Dr. Sreedevi K. Nair v NSS Colleges' Central Committee, NSS Service Society, University of Calicut, Government of Kerala and others

W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 1 **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 35765 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **DR.SREEDEVI K.NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.K.N. SATHEESH, RESIDING AT SREENIKETH, TC. 17/1759, PURA 10, NETAJI ROAD, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695012, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPT. OF ENGLISH, N.S.S. COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, NEERAMANKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695040.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL) SRI.ARJUN RAJACHANDRAN SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**NSS COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY R. PRASANNA KUMAR, EDUCATION**| ||**SECRETARY, NSS HEAD OFFICE, PERUNNA,**| ||**CHANGANASSERI- 686102.**| |**2**|**THE NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY G.SUKUMARAN NAIR**| ||**(CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF**| ||**PRINCIPALS, N.S.S. COLLEGES) NSS HEAD OFFICE,**| ||**PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERI-686102.**| |**3**|**THE REGISTRAR,**| ||**UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673635.**| W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 2 - **4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **5 DR.AZAD R.P., PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. COLLEGE, COLLEGE ROAD, MANJERI676122.** - **6 DR.BALACHANDRAN S., PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. COLLEGE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAPPURAM, PALAKKAD-679103.** - **7 DR.E.B SURESH KUMAR, PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. COLLEGE, RAJAKUMARI, KULAPPARACHAL.P.O., IDUKKI-685619.** - **8 DR.VENUGOPAL S., PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. COLLEGE, STATE HIGHWAY 58, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD - 678508.** **BY ADVS. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY SRI.P.GOPAL SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN SRI.B.MURALEEDHARAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRGP.SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 3 ## _**P.V.ASHA, J.**_ ------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U --------------------------------------- _Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2019_ ## _**JUDGMENT**_ Selection and appointment to the post of Principals in the Colleges under the 1[st] respondent management is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2019, during the pendency of the writ petition. She is challenging the rank list to the extent she is included only at sl.no.5, claiming that appointment should have been made based on seniority and not on comparative merit. 2. The petitioner claims that she was the senior most Associate Professor under the 1[st] respondent management. At the time when the Writ Petition was filed she was working as Associate Professor in English in HHMSPB NSS College for Women, Neeramankara. Her initial appointment was as Junior Lecturer in English in NSS College, Nenmara in Palakkad district, under the University of Calicut. Thereafter she was promoted as Lecturer w.e.f 16.06.1988; thereafter as Lecturer Sr.Grade, Reader and thereafter as Associate Professor and had been working as W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 4 Associate Professor since the year 2006. 3. As per Ext.P1 circular issued on 23.2.2018, the 1[st] respondent invited willingness from among eligible Professors/Associate Professors for promotion as Principals. Thereafter as per Ext.P2 circular dated 17.3.2018, the 1[st] respondent called for the Academic Performance Indicator score (API score) sheet evaluated as per the UGC Regulations, 2010 (as amended in 2016) along with all supporting documents, publications, etc. Thereafter an interview was conducted on 5.5.2018. 12 candidates including the petitioner participated in the interview. In Ext.P13 rank list she is ranked at sl.no.5. All the candidates ranked above her except one are her juniors. On coming to know about her rank as sl.no.5, she preferred a complaint before the 1[st] respondent pointing out that she was entitled to be placed in the top of the list. Thereupon, as per Ext.P5 letter dt.14.05.2018 the 1[st] respondent informed her that she was placed at 5[th] position in academic records; first position in research performance; third position in domain knowledge and third position in performance in the interview and on overall assessment she was placed at 5[th] position in the rank list by the selection committee. It was also stated that the process of selection was conducted in accordance with UGC and University Rules. In Ext.P20 petitioner explained her educational qualifications, the Post Doctoral Degrees, the research projects undertaken by her, the awards/fellowships etc to her credits, her publications, etc. She claims that but for an erroneous scoresheet drawn by the respondents 1 and 2, she would have been appointed as a Principal in W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 5 May 2018 itself. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that appointments of the Principals in the Private Colleges shall be made in accordance with section 57(3) of the Calicut University Act, 1975, according to which, when the appointment is made by way of promotion, it shall be made on the basis of seniority cum fitness. It is also her case that 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 (hereinafter referred to as `UGC Regulations, 2010') provide for the minimum qualification as well as the procedure to be followed for appointment of Principals by direct recruitment only. The contention of the petitioner is that as the UGC Regulations, 2010 do not prescribe the procedure to be followed when appointment is made by promotion and therefore the UGC Regulations 2010 as well as the University Laws have to be interpreted harmoniously and appointments have to be made from among those who are having the minimum qualification prescribed in the UGC Regulations 2010 in accordance with Section 57(3) of the Calicut University Act, following seniority cum fitness. It is pointed out that all the candidates who appeared for selection except one were juniors to her and the petitioner would have got promotion well before her retirement on 31.03.2019, in case the selection was conducted on seniority cum fitness as provided in Section 57(2) and (3) of the Calicut University Act. According to petitioner Ext.P8 score sheet prepared by the W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 6 1[st] respondent is not in tune with the UGC Regulations as amended in 2016 and the criteria for promotion/appointment of Principal as well as for determining API score is different in the tables given in Appendix-III of the UGC Regulations as amended in Exts.P17 and P18. 5. According to the 1[st] respondent management, promotion is made in accordance with UGC Regulations, 2010 as amended from time to time. They have also stated that they had addressed the Calicut University as per Ext.R1(a) letter dated.12.3.2018 requesting for appointment of Vice Chancellor's nominee and to furnish a panel of experts in order to constitute the committee for selection of Principals in accordance with the UGC Regulations 2010. In answer to this letter, the University as per Ext.R1(b) letter furnished a list of experts as well as the nominee of the Vice Chancellor. It was further stated in Ext.R1(b) as follows: _“At least five members, including two experts, should constitute the quorum. 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 wait listed candidates/panel of names in order of merit, duly signed by all members of the selection committee”._ The University requested the 1[st] respondent to ensure that the selection committee is constituted strictly in accordance with regulation 12(4) of the Amended Regulations of 2014 and that only candidates who possess the qualification prescribed in Regulation 4(1) of the Amended Regulations of 2014 are considered for selection to the post. It was further directed that the selection should be conducted following the selection norms contained in Appendix - III, Table II(c) W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 7 of the Amended Regulations of 2014 and as per the Amended UGC Regulations 2016 (3[rd] and 4[th] amendments). According to the management, they have made the appointment, on the basis of merit in tune with the UGC Regulations as directed by the Calicut University in Ext.R1(b) letters. It is stated that the respondents 1 and 2 initiated the selection proceedings when 3 Principals in the Colleges at Manjeri, Ottappalam and Nenmara under the University of Calicut sought transfers to colleges under the Universities of Kerala and MG University against retirement vacancies arising on 01.04.2018. Thus the 3 vacancies arose on their transfer on 17.05.2018. They have produced Ext.R1(c) score sheet prepared by the Management. It is stated that the minimum API score of a candidate for consideration as Principal is 400 and as per Exts.P17 and P18 Regulations the API score is to be calculated from categories II and III of Appendix-III Table I and the selection committee has assessed the API score of petitioner as 992. The API score of respondents 5 to 8 are 1219.3, 915.3, 985.5 and 588 respectively. Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed against the vacancies at Manjeri and Ottapalam. The respondent no.7 and petitioner got 78 marks and 7[th] respondent, being senior in age with date of birth 21.07.1962, was ranked above the petitioner and he was appointed against the vacancy at Nenmara as per Ext.P16 order with effect from 17.05.2018. Since petitioner attained the age of 56 years on 29.07.2018, she is not eligible for appointment against any vacancies which arose after 29.07.2018. Therefore 8[th] respondent was appointed against the vacancy which arose on W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 8 01.08.2018, as per Ext.R1(d) order. It is stated that the 7[th] respondent was granted inter-university transfer and was posted at Rajakumari after transfer was made against a vacancy, which arose at Pandalam on 01.08.2018. It is stated that petitioner was able to continue till 31.03.2019 -the end of the academic year only by virtue of Statute 3 of Calicut University First Statutes 1976. As per sub statute 3 of statute 3 such teachers who are continuing after attaining the age of superannuation are not eligible for any promotion i.e after 29.07.2018. It is further stated that the petitioner attained the age of 56 years on 29.07.2018. It is stated that the score sheet was prepared in accordance with law and in tune with the amended Regulations and it includes all the criteria stipulated in Regulation 6.09 of Ext.P7 Regulations. It is stated that since the UGC Regulations 2000 do not mention the assessment period, the management prescribed the academic year 2000 for calculating API score, as 15 years teaching experience is required for consideration as Principals and as the petitioner is awarded the maximum marks 20, she is in no way prejudiced. According to 1[st] respondent the UGC Regulations Ext.P7 as amended in Exts.P17 and 18 would prevail over the provisions in the University Act and selection of Principals is to be made based on merit and not on seniority cum fitness. The selection committee has assessed the API score reckoning the academic year 2000. 6. In the counter affidavit of the University, it is stated that under the University Regulations 2014 there is provision for appointment of Principals by W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 9 direct recruitment only. It is also stated that the provisions in UGC Regulations 2010 as amended in 2016 are applicable for the selection of Principals, according to which the minimum API score required is 400 points from categories II and III of APIs (cumulative) and selection committee criteria is - (a) academic background-20%; (b) research performance based API score and quality of publications -40% (c) assessment of domain knowledge and teaching skills -20% and (d) interview performance-20%. As per the UGC Regulations the qualification for Principals in non-professional Arts and Science Colleges are Masters Degree with 55% marks of the University or an Indian or foreign university recognised as equivalent, with Ph.D in concerned/allied/relevant discipline with evidence of published work and research guidance; Associate Professor or Professor with 15 years teaching experience and a minimum score as stipulated in API based on PBAS as set out in Regulation in Appendix-III for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges. It is stated that as per Section 57(2) of the University Act appointment of Principal is to be made by promotion based on seniority cum fitness ; UGC Regulations are to be followed. It is stated that the University had approved certain appointments of Principals made based on seniority cum fitness observing the qualifications prescribed by UGC regulations. It is stated that one Sri.Suresh Kumar, who is ranked 3 is the senior-most person considered for appointment and petitioner was junior to him. 7. The respondent no.8 has in his counter affidavit stated that petitioner does W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 10 not have 55 % marks in the PG Degree and thus she is not eligible for consideration for appointment as Principal; the selection is to be made on the basis of merit. It is stated that she is not eligible for promotion after she attained the age of superannuation on 29.07.2018; she has not alleged any malafides against the members of selection committee; she has not availed statutory remedy and the writ petition is premature. 8. Respondents 5 to 7 have also stated that petitioner does not have 55% marks in the PG Degree. It is stated that appointment is to be made on seniority cum fitness basis. However it is stated that the selection is made in accordance with rules. According to them the writ petition is belated. 9. I heard Sri.Joseph, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Sri. P.Gopal, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.P.K. Sureshkumar, the learned Senior Counsel along with Sri.P.K.Sudheer ,the learned counsel for the 8[th] respondent and Sri.P.Haridas, the learned Counsel for respondents 5 to 7. 10. Relying on the 3 judges judgment in _**B.V.Sivaiah and ors. vs. K.Addankl Babu and ors : 1998 (6) SCC 720,**_ the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the principle of seniority cum fitness is applied seniors have to be preferred provided they are suitable, as held in the judgment in _**State of Kerala and anr. vs. N.M.Thomas and Ors. : (1976) 2 SCC 310,**_ where the apex court had held that seniority cum merit means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration, the senior though the less W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 11 meritorious shall have priority. It was argued that _**c**_ omparative assessment of merit is required only when the criteria followed is merit cum seniority. Learned Counsel pointed out that the very same principle was reiterated in _**Haryana State Warehousing Corporation vs. Jagat Ram and Ors. : 2011 (3) SCC 422,**_ both the Judges in separate judgments after discussing subsequent judgments. The learned counsel also relied on the judgments in _**G.P.Steward vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury : AIR 1939 Culcutta 628**_ , _**Govt. of A.P. And Ors. vs. J.B.Educational Society and Ors. : 2005 (3) SCC 212**_ (para.8 to 15), _**Harigovind Yadav vs. Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank and others : 2006 (6) SCC 145, etc**_ and argued that when there is no repugnancy between a Central Act and a State Act, a harmonious interpretation should be adopted. 11. On the other hand Sri.P.Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the NSS Management relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Radhakrishnan Pillai vs. Travancore Devaswom Board : 2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB)**_ and argued that merit is having prime importance while considering teachers for the post of Principal. The judgments in _**State of Kerala & Ors vs. All Kerala Bharat Gas Distributors Association & Ors. : 2016 (2) KLJ 221**_ (paras 31 and 33), and _**State of Kerala V Anitha Thomas: 2016(3) KLT 151**_ were also relied on and it was argued that the provisions in UGC Regulations will override the provisions in the Act and merit would be the paramount consideration in the selection and appointment of Principals, going by the intent and purpose of the UGC Regulations. W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 12 12. Having considered the contentions on either side it is seen that in case the rank list was prepared based on seniority cum fitness , petitioner woud have been ranked no. 2 among those included in the ranked list. She was the 2[nd] among the 12 candidates who appeared for the interview for appointment as Principal under the 1[st] respondent. But on the basis of the marks she scored in the selection, she was ranked 5[th] . It is seen that she secured lower marks for academic qualifications and on comparative evaluation of merits, she was found to be the 5[th] . Before the vacancy in her turn arose she attained superannuation, based on which the 8[th] respondent was appointed. There cannot be any dispute over the fact that petitioner would not have been eligible for promotion as Principal against a vacancy which arose after 29.07.2018, the date on which she attained the age of 56 years. Therefore the question to be considered is whether she was eligible for appointment on the basis of seniority cum fitness, provided she is fully qualified in accordance with the UGC Regulations. In order to determine the issue raised in this case it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions in UGC Regulations 2010 and the amendments effected thereafter with respect to the qualification as well as selection, assessment of API scores, etc. 13. As the petitioner is having only 50% marks in the Post Graduate Degree examination and in view of the objections raised by the party respondents as to her eligibility alleging that she does not have the minimum qualification as prescribed in the UGC Regulations and in view of the claim of the petitioner that she is W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 13 entitled to relaxation by 5% marks under the provisions of Regulations 2010 as she is Ph.D holder who acquired Post Graduate Degree prior to 19.09.1991, it is necessary to determine that issue, before proceeding further. The regulations relating to qualification are therefore to be examined first. 14. Regulation 3 of 2010 UGC Regulations deals with recruitment and qualifications. Regulation 3.1.0 relates to direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the Universities and Colleges. It provides that direct recruitment to those posts shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selection by the duly constituted selection committee as per the provisions made under these regulations to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned University. The composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations. Regulation 3.2.0 deals with the minimum qualifications required for the post of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principals etc. Regulation 3.3.0 deals with the minimum academic requirements for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors. Regulation 3.4.0 reads as follows: _“A minimum of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) will be required at the Master's level for those recruited as teachers at any level from industries and research institutions and at the entry level of Assistant Professors, Asst. Librarians, Asst. Directors of Physical Education and Sports”._ Regulation 3.4.1 provides for relaxation of 5% at the Graduate and Masters level for SC/ST/differently abled categories. Regulation 3.5.0 reads as follows: > _“3.5.0: A relaxation of 5% may be provided, from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D. Degree holders, who have obtained their Master's Degree prior to 19 September, 1991”._ > 15. Petitioner is a Ph.D holder who acquired M.A. Degree in English in the W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 14 year 1986 which is much prior to 19.09.1991 and therefore she is entitled to relaxation provided in Regulation 3.5.0. Regulation 3.7.0 provides that Ph.D Degree shall be a mandatory qualification for appointment of Professors and for promotion as Professors. Regulation 4 deals with direct recruitment to the post of Professor in Regulation 4.1.0; Principal in Regulation 4.2.0 and Associate Professor in Regulation 4.3.0. The minimum qualifications prescribed for Principal in Regulation 4.2.0 is as follows: ## 4.2.0 Principal _i. A Master's Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) by a recognised University._ _ii. A Ph.D Degree in concerned/allied/relevant disciplines(s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance._ _iii. Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of fifteen years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other institutions of higher education._ _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 Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges._ ## Regulation 4.7 provides as follows: _Since the UGC has prescribed the above qualifications for teaching positions in all higher education institutions for maintenance of minimum standards in consultation with the Statutory Councils governing the approval of courses respectively, any future modification in qualifications for appointment of teachers in Universities/Colleges offering such courses will automatically be considered as adopted by the UGC as prescribed qualifications for those courses._ ## 16. The requisite minimum marks required under UGC Regulation is 55%. However, while dealing with the minimum qualification in respect of the Assistant Professors, Regulations 3.5.0 provides for a relaxation of 5% from 55% to 50% of the marks to the Ph.D degree holders who have obtained their Masters Degree W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 15 prior to 19.09.1991. The petitioner comes within the said category. Again the question is whether this relaxation provided in Regulation 3.5.0 relates to the minimum qualification prescribed for all the teaching posts or whether it is limited to the post of Assistant Professors or the post mentioned in the provision immediately preceding clause 3.5.0, 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. Clause 3.4.0 or even 3.2.0 or 3.1.0 relating to minimum qualifications in respect of Assistant Professors upto Principals and provide that it shall be as prescribed by the UGC in these regulations. After that clause 3.3.0 prescribes 55% marks at the Master's level for appointment of Asst.Professors. Clause 3.3.1 also relates to recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities, colleges/institutions. Regulation 3.5.0 while providing for relaxation, does not refer to any particular post. Immediately after the relaxation provisions for Ph.D degree, qualification for appointment of Professors and promotion as Professors, Associate Professors through direct recruitment etc. are given. Thereafter, 'Principal' comes under Regulation 4.2.0 which again prescribes 55% marks at Master's degree level. There is no other provision which provides for relaxation or even a provision that restricts that relaxation is confined to the post of Assistant Professors. Therefore, on an overall reading of the provisions relating to qualifications, it is seen that relaxation of 5% cannot be confined to the post of Assistant Professor alone. The relaxation is granted to the Ph.D holders who acquired PG Degree prior to 1991. Therefore that could not have been intended for appointment of Assistant W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 16 Professors even when such a provision is available when the Regulations are issued in 2010 and amended in 2016. In 2010 or in 2016, a Ph.D holder who acquired PG Degree prior to 1991, would have normally become overaged for consideration to the post of Assistant Professor, i.e after 19 to 25 years of acquiring PG Degree. Therefore it should apply to posts above that of Assistant Professor. It is pertinent to note that Regulation 3.4.1 which grants relaxation of 5% to the members of SC/ST specifically provides that relaxation is available during direct recruitment to teaching positions and it also states relaxation of 5% to the categories “mentioned above”. However Regulation 3.5.0 does not indicate that it is applicable only for a particular post. Though Regulation 4.3.0 does not specifically provide that relaxation under clause 3.5.0 would be admissible as against the percentage of marks prescribed for the post of Principal, on an overall examination of the aforesaid provisions, I am of the view that the relaxation under regulation 3.5.0 by 5% is admissible for appointment of Principals, especially when the Regulations do not envisage appointment by promotion. Therefore, the contention of the party respondents that the petitioner is not at all qualified for appointment to the post for want of 55% marks in PG Degree is unsustainable. 17. The next question to be determined is whether the method adopted by respondents 1 and 2 and the instructions of the University to make the selection on evaluation of comparative merit is correct. Regulation 5.0.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 reads as follows: W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 17 _The UGC has evolved the following guidelines on: (a) Constitution of Selection Committees for selection of Asst. Professor, Associate Professor, Professor, Asst. Librarian, Deputy Librarian, Librarian, Asst. Director of Physical Education and Sports, Deputy Director of Physical Education and Sports and Director of Physical Education and Sports; and (b) specified selection procedures for direct recruitment and Career Advancement Schemes Regulations for teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges._ Regulation 5.1.1 provides for the selection committee specification of Assistant Professors. Even though Regulation 5 does not mention the post of Principal, Regulation 5.1.6 provides for the constitution of the selection committee for the post of College Principal which reads as follows: ## _5.1.6 College Principal_ _(a) The Selection Committee for the post of College Principal shall have the following 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 case of Colleges notified/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 t relevant statutory body of the university concerned._ 5. _An academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/Differentlyabled categories, if any of 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.(d) The term of appointment of the college principal shall be FIVE years with eligibility for reappointment for one more term only after a similar selection committee process._ W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 18 As per the above provision the appointment of College Principal is to be made for a period of 5 years which can be extended by reappointment for one more year that too after undergoing a similar process of selection. Regulation 6.0.1 reads as follows: _6.0.1 The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions ; and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in this Regulations in Tables I to IX of Appendix III._ _In order to make the system more credible, universities may assess the ability for teaching and/or research aptitude through a seminar or lecture in a class room situation or discussion on the capacity to use latest technology in teaching and research at the interview stage. These procedures can be followed for both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations._ Thus the procedure prescribed is applicable to both direct recruitment and CAS promotions wherever selection committees are prescribed in these Regulations. Regulation 6.0.2 provides that the University shall adopt these regulations for selection committees and selection procedures in all the selection processes. Regulation 6.0.2 reads as follows: _6.0.2 The Universities shall adopt these Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges/ affiliated colleges (Government/Governmentaided/Autonomous/ Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all the selection processes. An indicative PBAS template proforma for direct recruitment and for Career Advancement Schemes (CAS) based on API based PBAS shall also be sent separately by the UGC to the universities. The universities may adopt the template proforma or may devise their own self-assessment cum performance appraisal forms for teachers in strict adherence to the API criteria based PBAS prescribed in these Regulations._ Regulation 6.0.5 deals with comprehensive list of indexed publications for various W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 19 disciplines which the University shall draw. These lists shall be provided to the selection committee at the time of assessing the quality of publication of candidates during their appointment/promotions. Regulation 6.0.9 provides for the API scoring system in the process of selection of Principal which shall be similar to that of directly recruited College Professors which reads as follows: _6.0.9 The Academic Performance Indicator (API) scoring system in the process of selection of Principal shall be similar to that of directly recruited College Professors. In addition, the selection committee shall assess the following dimensions with the weightages given below:_ _a. Assessment of aptitude for teaching, research and administration (20%); ,_ _b. Ability to communicate clearly and effectively (10%);_ _c. Ability to plan institutional programmes, analyze and discuss curriculum development and delivery, research support and college development/administration (20%); d. Ability to deliver lecture programmes to be assessed by requiring the candidate to participate in a group discussion or exposure to a class room situation by a lecture (10%); and_ _e. Analysis of the merits and credentials of the candidates on the basis of the Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) proforma developed by the affiliating University based on these Regulations (deduced to 40% of the total API score)._ Regulation 6.2.0 provides that the minimum norms of selection committees and selection procedures as well as API score requirements for the aforesaid cadres either through direct recruitment or through career advancement schemes regulations shall be similar. Regulation 6.4.10 provides that 10% of the positions of the Professors in a University with a minimum of ten years of teaching and research experience as Professor will be eligible for promotion to the higher grade of Professorship on satisfying the required API score through the PBAS methodology through a duly constituted expert committee. It further provides that W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 20 selection is to be conducted by the University by receiving duly filled PBAS proformas from eligible professors based on seniority, three times in number of the available vacancies in each faculty. The assessment process shall be through an expert committee on evaluation of all credentials as stipulated in table II A of appendix III. Category I under Appendix-III Table-I provides for the API score for teaching, learning and evaluation related activities. Category II under appendix III provides for co-curricular, extension and professional development related activities. Category III relates to API scores proposed for research and academic contributions. Category IIIA relates to research papers which are further divided as referred journals, publication of non referred but recognised and reputable journals and periodicals, having ISBN/ISSN numbers, publication of full papers in conference proceedings etc. Category IIIB provides for research publications (books, chapters in books other than referred journals articles). 18. In this case the respondents 1 and 2 and the selection committee adopted Ext.P8 score sheet which according to them, is in tune with UGC Regulations 2010 as amended in 2016 read with University regulations.. According to them they followed the procedure for direct recruitment; but selection is conducted from among the Professors/Assistant Professor of the Colleges under their management alone. A reading of the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations 2010 as well as the amendment regulations 2016-Exts.P17 and P18 issued thereafter would show that the UGC Regulations do not envisage an appointment to the post of W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 21 Principal by promotion. It envisages only direct recruitment and career advancement scheme (CAS) promotion. No provision is seen for promotion as Principal under the career advancement scheme. At any rate promotion as Principal cannot be considered to be one under the CAS. The only provision which mention promotion in the UGC Regulations are Regulation 6.4.10, which is against 10% of the posts of Professors in Universities to higher grade. Professors with 10 years teaching experience with requisite API scores assessed through an expert committee are eligible for the same; and the other provision is Regulation 6.5.2 relating to appointment of Professors in Post Graduate Colleges, which read as follows: 6.5.2. _There shall be one post of Professor in each Department of a PostGraduate College which shall be subject to the same criterion for selection/appointment as that of Professors in Universities, provided that onefourth (25%) of the posts of Professor shall be filled on deputation/direct - recruitment from among eligible teachers and the remaining three fourths (75%) of posts shall be filled through merit promotion from among the eligible Associate Professors in the relevant department of the Post- Graduate college. Identification of posts of Professor in a Post-Graduate College for being filled through direct recruitment/deputation shall be carried out by the affiliating/concerned University acting in consultation with the College. The decision regarding whether the posts of professor will be for CAS promotion or direct recruitment/deputation shall be within the competence of the University acting in consultation with the College. Where the number of posts of professor for CAS promotion or direct recruitment/deputation worked out as a percentage_ _**0** " the total number of posts in a Post Graduate College is not an integer, the same shall be rounded off to the next higher integer._ _The selection process is to be conducted by the university by receiving PBAS proformas from eligible Associate Professors based on seniority and three times in number of the available vacancies. In case the number of candidates available is less than three times the number of vacancies, the zone of consideration will be limited to the actual number of candidates available. The selection shall be conducted through the API scoring system with PBAS methodology, selection committee process stipulated in these Regulations for appointment of Professors. For direct recruitment of the 25% of the posts, the Rota-Quota System shall be followed starting with promotion and the direct recruitment quota shall be rotated_ W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 22 _in an alphabetical order._ 19. Under Regulation.6.5.2 there shall be one post of Professor in each Department of Post Graduate College, which shall be subject to the same criteria for selection and appointment as in the Universities; it provides for appointment against 25% of the posts by deputation/direct recruitment and remaining 75% by merit promotion from among the eligible Associate Professors in the relevant Department of the College. However in the next sentence in the Regulation, it refers only to CAS promotion. It further provides that the selection process is to be conducted by the University by receiving PBAS proformas from eligible Associate Professors based on seniority; The number of Associate Professors in the zone of consideration would be 3 times the number of vacancies or the available number of eligible hands whichever is less. It also provides that selection shall be conducted through API scoring system with PBAS methodology through selection committee process. 20. Thus it is seen that though there is a provision dealing with promotion in Regulation 6.5.2, it is also one under CAS, which is to be made from among senior hands within the zone of consideration, having the educational qualification as well as API score as provided in the UGC Regulations, by the selection committee to be constituted in accordance with UGC Regulations and selection shall be conducted through API scoring system with PBAS methodology. The UGC Regulations were amended as per Exts.P17 and P18 by the 3[rd] and 4[th] W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 23 amendments of 2016 Regulations, with modifications with respect to the Tables given in Appendix-III. Petitioner has raised serious allegations as against Ext P8 score sheet pointing out that it is not in tune with Regulation 6.09 or in tune with the relevant table in Appendix III in Ext P7 or P17 or P18 and hence the selection made by the 1st respondent is not in accordance with law. 21. Chapter IV of the Calicut University Regulations 1977, relating to the qualification, placement and promotion of University and College Teachers were amended in tune with the UGC Regulations 2010, in the year 2014 by way of 2014 Amendment Regulations, as per notification No. 3696/GA-I-F1/2013/CU dated 26.02.2014. These Regulations are issued in tune with the UGC Regulations then existed. These regulations also provide for appointment of Principals by direct recruitment only. Certain provisions in those Regulations relating to qualification and method of appointment of Principals among the teachers of Universities, which are relevant are the following : _(3) (E) Occupational Therapy:_ > _4. Principal/Director/Dean:_ > _(i) Masters in Occupational Therapy (M.O.T/M.Th.O/M.Oth./M.Sc.O.T.) with fifteen years experience, which shall include five years experience as Professor (Occupational Therapy)._ > _- (ii) Senior most Professor shall be the Principal/Director/Dean_ > _( iii) Desirable: Higher Qualification like Ph.D. in any discipline in occupational therapy recognized by the UGC/independent published work of high standard._ _(3) (F) Physiotherapy_ > _4. Principal/Director/Dean:_ > _(i) Masters in Physiotherapy (M.P.T./M.Th.P./M.PTh./M.Sc. P.T.) with fifteen years total experience, including five years experience as Professor (Physiotherapy)._ > _(ii) Senior-most Professor shall be the Principal/Director/Dean._ > _( iii) Desirable: Higher qualification like Ph.D. in any discipline in Physiotherapy recognized by the UGC/ independent published work of high standard._ > _(3) (G) Management/Business Administration_ > _4. Principal/Director/Head of Institution_ W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 24 _i. Qualification same as those prescribed for the post of Professor in the relevant discipline with a minimum of fifteen years’ experience of postgraduate teaching/industry/research. OR_ _ii. For candidates from Industry/Profession : (1) Qualification same as those prescribed for the post of Professor from industry/ profession stream with fifteen years’ experience of postgraduate teaching/research out of which five years must be at the level or Professor in the relevant discipline. iii Without prejudice to the above, the following conditions may be considered desirable :_ _(1) Administrative experience in senior level responsible position in the Industry/Professional Institution._ _(3) (I) Physical Education_ _4. Principal/Head (a) A Master’s Degree in Physical Education with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) of this University or an Indian/Foreign University recognized as equivalent thereto._ _(b) Ph.D. in Physical Education or equivalent published work in Physica1 Education; and ‘ (c) Ten years teaching experience out of which five years experience shall be in a college of Physical education._ _Provided that in the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable candidates for appointment as Principal/Head as per above eligibility criteria, it would be permissible to appoint retired Principal/Head in Physical Education on contract basis for a period not exceeding one year at a time till such_ _time the candidates complete sixty five years of age_ Regarding Principals in Affiliated Non-Professional Colleges, it provides only the qualification as follows: _4. Teachers of Affiliated Non-professional Arts and Science Colleges xxxxxxxxxx (1) Principal (i) A Master’s Degree with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) of this University or an Indian / Foreign University recognized as equivalent thereto; (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 Regulations in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges._ _(2) The qualifications for appointment and promotion of teachers in non-professional Arts & Science Colleges shall be as per Regulation 3 and 7._ Method of appointment is not provided in the case of Principals of Non- Professional Colleges. With respect to the Principals in Professional Colleges, it provides the following: W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 25 _5. (b) Teachers in Affiliated Professional Colleges—Engineering Colleges_ _(A) Engineering and Technology Discipline (B) Biotechnology (Engg. and Tech.) Discipline_ ## _C. Principal_ _Method of Appointment: By promotion from the category of Professors Qualifications: xxxxxxxxxx_ 22. The constitution of selection committees for appointment to various posts by direct recruitment and by CAS promotion are given in Regulation 12 , as provided in the UGC Regulations. The selection procedure provided therein are also as contained in the UGC Regulations 2010, as it then existed. Regulation 14 relates to Professors in Colleges as provided in the UGC Regulations. At the same time clause 15 of the amendment Regulations provide that in the event of any consistency in the University Regulations with the provisions of the Government orders by which UGC Regulations 2010 were implemented, ie G.O. (P) No. 58/2010/H.Edn. dated 27-3-2010 and G. O. (P) No. 389/10/H.Edn. dated 7-12-2010 would override the provisions in the University Regulations. Clause 16 provides that for fixing qualification to various posts by direct recruitment to the University or affiliated colleges, the modifications, additions, deletion or clarifications made by the apex statutory bodies like UGC, AICTE, IMC or Bar Council etc. shall be made applicable to the regulations and such modifications issued shall be reported to the Academic Council and shall form part of the regulation. 23. The provisions in the UGC Regulations as well as those in University W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 26 Regulations with respect to the qualification, method of appointment etc. are identical and both these Regulations do not provide for appointment of Principal based on promotion or such promotion based on seniority, though Section 57(3) of the Calicut University Act continues to be the same. Section 57(2) and (3) of the Calicut University Act read as follows: _(2) Appointment of Principal shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among teachers of the College or of all the Colleges as the case may be, or by direct recruitment. (3) Where appointment of Principal is made by promotion, the educational agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority cum fitness._ 24. Petitioner claims promotion in accordance with Section 57(2) and (3). Petitioner also complains that there is considerable difference in the PBAS of 2014 Regulations than those prescribed by UGC after the 2016 amendments by way of Exts.P17 and P18 and those alterations are not incorporated in the University Regulations. In view of the findings on other contentions, I find it unnecessary to go into those contentions. A reading of the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations 2010 as well as the amendment regulations 2016-Exts.P17 and P18 issued thereafter would show that the UGC Regulations do not envisage an appointment to the post of Principal by promotion. 25. However, the University Act under Section 57(3) of the Act, provides for appointment of Principals by promotion, on seniority cum fitness basis. At the same time, minimum qualification is insisted under University Regulations as prescribed in the UGC Regulations. The UGC Regulations provide for appointments either by direct recruitment or CAS only, which is personal. It is W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 27 pertinent to note that the direct recruitment envisaged in UGC Regulations as well as UGC Regulations is to be made by all India advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible hands. The University Regulations also provides for such a direct recruitment only and both the Regulations are silent on the method to be adopted in the case of promotion to the post of Principals. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner if the method adopted was by direct recruitment as provided in UGC Regulations it should have been made after issuing notification in newspapers inviting applications from open market. Such a procedure is not followed in the present case. The appointment is made from among the qualified hands under the 1st respondent management, on evaluation of comparative merit. As such a provision is not contemplated in the UGC Regulations, the provisions contained in the University Act as well as the Regulations have to be read together and appointment is to be made from among the qualified hands in accordance with Section 57 of the Calicut University Act, based on seniority cum fitness. 26. The stand of the management that when UGC Regulations itself are issued in order to improve the standards of higher education and merit is the only consideration for any appointment under the UGC Regulations and that if at all seniority is to be reckoned that can only be merit cum seniority, cannot be accepted in the absence of any provision for the same in the Regulation and when there is a provision in the Act concerning the same. However the management cannot be W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 28 found fault with for adopting the procedure, as they were instructed to do so by the University in Ext.R2(b) letter. It is also correct that the intent of UGC is also to find out meritorious persons in the field of teaching. However in the absence of a provision for the same in the UGC Regulations, the instruction of the University as well as consequential action by respondents 1 and 2 are not in accordance with law. As already found there is nothing in the UGC Regulations which provides for appointment of a Principal by way of promotion. 27. Though it was argued that appointment as Principal is to be governed by UGC Regulations as held in _**Radhakrishna Pillai V Travancore Devaswom Board: 2016 (2) KLT 245**_ , the question whether the appointment of Principal is to be made on seniority cum fitness or whether it is to be made on comparative assessment of merit alone, did not arise for consideration in that case. The question considered therein was with respect to the qualification. Therefore it cannot be said that the entire issue is covered by the said judgment or by the UGC Regulations alone. Even though it was held that UGC Regulations will override the provisions in the State enactment, in the absence of a provision in the UGC Regulations which restricts that appointment of Principals in affiliated Colleges shall be made based on assessment of comparative merit only, even for appointments made on promotion, it cannot be said that the provisions in the UGC Regulations override the provisions in Section 57(2) or (3) of the Act. In this case appointment of Principal is not made by direct recruitment, in which event the zone of W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 29 consideration would not have been limited to the willing Professors or Associate Professors under respondents 1 and 2. Therefore if at all the University had directed respondents 1 and 2 in Ext.R2(b) letter to conduct the selection on the basis of merit it was not in tune with either the UGC Regulations or in tune with the provisions in the University Act 1975. Therefore it has to be concluded that a Professor/Associate Professor who is having the qualification prescribed in Regulation 4.2.0 of UGC Regulation 2010 i.e with 55% marks in PG Degree with Ph.D in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline with a total experience of 15 years in teaching/research/administration in Universities, colleges and other institutions of higher education and with minimum score as stipulated in API (Academic Performance Indicator) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) as set out in UGC Regulation in Appendix-III for direct recruitment of Professors would be eligible for appointment based on seniority cum fitness. The selection committee shall be constituted in tune with UGC Regulation 2010 as amended by Exts.P17 and P18 and the API scores shall be assessed by the said committee as provided in Regulation 6.0.9 read with 6.0.2 of Ext.P7, as amended at the relevant time i.e in Exts.P17 and P18. 28. The contention that in the absence of allegation of malafides against the selection committee interference is not warranted is unsustainable in a case where the selection is made contrary to the provisions in the University Act on misinterpretation of the UGC regulations. Of course respondents 1 and 2 have W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 30 acted in accordance with the instructions received from the University. I have found that the instruction of the University to make appointments based on comparative merit was not correct. Though UGC Regulations give predominance to merit, when there is a provision in the Act providing for a particular mode for appointment and when there is no provision in the UGC regulation which deals with such appointments to be made by promotion, no appointment can be made contrary to the provisions in the University Act, as long as the said field is not occupied by the provisions in the UGC Regulations. The position would have definitely been otherwise, in case there was any provision in the regulations relating to the appointment of Principals by promotion or restricting such appointments by direct recruitment alone. If it was by direct recruitment a selection as conducted would also have been contrary to the said regulation. In fact the UGC Regulations or the University Regulations do not provide for an appointment to the post of Principal in a non-professional/Arts and Science College from among the teachers within a management alone by way of direct recruitment. It does not provide for an appointment by promotion also. 29. In this view of the matter the appointment to the post of Principal in Arts and Science Colleges/ affiliated Colleges, if not made by direct recruitment, has to be made by promotion based on seniority cum fitness from among the teachers having all the qualifications prescribed in Regulation 6.02, as assessed by the duly constituted selection committee, as provided in Regulation 6.0.9 of Ext P7 and as W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 31 amended from time to time i.e in Exts.P17 and P18.. 30. The judgment in _**J.B. Educational Society's case (supra),**_ relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is relevant in this context. There the apex court was considering a case where the private educational institutions, wanted to establish engineering colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Though they had got approval from the AICTE for the academic year 1997-98, the applications submitted by them under Section 20 of the State Act for permission to establish the institution was rejected on the ground that there was no educational need in that locality, as there were a number of colleges. The contention of the petitioners was that once they got approval from AICTE, no permission was required from the State Government, in view of Section 10 of the AICTE Act. Under Section 20 of the AP Act, permission from State Government is necessary for establishment of educational institution and such permission would be granted only if Government is satisfied of the educational need as provided in Section 20(3). Education comes under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and AICTE Act is enacted under Entry 65 and 66 of List I, the apex court found that the provisions in the AICTE Act or the Regulations framed thereunder are not in conflict with the provisions in the State enactment and that each of the provisions occupy the respective field. In paragraphs 10 and 12 of the judgment it was held as follows: > _10. There is no doubt that both Parliament and the State Legislature are supreme in their respective assigned fields. It is the duty of the court to interpret the legislations made by Parliament and the State Legislature in such a manner as to avoid any conflict. However, if the conflict is unavoidable, and the two enactments are irreconcilable, then by the force of the non obstante clause in_ W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 32 _clause (1) of Article 246, the parliamentary legislation would prevail notwithstanding the exclusive power of the State Legislature to make a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List. Xxxxxxxxxx_ _12. Thus, the question of repugnancy between the parliamentary legislation and the State legislation can arise in two ways. First, where the legislations, though enacted with respect to matters in their allotted sphere, overlap and conflict. Second, where the two legislations are with respect to matters in the Concurrent List and there is a conflict. In both the situations, parliamentary legislation will predominate, in the first, by virtue of the non obstante clause in Article 246(1), in the second, by reason of Article 254(1). Clause (2) of Article 254 deals with a situation where the State legislation having been reserved and having obtained President’s assent, prevails in that State; this again is subject to the proviso that Parliament can again bring a legislation to override even such State legislation._ It was found that Section 20 of the A.P. Act does not encroach upon any of the powers of the Central Govt. under the AICTE Act or its Regulations and that the provisions in Section 20 of the State Act and in Section 10 of the Central Act operate in different fields and there is no repugnancy between the two provisions. 31. In the present case it is seen that there is no provision in the University Act overlapping with any of the provisions in the UGC Regulation with respect to the appointment of Principal in non-professional Colleges. There is no provision in the UGC Regulations, which provides that appointment of Principals shall be made only by direct recruitment. What is provided is the manner in which direct recruitment is to be made to the post of Principal. Admittedly no such method is adopted in the present case and nobody has a case that the appointments are made by direct recruitment. If that method was adopted there would not be a question of selection from among the teachers under an educational agency alone. In the absence of such a provision the appointment of Principals have to be made from W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 33 among those who are having all the minimum qualifications as well as API score determined by the selection committees; from among those having all those qualifications and having the API scores as provided in Regulation 6.02 in accordance with Regulation 6.09 and the relevant table in the Appendix as provided in the regulations and appointment shall be made in accordance with seniority cum fitness as provided in Section 57(2) and (3) of the Act. Such appointments would not be in any way repugnant to the UGC Regulations. In that event the petitioner was entitled to be promoted against the 2[nd] vacancy which was filled up on 17.05.2018. 32. In the judgment in _**Deepak Agarwal and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : 2011 (6) SCC 725,**_ relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that the rules in force on the date of consideration would be the relevant one. In the present case the law applicable would be those available in Ext P7 as amended in Ext P17 and P18 regulations. 33. On a meticulous examination of the provisions in UGC Regulations, no provision is seen there providing for appointment to the post of Principal by promotion. Therefore as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Section 57(2) and (3) shall hold the field as there is no provision in the regulation which is in conflict with the University Act. 34. Therefore I find it necessary that the respondents 1 and 2 shall see that rank list is redrawn based on seniority. As all the persons included in Ext P13 list W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 34 are those who are found fit it is only to be recast in accordance with seniority. Promotion shall be made thereafter from the rank list with effect from the dates on which the promotions were already made. In that event petitioner would be entitled to promotion from 17.05.2018 and she will be entitled to all consequential benefits except for the pay and allowances attached to the post. Therefore Ext P13 rank list shall stand set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to recast the rank list in accordance with seniority of the candidates and thereafter to grant promotions accordingly. Petitioner would be entitled to be promoted with effect from 17.05.2018 and she shall be granted all consequential benefits, except monetary benefits for the period upto her retirement. The entire process shall be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. _**(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)** rtr/rkc_ 35 W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 23.2.2018.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.E/1771/2018 DATED 17.3.2018.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL LETTER DATED 5.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 25.4.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.5.2018 FROM THE NSS COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY ACT 1975. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET USED BY THE NSS COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY ORDER FOR SELECTION OF PRINCIPALS. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REGULATION 2014 OF UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT WITH APPENDIX III TABLE II(C).** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET FORMAT PREPARED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DIRECT PAYMENT AGREEMENT.** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE.** W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 36 |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED**| |---|---| ||**TO 5TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED**| ||**TO 6TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED**| ||**TO 7TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE UGC REGULATION 2016 (3RD**| ||**AMENDMENT)**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPY OF THE UGC REGULATION 2016 (4TH**| ||**AMENDMENT)**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.**| |**EXHIBIT P20**|**TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED UNDER THE**| ||**RTI ACT.**| |**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT CURRICULUM VITAE OF**| ||**THE PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER ITEMS.**| **EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DT.15.10.18 SUBMITTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.** **EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RTI DT.15.12.18** **EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF KERALA SERVICE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2012** **EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE SANCTION ORDER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE NSS COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE** **EXT.P27: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.15921/D1/2015/H.EDN DT.8.10.15** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:** **EXT.R1A: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.12.3.18 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXT.R1B: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY DT.6.4.18 SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXT.R1C: TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE** W.P.(C).No.35765 of 2018-U 37 **FOR SELECTION OF PRINCIPALS OF NSS COLLEGES DT.5.5.18** **EXT.R1D: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F/4477/2018 DT.24.7.18 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXT.R5A: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE PARTICULARS** **EXT.R5B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DT.14.9.15**