Dhisha (NGO) represented by its Secretary Anakha Babu and Souparnika v State of Kerala and Others

W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -1- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 16224 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DHISHA, AGED 22 YEARS** **(REG.NO.MPM/CA/294/2015), SOUPARNIKA, GRHS ROAD, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM-676503, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ANAKHA BABU, D/O.BABU V.J., RESIDING AT VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, NEDUMKANDOM P.O., NEDUMKANDOM685553.** **BY ADVS.** **D.KISHORE** **SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2 THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA, 21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR BAL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **3 DR.BIJUKUMAR R., PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, BARTON HILL RD, BARTON BILL COLONY, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695037.** - **4 DR.BINDU M.NAMBIAR, PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI-682011.** W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -2- **5 DR. V.R.JAYADEVAN, PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, LAW COLLEGE RD, MADONA NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA680003.** **BY ADVS. SRI. K. ANAND (SR.) SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)** **SMT. LATHA ANAND SRI. R. RANJITH DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD SMT.M.SUSEELA SMT. KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K. SRI. K. P. HARISH, SR. GP.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -3- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Shaji P. Chaly, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon 3[rd] , 4[th] and 5[th] respondents to explain under what authority they are holding the post of Principal, Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam and Thrissur respectively; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1[st] respondent to take steps to appoint duly qualified Principles in the Government Law Colleges in the State in accordance with the minimum qualifications prescribed by UGC regulations; c) Declare that the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents are ineligible to hold the post of Principal of Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam respectively as they have not participated in the Selection process conducted by the 1[st] respondent to the post of principals in Government Law Colleges in the state vide Exhibit P2 and that their continuance in the post is illegal and without authority; d) Declare that the 5[th] respondent is ineligible to hold the post of Principal, Government law College, Thrissur, as the W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -4- Selection Committee has not recommended him to the Post vide Exhibit P3 and that his continuation in office amounts to usurpation of a "public Office"; e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1[st] respondent to take expeditious steps to obtain approval of the LLB Courses (Five Year and Three year) so as to protect the interests of the students of the Government Law Colleges in the State.” 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:- 3. According to the petitioner, petitioner is a registered Non Governmental Organisation (NGO), which is actively involved in taking up various social causes including the cause of students. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner is espousing the cause of the law students in the four Government Law Colleges in the State which has a direct impact on the affiliation and approval of the course by the Bar Council of India, the regulatory body. It is submitted that the Bar Council of India Legal Education Rules mandates the minimum infrastructure in the Law Colleges for continued affiliation and approval which inter alia includes that the faculty of the colleges should be qualified as per the UGC Regulations and that the college is W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -5- to have a full time Principal who is qualified as per the UGC norms governing the field. 4. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that as per Ext. P1 list of Law Colleges having approval of affiliation of the Bar Council of India, three Government Law Colleges in the State namely, Kozhikode, Thrissur and Thiruvananthapuram, does not have valid approval as on date. Government Law College, Ernakulam faced approval issues on account of teaching a course not concurred by the Bar Council of India and had to pay a fine of Rs 10,000,000/- for approval and recognition. The approval and recognition lapsed in the academic year 2019-2020 and the same is due for renewal. 5. That apart it is contended that Government had conducted a selection process of the faculty of the College as per the UGC norms in 2019 and many in the entry cadre of Assistant Professors were not promoted on account of failure to comply with UGC norms. However, in the matter of Principals, though a selection as per the UGC norms was conducted, Dr. V. R. Jayadevan, the 5[th] respondent, who is now officiating as Principal, Government Law College, Thrissur, is not recommended due to lack of qualifications as prescribed under UGC W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -6- Regulations. Dr. Bijukumar R. and Dr. Bindu M. Nambiar, respondents 3 and 4 respectively, did not participate in the selection process and as such, they do not have the right to officiate as Principal as their appointment is without subjecting to the selection process itself. It is further contended that continuation of unqualified hands as Principal would affect the affiliation and approval of the colleges by the Bar Council of India. It is in the above background this writ petition is filed inter alia seeking a writ of quo warranto calling upon respondents 3 to 5 to explain under what authority they are officiating the post of Principal in the various law colleges of the State. 6. The Under Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Thiruvananthapuram has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 1[st] respondent wherein it is submitted that B.A Criminology LLB course conducted by Government Law College, Ernakulam had to be stopped from the academic year 2016-2017 consequent to an intimation from the Mahatma Gandhi University dated 08.01.2016, informing that Bar Council of India at its Legal Education Meeting held on 19.07.2015 has resolved that B.A. Criminology LL.B. Course cannot be approved and students pursuing such course will not be allowed to practice W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -7- before the Court. In view of this stand taken by the Bar Council of India and in the interest of the student community, the Government has decided not to continue with B.A. Criminology LL.B. course in the Government Law College, Ernakulam from 2016-2017 and substituted the course with Five Year Integrated B.Com LL.B. Honours Course as per G.O.(Rt) No. 1896/2016/H.Edn.dated 18.07.2016. 7. It is submitted that as soon as the matter of non recognition of the above course was informed by the MG University, timely actions were taken by the concerned Principal and the 1[st] respondent. It was an issue which affected all affiliated colleges including self-financing law colleges which had such a course under the University. Subsequently based on the discussions between M.G. University and Bar Council, no alternate course as alleged by the petitioner was suggested and only some additional non-law papers were added in the existing syllabus. 8. It is further submitted that clause 20 of Schedule III to Bar Council of India (Legal Education Rules 2008) prescribes minimum qualification needed for full time Law faculties including Principal. They shall be holders of Masters Degree or as prescribed by UGC. Unlike in Self-Financing Law Colleges, teaching faculty with required W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -8- qualifications are appointed as Assistant Professor in four Government colleges of the State. All the faculty in service in Government Law Colleges possess Masters Degree in Law with UGC NET and they are eligible as per the Special Rules of Collegiate Education Department. As far as infrastructural facilities are concerned, the Government is sanctioning Plan Funds every year to all the four Government Law colleges for enhancing these facilities. It is also observed that students securing higher ranks in Kerala Law Entrance Examinations (KLEE) always prefer Government Law Colleges which have been established decades before, and also taking note of the fact that these colleges have permanent faculty, permanent Principal and required infrastructure facilities as stipulated in Bar Council of India Regulations. 9. It is also submitted that Ext. P1 list of colleges having approval of affiliation from Bar Council, shows that Government Law College Ernakulam is having affiliation upto 2019-2020. As far as Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram is concerned, the Inspection Team of Bar Council of India visited the college on 05.01.2020 despite the fact that application for extension of approval of affiliation was forwarded by the Principal during 2016 and Bar W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -9- Council of India report is still awaited in the matter. With regard to Government Law College, Thrissur the last Bar Council of India inspection was conducted on 16.11.2013 and the Bar Council of India had granted affiliation for three years. With regard to Government Law College, Kozhikode, the last Bar Council visit was held on 11.08.2016 and the college has taken steps to extend the affiliation with Bar Council. 10. That apart it is submitted that the 4[th] respondent and Principal, Government Law College, Ernakulam filed Contempt of Court Case No.1712 of 2016 against the non-compliance of common judgment dated 23.02.2016 in WA. No. 1676 of 2016 and connected cases. Contempt of Court Case No. 1712 of 2016 came up for hearing on 28.02.2017 and the Court, after taking note of the fact that the direction in judgment dated 23.02.2016 was issued one year before and in spite of the submission before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition, observed that no steps have been taken to comply with the judgment. The Court has also ordered the personal appearance of the 2[nd] respondent on 31.03.2017. Consequently as per G.O.(Rt) No.610/2017/H.Edn. dated 29.03.2017, W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -10- provisional promotion / reversion / posting in the Cadre of Principal was ordered by this department so as to comply with the direction of the High Court in O.P.(KAT) No.1329 of 2013 dated 23.02.2016 and interim order in Contempt of Court case No. 1712 of 2016. The above Government Order was also issued in compliance of direction dated 01.08.2014 in OA No.893 of 2014 filed by Dr. T.G. Agitha and the 5[th] respondent. 11. Later, the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 13.06.2018 prepared the select list for regular promotion to the post of Principal in Government Law Colleges as on 29.03.2017 for the year 2017 and the Government approved it as per G.O.(P) No.24/2018/H.Edn. The temporary promotion ordered in the above post was regularized as per G.O.(Rt) No. 1872/2018/H.Edn. dated 15.10.2018. It may be noted that the 4[th] respondent filed O.P.(KAT) No. 1329 of 2013 seeking steps to conduct Principal promotion in Government Law Colleges as per UGC Regulations. However, while complying with the judgment dated 23.02.2016, the 1[st] respondent approved appointments of 3[rd] , 4[th] and 5[th] respondents as Principal by placing the same before the Departmental Promotion Committee, and W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -11- the UGC qualifications were insisted as per G. O. (P) No. 10/2017/H.Edn dated 19.03.2017. In the case of the 3[rd] respondent, Principal, Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram he was promoted and appointed at Government Law College as Principal w.e.f 10.06.2015 and his probation was declared as per G.O.(Rt) No.875/2016/H.Edn. dated 26.03.2016. The above promotion was given due to the fact that the Departmental Promotion Committee found that he has the required qualifications to that post. 12. That apart it is submitted that the 3[rd] respondent was not a party in the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court dated 23.02.2016 in WP(C) Nos. 29253, 29512 & 30711 of 2012, 15739, 16220 & 17148 of 2013, OP(KAT) No. 1329 of 2013 and WA No.1676 of 2013. As per G.O.(P) No.10/2017/H.Edn. dated 19.03.2017 in consequence of the judgment dated 23.02.2016 provided that parties before the Full Bench will be given promotion in implementation of judgment dated 23.02.2016 and that promotions already given in accordance with Raveendran's case will be reviewed subject to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition filed against the Full Bench decision of this Court. W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -12- 13. It is further submitted that as per Order of the Supreme Court dated 17.07.2018 in University of Kerala v. Dr. D. Radhakrishna Pillai in SLP Numbers 18938 to 18942 of 2017, it was held that it is only in the interest of justice and for doing complete justice to declare that the High Court Full Bench decision will be applicable only from the date of the judgment i.e. 23.02.2016, except in the case of individual parties before the High Court. Further in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17.07.2018, it was also held that promotions effected before 23.02.2016 which are in accordance with the judgment of the High Court in S.N. College v. Raveendran, 2001 (3) KLT 938, shall not be reopened based on the impugned Full Bench Judgment dated 23.02.2016. 14. The 1[st] respondent has contended that in compliance with the judgment of the High Court dated 23.02.2016 in W.P. (C) Nos. 29253, 29512 & 30711 of 2012, 15739, 16220 & 17148 of 2013, O.P. (KAT) No.1329 of 2013 and WA No. 1676 of 2013, the 1[st] respondent has reverted the four Principals of the Government Colleges. But they were subsequently given provisional promotion in public interest to the post of Principals of Government Colleges as per Rule 31(a)(1) Part-II W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -13- of KS&SSR with immediate effect as per G.O.(Rt) No. 610/2017/H.Edn. dated 29.03.2017. Consequent to the disposal of SLP(C) Nos. 18938-18942 of 2017 dated 17.07.2018, the Government regularised the temporary promotions ordered in G.O.(P) 610/2017/H.Edn. dated 29.03.2017 on recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee, as per Ext. P3 order. In view of the legal position, the probation of Principals of Government Law Colleges of Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam and Thrissur after reversion and subsequent promotion has not yet been declared and hence their continuance can be treated as being provisional. 15. It is further contended that the judgment of this Court dated 23.02.2016 in WP(C) Nos.29253, 29512 & 30711 of 2012, 15739, 16220 & 17148 of 2013, O.P.(KAT) No. 1329 of 2013 and WA No. 1676 of 2013 is based on UGC Regulations 2010. Subsequently, the University 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) Regulations, 2018 has come into effect with effect from 18.07.2018 and the State Government have approved and W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -14- implemented these Regulations as per GO (P) No.28/2019/H.Edn. dated 29.09.2019. Hence the 1[st] respondent has now decided to convene a Selection Committee constituted as per UGC Regulations vide G.O(Rt) No.1121/2020/H.Edn dated 08.09.2020, as early as possible, for conducting the selection of Principals in all four Government Law Colleges of the State strictly adhering to the UGC qualifications stipulated in UGC Regulations 2018. 16. Now the 1[st] respondent has come to a conclusion that all Principals of Government Law Colleges including those currently serving in Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam and Thrissur should undergo a screening by a Selection Committee formed vide G.O.(Rt) No.1121/2020/H.Edn dated 08.09.2020 as per UGC Regulations 2018 and those candidates who qualify for the Principal posts as per UGC Regulations will hold the post in the Government Law colleges. 17. Dr. Bijukumar R., the 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the 3[rd] respondent was appointed to the then post of Lecturer in Law, Government Law Colleges with effect from 09.09.1996, pursuant W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -15- to the selection process undertaken by the Kerala Public Services Commission and over a period of time was promoted to the post of Associate Professor in Law. When he was functioning as Associate Professor in Law at Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram a vacancy arose in the post of Principal Government Law College Ernakulam. He was selected to the aforesaid post w.e.f 10.06.2015 by virtue of G.O.(Rt.)No. 1340/2015/H.Edn. As on 10.06.2015, he had more than 15 years experience in teaching law in various Government Law Colleges in Kerala. From the said date onwards he has been holding the post of Principal in various Government Law Colleges in Kerala. As on 10.06.2015 and thereafter, he is fully qualified to hold the post of Principal in Government Law Colleges. He has been appointed, and continues in service, in accordance with the Special Rules for Collegiate Education Service, 1994. 18. The 3[rd] respondent has also submitted that he had attended and acted as convenor for the Ph.D. Public Viva-Voce at the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and has also acted as an expert in the Pre-submission Seminar of candidates at the Department of Law, University of Kerala. The 3[rd] respondent has also submitted documents W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -16- evidencing his experience in research activities. 19. Dr. Bindu M. Nambiar, the 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is submitted that she is fully qualified for appointment as Principal in terms of the UGC Regulations. She was included in the select list for promotion to the post of Principal in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) held on 13.06.2018. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition against judgment in Dr. Radhakrishnan Pillai's case on 17.07.2018. Thereafter, on 30.08.2018, her name was included in Ext. R4(f) select list for promotion as Principal after considering her eligibility and suitability for the post of Principal as per the qualifications prescribed in the UGC Regulation. Based on Ext. R4(f), Ext. P3 Government Order dated 15.10.2018 was issued. 20. It is pointed out that Ext. R4(f) select list as well as Ext. P3 Government Order is also not in full compliance with the directions in paragraph 23 and 24 of Dr. Radhakrishnan Pillai's case so far as the 4[th] respondent is concerned. It is pointed out that in Ext. P3 order also, there is specific reference to the judgment of this Court in Dr. W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -17- Radhakrishnan Pillai's case and the proceedings of this Court in Contempt of Court Case No.1712 of 2016 filed by the 4[th] respondent. However, the petitioner has very casually alleged that the 1[st] respondent issued Ext. P3 order ignoring the Regulations and without subjecting the persons included in the select list for selection and assessment. It is submitted that the very basis of the prayer in the writ petition is based on misinterpretation of Ext. P3 order passed by the 1[st] respondent. 21. Dr. V. R. Jayadevan, the 5[th] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit basically contenting that he was provisionally promoted as the Principal of Government Law College with immediate effect as per Rule 31 (a) (i) Part-II K.S. & S.S.R. by the Government Order G.O. (Rt) No. 610/2017/H. Edn. dated 29.03.2017 while he was on deputation as Professor in NUALS, Cochin and was allowed to continue on deputation. The Government regularized his temporary promotion, with effect from 29.03.2017 to the post of Principal in the Government Law College by G.O. (Rt) No. 1872/2018/H. Edn. dated 15.10.2018. The 1[st] respondent issued G.O. (Rt) No. 576/2019/H. Edn. dated 12.04.2019 permitting him to rejoin in the parent department as W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -18- the Principal, Government Law College, Kozhikode in the existing vacancy, on completion of his deputation as Professor, NUALS. 22. That apart it is submitted that the qualification for being appointed as Principal and that for being selected as Professor are one and the same. He was selected as Professor in the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) Kalamassery through a national level selection process conducted on 19.07.2013 by a selection committee consisting of Vice Chancellors of three National Law Universities viz., National Law School of India University, Bangalore, National Law University, Odisha, Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai and the Vice Chancellor, Sri. Venkiteswara University, Tirupati. Pursuant to Notification No. NUALS/Prof./Asso/116/A1/13 dated 20.04.2013, he was selected and joined the NUALS on 04.04.2014 and continued as such till 27.03.2019. He was appointed and served as Professor at NUALS on the basis of his qualifications as required in clause 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and as per the stipulations in Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), set out in Appendix III of the Regulations. W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -19- 23. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. D. Kishore, learned Standing Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent Sri. R. Ranjith, learned Senior Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Sri. K. Anand, learned Senior Counsel for the 4[th] respondent Sri. Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent Sri. V. N. Sankarjee and learned Senior Government Pleader for the State Sri. K. P. Harish and perused the pleadings and material on record. 24. The discussion of the facts made above would make it clear that all the party respondents - the Principal of various Government colleges are educationally qualified in accordance with the qualification prescribed by the statutes under the State Government, as well as the University Grants Commission. The prime contention advanced by the petitioner is that as per the UGC Regulations 2010 the Principal of the colleges will have to be selected through a selection committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of UGC Regulations 2010; however in the case at hand, the party respondents were appointed by the State Government without undertaking the said mandatory requirement prescribed by the University Grants Commission under the regulations 2010, and therefore the party W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -20- respondents are usurpers in the post of Principal in the Government Colleges in question. 25. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 8 of the Bar Council of India Rules deals with standard of courses wherein it is contemplated that the minimum standard of degree courses shall be in accordance with the standard prescribed by the University by taking into consideration the standard laid down by the UGC or any such body as the case may be. It is also pointed out that Rule 11 deals with minimum infrastructure facilities, which stipulates that any institution conducting legal education by running either of the law degree courses or both leading to conferment of graduate degree in law on successful completion of the course shall have minimum standard infrastructure facility stipulated by the Bar Council of India in Schedule III of the Rules. 26. It is further submitted that clause 16 of Schedule III of the Bar Council of India Rules deals with whole time Principal / Head / Dean which specifies that there shall be Principal for each constituent or affiliated centre of legal education of a University and a Dean for the University Department, who shall have minimum prescribed W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -21- qualification in law as prescribed by the UGC for respective position like Principal of a centre of legal education or a Professor of Law to hold Deanship, as the case may be. 27. That apart, learned counsel has invited our attention to clause 20 of Schedule III dealing with minimum qualification needed for the faculty which indicates that full time faculty members including the Principal of the centre of legal education shall be holders of a Master's degree or as prescribed by the UGC or other such standard setting bodies. 28. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to Rule 28 of the Bar Council of India Rules dealing with the accreditation system wherein a clarification is made in Ext. P1 which specifies that status of recognition / approval up to the academic year mentioned in the 3[rd] column against institution name implies that students taken admission till that academic year will have valid degree in law for the purpose of enrollment as an Advocate in any State Bar Councils, if he / she clears the final examination subsequently, and degree is awarded by the concerned University. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said clarification implies that students taken admission W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -22- till that academic year will have a valid degree in law for the purpose of enrollment as an Advocate in any State Bar Council if he /she clears the final examination subsequently and degree is awarded by the concerned University. 29. The sum and substance of the contention relying upon the said clarification is that; if the standards of education as contemplated in Schedule III of the Rules are not followed, the Bar Council of India can withhold the affiliation with respect to any legal education institution. Learned counsel points out that Ext. P1 would show that the Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, Government Law College, Ernakulam and Government Law College, Kozhikode are included in the list of Law Colleges having approval of affiliation of the Bar Council of India as on 21[st] and 22[nd] December, 2019. 30. Our immediate attention was drawn to clause 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher education, 2010 produced as Ext. P2 dealing with Principal, which clarifies that (i) the Principal shall be a person with a Master's Degree with at least 55% W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -23- marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) by a recognized University; (ii) a Ph.D. Degree in concerned / allied / relevant discipline(s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance; (iii) Associate Professor / Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching / research / administration in Universities, colleges and other institutions of higher education; and (iv) a minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in this Regulation in AppendixIII for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges. 31. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to Regulation 5.1.6 dealing with the College Principal which is the crux of the issue raised by the petitioner in the writ petition wherein it is stated that (a) the selection committee for the post of college principal shall have the composition (1) Chairperson of the Governing Body as Chairperson; (2) Two members of the Governing Body of the college to be nominated by the Chairperson of whom one shall be an expert in academic administration; (3) One nominee of the Vice Chancellor who shall be a Higher Education expert. In cases of colleges notified / W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -24- declared as minority educational institutions, one nominee of the Chairperson of the college from out of a panel of five names, preferably from minority communities, recommended by the Vice Chancellor of the affiliating University of whom one should be a subject expert; (4) Three experts consisting of the Principal of a college, a Professor and an accomplished educationist not below the rank of a Professor (to be nominated by the Governing Body of the college) out of a panel of six experts approved by the relevant statutory body of the University concerned; and (5) an academician representing SC / ST / OBC / minority / women / differently abled categories, if any candidates representing these categories is the applicant, to be nominated by the Vice Chancellor, if any of the above members of the selection committee do not belong to that category, (b) at least five members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum, (c) All the selection procedures of the selection committee shall be completed on the day of the selection committee meeting itself, wherein, minutes are recorded along with the scoring proforma and recommendation made on the basis of merit with the list of selected and waitlisted candidates / panel of names in order of merit, duly signed by all members of the selection committee and (d) the term of appointment W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -25- of the college Principal shall be five years with eligibility for reappointment for one more term only after a similar selection committee process. 32. Therefore according to the petitioner, since the post of a Principal is stipulated in the subordinate legislation, i.e. the Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education; which is a public office, created by a statute; and as such a writ of quo warranto is maintainable. 33. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the judgments of this Court in **Ajitha K. and Others v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and Others [2017 KHC 815]** , **University of Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491]** , **Premkumar T. R. v. M. G. University and Others [2018 (2) KHC 21]** , **Rajesh Aswathy v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others [2012 KHC 4631 SC]** , **Dr. Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2016 (2) KLT 245]** and various other judgments to establish that the petitioner has locus standi to file a writ of quo warranto since the appointment of the party respondents is made without undergoing the selection procedure prescribed by the UGC. W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -26- 34. It is further submitted that as per Ext. P6 a selection committee meeting was convened on 19.11.2019 by the State Government. Nine candidates participated in the interview conducted by the selection committee, however only the 5[th] respondent participated in the interview from among the party respondents, however he was not recommended by the selection committee as discernible from Ext. P7 minutes of the selection committee. 35. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 3, 4, and 5 did not participate in the selection process and therefore they are not qualified to hold their respective offices, since they do not have the qualification prescribed by the UGC as per Ext. P2 Regulations which has been superseded by Ext. P8 Regulations dated 18.07.2018. 36. It is also submitted that the stand adopted by respondents 3 to 5 that the temporary promotion given to them have been regularized as per Ext. P3 and as such they need not undergo a selection process and accordingly they are justified in not appearing before the selection committee is not the correct approach in view of the specific Regulations contained under the UGC Regulations 2010. According to the petitioner it is a mistaken notion as respondents 3 and 4 were W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -27- regularized in accordance with the qualifications prescribed in the special rules ignoring the qualifications prescribed by the UGC. 37. In our view the above contentions are raised by the petitioner in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Dr. Radhakrishnan Pillai** 's case stated supra and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in University of Kerala v. Dr. D. Radhakrishnan Pillai dated 17.07.2018 in SLP (C) No. 3579 of 2017 and connected cases, whereby according to the petitioner the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench judgment of this Court in **Dr. Radhakrishnan Pillai** 's case stated supra. 38. It is true that the Full Bench of this Court in **Dr. Radhakrishnan Pillai** 's case stated supra has clearly and categorically specified that the UGC Regulation 2010 is applicable with effect from 2010 onwards, however the judgment was rendered by the Full Bench on 23.02.2016. The date of the judgment of the Full Bench has a clear significance and relevance to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 3579 of 2017 and connected cases dated 17.07.2018, and the whole lot of arguments are made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the cut off date fixed by the Hon'ble Apex W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -28- ## Court in the said order, which reads thus:- “The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No.29253 of 2012 and connected matters. The crux of the dispute was the applicability of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, regarding both Annexure and Appendix (qualification and conditions of service). In S.N. College v. N. Raveendran, [2001 (3) KLT 938], in the year 2001, the High Court had taken a view that unless the Statues are amended by the Universities concerned, U.G.C. Regulations will not be binding. The Full Bench, as per the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2016, has held that in view of the fact that the State Government had adopted the U.G.C. Regulations in the year 2010 and had issued directions to the Universities to amend the Statutes, the U.G.C. Regulations would apply from the date of adoption of the Regulations by the State. Though several contentions are taken before us, it is not necessary for us to deal with them, since essentially we are of the view that for doing complete justice, this is a case where we have to only invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, since we do not propose to interfere with the impugned decision. As a matter of fact, even when first notice was issued by this Court on 27.01.2017, it has been indicated so in the following lines:- “The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Kerala submits that as far as W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -29- the parties before the High Court are concerned, they are willing to implement the impugned Judgment of the High Court, whereas in the case of others whose appointments had been made on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in “S.N. College Vs. N. Raveendran” reported in (2001) 3 KLT 938, their cases may not be re-opened based on the impugned Full Bench Judgment. Issue notice to the respondents excluding the petitioner(s) before the High Court, returnable in six weeks. Issue notice on the prayer for interim relief as well.” All the applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed. The fact remains that the law has been settled by the High Court finally by the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 23.02.2016 regarding the application of U.G.C. Regulations. Therefore, it is only in the interest of justice and for doing complete justice between the parties to declare that the judgment dated 23.02.2016 will be applicable only from the date of the judgment i.e. 23.02.2016, except in the case of the individual parties before the High Court. Declared accordingly. With the above clarification, all these special leave petitions are disposed of. However, we make it clear that in case any University has amended the Statues, prior to the date of the judgment, the effect will be from the date as indicated in the amendment or the date of the actual order of implementation of the Statues.” ## 39. Therefore it can be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court though W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -30- upheld the judgment of the Full Bench of this court dated 23.02.2016, however in the interest of justice and for doing complete justice between the parties declared that the Full Bench judgment dated 23.02.2016 will be applicable only from the date of the judgment, i.e. 23.02.2016, except in the case of the individual parties before the High Court. 40. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the saving clause contained in the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court is that it would apply only to the parties before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 3579 of 2017 and connected cases. Therefore it is submitted that for such parties before the Hon'ble Apex Court the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court dated 23.02.2016 will be applicable only from the date of judgment of the Full Bench. 41. Relying upon the said saving clause contained under the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is further submitted that the 4[th] respondent namely Dr. Bindu M. Nambiar, Principal, Government Law College, Ernakulam was a petitioner before this Court in OP (KAT) No. 1329 of 2013 and the 5[th] respondent namely Dr. V. R. Jayadevan, W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -31- Principal, Government Law College, Thrissur was also a party in the said case, however they were not parties before the Hon'ble Apex Court and no appeal was filed against the judgment in OP (KAT) No. 1329 of 2013 and as such their appointments could have been only after a due selection process in accordance with UGC Regulations 2010. 42. It is further submitted that as regards the 3[rd] respondent namely Dr. Bijukumar R., Principal, Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram the saving clause in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court will not be applicable since he was not a party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or before this Court and therefore the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court is applicable to the 3[rd] respondent and his selection and appointment could have only been in accordance with the UGC Regulations 2010. 43. However taking cue from the pointed reference of the Hon'ble Apex Court “ _**except in the case of individual parties before the High Court**_ ”, learned counsel argued that, it cannot be interpreted in such a manner that those who were not parties before the High Court need not undergo a selection process as contemplated in the W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -32- UGC Regulations 2010. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has exercised the power under Article 142 to do complete justice between the parties who were before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also submitted that thus the benefit of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court would be available to those parties before the Hon'ble Apex Court and who had already been promoted as Principal prior to 23.02.2016. Therefore according to the learned counsel for the petitioner if any of the parties had already been promoted as Principal before 23.02.2016 i.e. the date of Full Bench judgment and who were parties before the Hon'ble Apex Court, they need not undergo any further selection process for the post of Principal. 44. The sum and substance of the contention is that if the parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not promoted as Principal before 23.02.2016 they will have to undergo the selection process as contemplated in the UGC guidelines and for all other parties, either before the High Court or not, a selection process is imperative. Therefore according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the party respondents are usurpers of post taking into account the principles of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in **Dr. Radhakrishnan** W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -33- **Pillai** 's case stated supra and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court extracted above. 45. The case of the 3[rd] respondent is that he was promoted as Principal on 10.06.2015 as per Ext.R3(c) order, however as per Ext. R3(h) order dated 29.03.2017 all the four Principals of Government Law Colleges in the State including respondents 3 to 5 were reverted and thereafter they were promoted provisionally with effect from 29.03.2017. 46. Therefore according to the 3[rd] respondent, the 3[rd] respondent is appointed through a duly constituted selection process made by the Government and since he is educationally qualified in accordance with the UGCRegulations 2010, he cannot be said to be an usurper to the said post. In so far as the 4[th] respondent is concerned, 4[th] respondent was provisionally promoted as Principal on 29.03.2017 evident from Ext. R3(h) and the 4[th] respondent is a party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is entitled to get the benefit of the saving clause. Likewise the 5[th] respondent who was also provisionally promoted as Principal on 29.03.2017 evident from Ext. R3(h) and since the 5[th] respondent being a party before the Hon’ble Apex Court is entitled to W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -34- get the benefit of the saving clause contained in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 47. However the contention advanced by the petitioner is that the respondents 4 and 5 were appointed subsequent to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.03.2017 and therefore they are not entitled to get the benefit because as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, only those persons who were already appointed as Principal prior to 23.02.2016 alone are entitled to get the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court; and who need not undergo the selection process. 48. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. There is no dispute with respect to the factual circumstances pointed out above and the promotions effected. It is also an admitted fact that respondents 3 to 5 were not selected by a selection committee constituted as per the provisions of UGC Regulations 2010. 49. Now the question emerges for consideration is whether respondents 3 to 5 are mere usurpers of the post of Principal in the three different Government Law Colleges in the State of Kerala. 50. The deliberation of facts made above would make it clear W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -35- that respondents 3 to 5 are having the educational qualifications as prescribed by the UGC. It is also clear that all the party respondents have sufficient qualifying service in the post of Lecturer in Law / Associate Professor / Professor at the Government Law Colleges. It is also clear that the 4[th] respondent, petitioner in OP (KAT) No. 1329 of 2013, was directed to be appointed since she was qualified and also three other persons including the 3[rd] respondent were found to be eligible for the promotion to the cadre of Principals in Government Law Colleges and it was accordingly that the 3[rd] respondent was provisionally promoted. 51. Therefore it can be seen that the appointments were effected either on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court in OP (KAT) No. 1329 of 2013 or as per the saving clause contained in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court extracted above. In our considered opinion, the interpretation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only protected those Principals who were appointed prior to 23.02.2016, i.e. the date of the judgment of the Full Bench, cannot be sustained at all for the basic reason that; it is clearly specified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -36- interest of justice and for doing complete justice between the parties, “to declare that the judgment dated 23.02.2016 will be applicable only from the date of the of the Full Bench judgment, except in the case of individual parties before the High Court”; which in our considered view, to mean, if and when there are directions issued by the High Court in individual cases, that is protected as per the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court and it cannot be said as otherwise, because if it is interpreted in the manner in which learned counsel for the petitioner has interpreted, it would be an unreasonable classification among the same class of people who were holding the post of Principal. It is an admitted fact that the party respondents were holding the post of Principal in accordance with the existing special rules and relevant University statutes. 52. Therefore it was taking into account the judgment dated 23.02.2016 of the Full Bench of this Court in **Dr. Radhakrishnan Pillai** 's case stated supra that the Government reverted the teachers promoted as Principals and later, as per the very same order dated 29.03.2017, the Government found that the party respondents are eligible for promotion to the cadre of Principals in the Government W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -37- Law Colleges in the State, and they were provisionally promoted as per their seniority, in line with the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 53. So also the party respondents have a case that they were appointed subject to the finalization of the cases pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was finally disposed of affirming the decision of the Full Bench, however with a saving clause as deliberated above. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that all the party respondents were officiating the post of Principal prior to the date of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Though the 3[rd] respondent was not a part in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the 3[rd] respondent was also appointed by the Government in accordance with the statutory provisions and the rules and regulations for the appointment of teachers / Principal in law colleges and the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in **Ravindran** ’s supra. 54. So also even going by the UGC Regulations 2010, the party respondents are having the requisite educational qualifications; and therefore the mode of appointment is the qualification, and the selection is a procedure, which if at all violated, can only be said to be an illegality, or rather cannot be termed to be an usurpation of a post W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -38- when the party respondents are appointed by the State Government exercising the powers conferred under the relevant statutes of the State and the Rules of the Bar Council of India. 55. A process of selection through a selection committee can only be said to be to evaluate the comparative merits of the parties and if not done, cannot be said to be an usurpation of a post to maintain a public interest writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto. This question was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in **R. K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119]** wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates could not be gone into in a public interest litigation and it can only be a challenge in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person. 56. It is also a clear and settled position in law that in cases involving lack of eligibility a writ of quo warranto would certainly lie; reason being that eligibility is not a matter of subjectivity as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India [(2009) 8 SCC 273]** . 57. Therefore in our view, the party respondents cannot be said W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -39- to be mere usurpers in the post of the Principal and if at all the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, it can only be seen as an illegality in the appointment which could be challenged only by a person aggrieved and qualified to be appointed as a Principal. 58. To put it otherwise, in a public interest writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto, this court needs to be looked into only as to whether the respondents 3 to 5 are usurpers to the post of Principal without the requisite educational qualifications. There is no case for the petitioner that the respondents 3 to 5 are not qualified in accordance with the UGC Regulations as prescribed in the Regulations 2010 or 2018. 59. It is a well settled position in law that in a service matter a writ petition can only be maintained by a person aggrieved, except a writ of quo warranto in respect of an usurper in a post without requisite qualifications. Even assuming that the procedure for selecting the qualified persons by constituting a selection committee is not followed, it can only be treated as an illegality in the process of selection which can never be said to be a cause of action to raise a contention that respondents 3 to 5 are usurpers to the post of Principal in the W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -40- Government colleges. It is also relevant to note that, in the case of the 4[th] respondent, since the Government did not implement the judgment in OP (KAT) No. 1394 of 2013, a contempt petition was filed and it was also taking note of the said aspect that the Government has passed the order dated 29.03.2017. 60. To put it otherwise, if the issue raised by the petitioner is properly analyzed, the petitioner is attributing an illegality in the process of selection which is not a ground available to the petitioner to file a writ of quo warranto contending that the party respondents are usurpers to the post. We are also informed that various litigations are pending before the administrative tribunal as well as this Court in respect of the selection, initiated by the aggrieved persons. It can also be seen that interim arrangements were made by the State Government when the posts of Principal became vacant, and pending selection and appointment in accordance with the statutory provisions all of them were given charge in the post of Principal which can never be said to be against any public policy. 61. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects, we are of the undoubted opinion that when an aggrieved person is left with a W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -41- statutory remedy there is no scope for a public interest litigant to intervene and seek a writ of quo warranto. The upshot of the deliberation is that the petitioner has not made out a case of usurpers against respondents 3 to 5 in the post of Principal so as to issue a writ of quo warranto. Needless to say, the writ petition fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However it is made clear that the findings and observations are made by us to arrive at a logical conclusion in the matter of a writ of quo warranto, which would not have any bearing to any present or future litigation by and between the aggrieved persons. Sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -42- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16224/2020** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1** - **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF LAW COLLEGES HAVING APPROVAL OF AFFILIATION OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AS ON 21ST AND 22ND DECEMBER, 2019 AS PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2010.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.1872/2018/HEDN DATED 15.10.2018 PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1177/2019/HEDN DATED 9.7.2019 CONSTITUTING SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION TO THE POST OF PRINCIPALS IN THE GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGES.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (RT)NO.1227/2019/HEDN DATED 17.7.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER FROM 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPALS OF THE LAW COLLEGE DATED 14.11.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING FOR SELECTION OF PRINCIPALS IN GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGES HELD ON 19.11.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF UGC REGULATION 2018.** - **Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C1/149/2020-HEDN DATED 10.6.2022** W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -43- ## **ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT R6(a):** - **TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT) NO.991/2014/H.EDN. DATED 22/05/2014 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT R6(b):** - **TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT) NO.1340/2015/H.EDN. DATED 10/06/2015ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(b1): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2018 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.1893818942/2017.** - **EXHIBIT R6(c): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT) NO.610/2017/EDN. DATED 29/03/2017 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(d): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (RT) NO.10/2017/H.EDN. DATED 19/03/2017 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(e): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 17/10/2017 O.A.(EKM)-2233/2017 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O. (RT) NO.991/2014/H.EDN. DATED 22/05/2014 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(b): TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O. (RT) NO.1340/2015/H.EDN. DATED 10/06/2015 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(b-1): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2018 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.1893818942/2017.** - **EXHIBIT R6(c):** - **TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O. (RT) NO.610/2017/H.EDN. DATED 29/03/2017 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** W. P. (C) No. 16224 of 2020 -44- ## **EXHIBIT R6(d):** **TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O. (P) NO.10/2017/H.EDN. DATED 19/03/2017 ISSUED BY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT R6(e):** - **TRUE COPY OF HE ORDER DATRED 17/10/2017 IN O-A{EKM}-2233/2017 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **EXHIBIT R5 A** - **TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 5/8/2020 WITH ANNEXURES 1 TO 13 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1131/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL** - **EXHIBIT R5 B TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 6/8/2020 IN IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1161/2020 PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL** - **EXHIBIT R5 C TRUE COPY OF UGO REGULATIONS ON MINUMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF INUNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2010, NO.F.3/1/2009 DATED 28/6/2010 WITH THE RELEVANT PAGES (PAGES NOS.1,2,5,6,7,100,101 AND 102)**