2017(4)KHC 83(SC)| |Exhibit P14|PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF| ||THE APEX COURT IN CHANDANA DAS| ||MALAKAR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL| ||AND ORS CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2858 OF| **WP(C) Nos.13968/2021 & 30179/2021** **17** 2007 DTD. 25.09.2019. Exhibit P15 Exhibit P16 Exhibit P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED.06.03.2021 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. PHOTO COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 28.07.2021 IN WPC NO. 13986/2021. PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER EXTENDING THE EXT. P16 INTERIM ORDER DATED 28/11/2021 IN WPC NO . 13986/2021.