Dr. Thara K. Simon v. Mahatma Gandhi University & Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM** **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28807/2018(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:** **DR.THARA K.SIMON, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.DR.JACOB ELIAS, RESIDING AT POOMTHOTTAM,12,JYOTHIR NAGAR, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA-680 102** **BY ADVS. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARHSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR** - **2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560** - **3 THE UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, ALUVA,POST BOX NO.5, ALUVA-683 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER** - **4 DR.SABU THOMAS, PRO-VICE CHANCELLOR, MG UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560** - **5 RAMESH RAGHAVAN , DEPUTY REGISTRAR I (ACADEMIC),IN THE CHARGE OF REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTYAM-686 560** **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **2** **6 DR.P.K.PADMAKUMAR, CONVENOR, SYNDICATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROVAL, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, NSS HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY, RESIDING AT VELLIKKARA NELLICKAL ITHITHANAM.P.O.,M KOTTAYAM-689 648** - **7 DR.A.M.THOMAS,** **DIRECTOR ,INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, DEAN OF FACULTY ,PROFESSOR AND HEAD, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND POLITICS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686 560** **8 DR.B.PRAKSH KUMAR, MEMBER,INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PROFESSOR , SCHOOL OF BIOSCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686 560** - **9 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION(UGC), BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI110002,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **10 CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY ,(HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR),RAJ BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **11 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCTION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690 001** ## **12 DR.ANIL THOMAS KOSHY, AGED 53 YEARS** - **S/O.T.N.KOSHY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, U.C.COLLEGE, ALUVA, RESIDING AT THOPPIL, VALLIYAPPAN PADI,U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 102** ## **13 DR.DAVID SAJ MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS** **S/O.P.T.MATHEW, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY, U.C.COLLEGE, ALUVA, RESIDING AT PULIKKAPARAMBIL,FATHIMA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 005 (ADDL.R12 AND R13 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/09/2018 IN IA NO.01/2018)** **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **3** **14 MUSE MARY GEORGE, W/O. MATHEW JACOB,MALLOTHRA HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 513 (ADDL.R14 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/09/2018 IN IA NO.02/2018)** **R1 BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE R3 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI R12-13 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R12-13 BY ADV. SRI.JAIBY PAUL R14 BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS** **R11 BY GP-SRI, SYAMJI RAM , R10 SMT. M.U. VIJAYALEKHMI, CHANCELLOR R9 SRI-S.KRISHNAMOORTHY,CGC-** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **4** ## **C.K. ABDUL REHIM** ## **& R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.** **--------------------------------------------** W.A No. 1311 of 2019 **-----------------------------------------------** _Dated this the 14[th] day of June, 2019_ ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Abdul Rehim,J** The petitioner in WP(C) No. 28807/2018 is challenging judgment of the Single Judge, dated 23.01.2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. 2. Issue relates to approval of appointment of the appellant as Principal of the 3[rd] respondent College. Through Ext.P12 order dated 02.06.2018, the 1[st] respondent University rejected approval of the appointment by stating the reason that the appointment is not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010. Evidently, the reference is to Ext.P10, the “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010” (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Regulations' for short). Ext.P12 decision of the University was challenged by the appellant in an earlier writ petition filed before this Court, WP(C) No. **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **5** 18732/2018. In Ext.P13 judgment this Court found that, the order passed by the University is cryptic and non-speaking and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, Ext.P12 was set aside and the University was directed to issue a reasoned order on the question of approval of the appointment, in accordance with law and to communicate the same to the petitioner, within ten days. Ext.P13 judgment was slightly modified through a subsequent order passed by this Court on 26.06.2018, wherein the University was directed to afford the appellant as well as the 3[rd] respondent an opportunity of being heard, before taking a decision. The time limit stipulated for taking such decision was extended for a period of one month. In compliance with the direction issued by this Court in WP(C) No. 18732/2018, the 1[st] respondent University issued Ext.P17 order, dated 10.08.2018. It is evident that the University appointed an Expert Committee, presumably to evaluate the eligibility/qualification of the appellant. The committee in turn submitted a report, which was accepted by a sub-committee of the syndicate and recommended refusal of approval of the appointment. The said decision was approved by the Vice Chancellor, the 2[nd] respondent herein, and the same was communicated as per Ext.P17. The appellant again challenged Ext.P17 in the present writ petition, which culminated in **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **6** the judgment impugned herein. 3. The learned Single Judge found that the University was entitled to prescribe norms contained in the UGC Regulations for selection and appointment to be made to the post of Principal. It was further found that the 3[rd] respondent Management ought to have scrutinized the qualifications and eligibility of the chosen candidate. Finding is to the effect that, eventhough the 3[rd] respondent is a minority education institution, they have to specify themselves that the chosen candidate is having all the necessary qualifications and eligibility as per the UGC Regulations. It was found that, the role of the University is only to review the decision of the management in order to ensure that the selection is made in compliance with the UGC Regulations. In the case at hand, it was found that the management had not done their job in satisfaction with respect to assessment of the appellant's “Academic Performance Indicator (API)” based on the “Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS)”, as set out in the UGC Regulations. The learned Single Judge found that there exists a dispute pertaining to the assessment of the API score of the appellant. It was also found that, there occurred a failure on the part of the management in keeping a systematic updation of the quality assessment of the credentials of the candidate, as required to be done **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **7** by the “Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)”, as stipulated in the UGC Regulations. Therefore it was found that a fresh decision need to be taken after setting aside the impugned order of the University by way of reconsideration of the assessment through IQAC. But it was found that, there is no systematic up-keeping of the credentials based on the IQAC system. Eventhough the management offered that there may not be any difficulty for the College to have an independent assessment based on PBAS, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that, in order to avoid further delay in the matter, it is appropriate for the PBAS proforma of the appellant is screened by a three member committee of experts appointed by the court. The 3[rd] respondent management was directed to meet the expenses of the committee. The committee appointed as above was directed to evaluate the PBAS proforma of the appellant in order to find out the API score, in accordance with the UGC Regulations. The committee appointed by this Court was directed to complete the exercise within six weeks and to communicate this report to the University, as well as to the appellant and the Manager. It was specifically directed that the committee has to afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A general direction was also issued to the UGC to ensure that all affiliated colleges strictly follows the UGC Regulations which mandated **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **8** maintaining of IQAC. 4. The impugned judgment is assailed mainly contending that, the UGC Regulations need not be followed in the matter of appointment of the appellant as Principal, because it is by way of a promotion as contemplated under Section 59(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (the 'University Act', for short). Contention raised by Sri P. Raveendran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant is basically that, the UGC Regulations do not contemplate promotions as a method of appointment to the post of Principal and therefore the stipulations in UGC Regulations will not apply in the case of appointment of a Principal through the method of promotion. Referring to sub-section(3) of Section 5 of the University Act, it is pointed out that, the educational agency is bound to make the appointment based on seniority-cum-fitness. With respect to applicability of the UGC Regulations for appointment to the post of Principal by way of promotion, the learned Single Judge found that, the University is competent to prescribe norms in accordance with the UGC Regulations. It was further noted that, the UGC standards are only minimum standards and that the University can prescribe any higher standard. Therefore it was held that, the prescription of qualification contained in the University Regulations stipulates API **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **9** score of 800 and that the Principal can be appointed only if the candidate specifies the said norms. 5. At the first instance, we may deal with the applicability of the UGC Regulations to the colleges under the 1[st] respondent University. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent had drawn our attention to Ext.P26 order passed by the University, dated 01.02.2017 (G.O No.614/B1/academic/2017). It is stated therein that, the University had decided to apply UGC Regulations with respect to the direct recruitment of Principals in all the affiliated colleges, from 23.02.2016. With respect to appointment by way of promotion, it is made clear that the criteria prescribed under the University Act, which is seniority-cum-fitness, is to be followed and Regulations 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations with respect to basic qualifications, need to be followed. Evidently, Ext.P26 order was issued on the basis of the directions contained in a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in **Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2016(2) KLT 245 (F.B)].** While deciding the issue, the Full Bench referred to an order passed by the State Government, G.O(P) No.392/2010/H.Edn.dated 10.12.2010. By the said order, the Government had taken decision to approve and to implement the UGC Regulations as such and it was decided that the **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **10** Regulations will come into force with effect from 18.09.2010. All the Universities in the State was directed to incorporate the UGC Regulations in their Statutes and Regulations, within a period of one month. In the Full Bench decision in **Radhakrishnan Pillai's** case (supra), the issue adjudicated was whether the affiliated colleges in the Universities within the State are bound to comply with the UGC Regulations, irrespective of whether the particular University had enacted any statute or regulations in consonance with the UGC Regulations. It was held that, in view of adoption made by the State Government with effect from 18.09.2010, as per the Government Order referred above, the Universities and affiliated colleges within the State are bound to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010. Therefore we are of the considered opinion that, in view of the dictum contained in the decision in **Radhakrishnan Pillai's** case (supra) and in view of the Government Order referred above, no contention can be sustained that the UGC Regulations are not applicable with respect to the 1[st] respondent University or to the 3[rd] respondent college. 6. A further distinction canvassed by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that, Regulation 4.2.0 prescribed in the UGC Regulations would apply only for direct recruitment to the post of Principal, because the UGC Regulations does not contemplate **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **11** appointment to the post of Principal through promotion. But such a contention cannot be accepted in view of Ext.P26, in which the University had clarified that, in view of adoption the UGC Regulations for appointment to the post of Principal by way of promotion, the basic qualification stipulated in Regulation 4.2.0 need to be adhered. Eventhough it was contended that the prescription in Ext.P26 will amount to an addition to the provisions contained in Section 59(3) of the University Act, we are not persuaded to accept the same,in view of the fact that the Regulations were insisted to be adopted by the University and the Colleges, by virtue of the decision of this Court and also by virtue of the orders passed by the State Government. Moreover, we take note of the fact that any such specific contention was not seen raised with respect to validity of the prescriptions contained in Ext.P26, in the earlier round of litigations. 7. Yet another contention raised by the appellant is that, subclause (iv) of Regulations 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations is not a basic qualification, coming within the purview of the insistence contained in Ext.P26 order of the University. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that, Regulation 4.2.0 insist upon the qualification required for appointment of Principal through the method prescribed in the UGC Regulations. Clause (i) therein insist that the candidate should hold a **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **12** Master's Degree with at least 55% marks. Clause (ii) insists that the candidate should have a Ph.D degree in the concerned discipline. Clause (iii) insists that the candidate should be an Assistant Professor or a Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching/research/administration. Clause (iv) insists that the candidate should have a minimum score of API based on PBAS, as set out in Appendix-III of the Regulation, for direct recruitment as Professors in Colleges. We do not find any explicit distinction of clause (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) in Regulation 4.2.0, to hold that the minimum qualification score stipulated with respect to API as enumerated in the Appendix is not a basic qualification. 8. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant made a further attempt to convince that, the insistence of API score based on PBAS enumerated in Appendix III of the UGC Regulations is different with respect to direct recruitment and promotion. It is pointed out that the two tables contained in Appendix III, labelled as Table II(a) and II(b) are different in the insistence of minimum score. But we notice that clause (iv) of Regulation 4.2.0 specifies that the minimum API Score based on PBAS should be set out in the Regulations in Appendix III for direct recruitment of Professors in colleges. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the minimum API score insisted upon Appendix-II in the **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **13** table stipulated for direct recruitment, should be the basic qualification with respect to the API score for promotion to the post of Principal. There is no doubt that at the time when the appellant was appointed as Principal, the minimum score required under clause (iv) of Regulation 4.2.0 was 400. 9. The question now to be examined is whether Ext.P17 order passed by the University is sustainable based on the hallenges on other counts. It is evident that Ext.P12 order passed by the University on an earlier occasion was set aside by this court, based on the finding that there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The said order was found to be cryptic and one passed without application of mind. Hence this court specifically directed the University to pass a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and to the Manager of the college. As evident from Ext.P17, after the judgment in WP(C) No. 18732/2018, the University had afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant had submitted a statement before the 2[nd] respondent, on 6.07.2018, in which she had raised a contention that she is fully qualified to be promoted as Principal. She had also taken a contention that the minimum API score based on PBAS is not at all a required qualification for her **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **14** appointment as Principal by way of promotion. Further it is stated, that even assuming that minimum API score is applicable, she has got an API score of 1120. It is also evident that she submitted a further representation to the Pro-Vice Chancellor dated 07.07.2018, wherein she had produced some additional documents in order to facilitate an assessment of her API score. The list of the enclosures produced along with the said representation is enumerated therein. On a perusal of Ext.P17, it is evident that, after affording a personal hearing to the appellant, the University had taken a decision to entrust the assessment of the qualification to an Expert Committee. The report submitted by the Expert Committee is extracted in total in Ext.P17. The conclusions of the Expert Committee is that, the appellant has only an aggregate API score of 273 from the different categories, whereas the minimum requirement under UGC Regulations is 400. As evident from Ext.P17, the report of the Expert Committee was approved as such by the Sub-Committee of the syndicate constituted for approval of the appointments, through its resolutions dated 14.08.2018. It is further stated that the said resolution was accepted by the Vice Chancellor and hence the approval was declined. 10. The appellant seriously disputed correctness of the findings assigned by the Expert Committee, with respect to assessment of the **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **15** API score. One among her contention was that, the assessment of API score was done by the Expert Committee without affording her an opportunity to present her case, based on the documents produced. It is also contended that a report of the Expert Committee was not furnished to her, nor she was afforded with any opportunity to object correctness of the findings contained therein. It is equally contended that the University had failed to afford her with any opportunity of hearing, after receipt of the report of the Expert Committee. As evident from the findings arrived by the learned Single Judge, this court had accepted the fact that there exist a dispute with respect to assessment of API score based on the PBAS. Finding of the learned Single Judge is that the assessment should have been made by the management. It is based on the assessment of the “Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)”, which in turn should have been based on the credentials systematically opted with respect to the teaching staff. Therefore it was found that the appraisal can be possible only based on the proforma given by the appellant following PBAS. For making such appraisal, the learned Single Judge had constituted an Expert Committee. The appellant is assailing such method adopted by the learned Judge in directing the committee to make re-appraisal and directing the University to accept the findings of such committee. **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **16** 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent University contended that, the appraisal of the Academic Performance Indicators (API) score was done by the Expert Committee appointed by the Syndicate in a proper manner based on Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), following the parameters contained in the UGC Regulations (as amended) which provides the methodology for such appraisal. Therefore, it is contended that, the report of the Expert Committee, which is extracted in Ext.P17 order, does not suffer from any infirmity, is the contention. 12. On the contrary, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant pointed out that, as per the statement submitted before the University supported by all the relevant documents, the appellant claimed that she is entitled for a total API score of 1218. The reasons mentioned by the Expert Committee in reducing the score to a total of 273 was not correct, and is contrary to the norms and guidelines governing such assessment. It is further pointed out that pursuant to the impugned judgment, the committee formed by this Court had evaluated the proforma furnished by the appellant and the score was assessed at 351. However, contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the University is that, the assessment of API score done by the Expert Committee appointed by the Syndicate cannot be **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **17** accepted, as the appraisal was done in a unilateral manner, without affording any opportunity to the appellant. Further, against the findings arrived by the learned Single Judge that the appraisal cannot be accepted, the University has not raised any challenge. So the issue to be decided now reduce down to the question as to whether the learned Judge was right in constituting a committee for reappraisal of the API score. From the impugned judgment it is not discernible as to how the members of the committee constituted was elected. Nor the judgment reflects any observation that the committee was constituted on a consensus of all the parties. The fact with respect to the consent for nominating the members in the committee constituted, is in dispute between the parties herein. The appellant had raised a specific challenge against the decision of the Single Judge in appointing such an Expert Committee, without deciding the question of applicability of the UGC Regulations. However, learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent University contended that, consequent to the impugned judgment, the Expert Committee appointed by this Court had evaluated the matter, with active participation of the appellant, who was afforded with an opportunity of hearing. It is pointed out that, only after the committee had come out with its report to the effect that the appellant had failed in achieving the **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **18** requisite API score of 400, that she had chosen to file the above writ appeal. But we are of the considered opinion that, the participation of the appellant in the evaluation made by the Expert Committee constituted by this court, by itself will not preclude her from challenging the judgment in this writ appeal. 13. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent College that, the appellant had challenged the order of termination passed by the 3[rd] respondent, based on the report of the Expert Committee constituted by this Court, in a separate writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel had further raised a contention that the appellant had not raised any specific ground in the Memorandum of writ appeal against constitution of the Expert Committee by this Court. However, we take note of the fact that the learned Single Judge had already quashed Ext.P17 proceedings of the University. Therefore, it is necessary to have a reappraisal of the eligibility of the appellant, in order to decide the question as to whether her appointment can be approved or not. In that adjudication, it becomes relevant as to what should be the method through which such reappraisal need to be done. We are of the considered opinion that, the approval of appointment is a matter which comes within the competence of the University. Decision in this **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **19** regard need to be taken by the Syndicate or by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of power under Section 10(17) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act,1985. In the case at hand, if the court finds that the decision taken in this regard by the Syndicate or by the Vice Chancellor is illegal or erroneous in any manner, proper course ought to have been adopted is to remit the matter back to the University for taking a proper decision in a legally acceptable manner. We find that there was no need for this Court to constitute a committee of its own, to make a reappraisal. Such a course adopted by the learned Single Judge will amount to permitting an external authority to usurp into the powers vested on the University. On an active consideration of the factual situations prevailing, we are of the opinion that Ext.P17 order passed by the University suffers from illegality and impropriety, apart from it violates principles of natural justice. When the appellant claimed API score of 1218 based on proforma submitted with supporting documents, its evaluation ought to have been made with opportunity of hearing afforded to her, especially when the committee found that the claim made is not sustainable and the allowable score is only 273. Further, before accepting the report of the Expert Committee, the University ought to have supplied a copy of the report of the committee to the appellant and could have afforded her with **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **20** an opportunity to file objections, if any against such report. Since these requisite formalities and procedures were not complied with, mere acceptance of the report made by the Vice Chancellor based on the recommendation of the sub committee, cannot be sustained as legal and proper. We think it only appropriate to direct the competent authority in the University to afford the appellant with an opportunity to question correctness of the appraisal made by the Expert Committee. It is just and proper that the competent authority in the University shall look into such objections and to take an appropriate decision based on the parameters settled through the UGC Regulations for appraisal of the API score based on Performance Based Appraisal System(PBAS). 14. Based on the above mentioned conclusions, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned herein. Accordingly, the writ appeal is hereby allowed and the writ petition is also allowed. Ext.P17 order passed by the University rejecting approval of the appointment of the appellant as Principal is hereby quashed. The 1[st] respondent University is directed to reconsider the matter and to take fresh decision. The appellant shall submit her objections against the report of the Expert Committee with respect to appraisal of API score made therein, to the 1[st] respondent, along with a copy of this judgment, **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **21** within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. 15. The competent authority in the University, who is vested with powers for approval of appointment shall consider such objections, vis-a-vis the report of the Expert Committee, on the basis of the UGC Regulations-4[th] amendment, which came into effect as on 11[th] July, 2016, and which provides the guidelines (parameters) for appraisal of the API score. A decision in this regard shall be taken after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. Needless to observe that, if the competent authority arrives at a conclusion that the appellant is lacking the requisite API score of 400, as on the date on which she was appointed as Principal of the College, the authority will be entitled to refuse approval of the appointment. On the other hand, if it is found that the appellant satisfies the requisite score, the appointment should be approved. 16. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the report submitted by the Expert Committee appointed by this court, the 3[rd] respondent had already terminated the appellant from the post of Principal. It is also mentioned that now the charge of the Principal is assigned to another Associate Professor, the 13[th] respondent herein. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to maintain _status quo_ as such, till the University takes a **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **22** final decision in accordance with the directions contained hereinabove and the same is communicated to the appellant and to the 3[rd] respondent. **Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE** **Sd/-R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** lsn/dst **WA.No.1311 OF 2019** **23** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE UGC REGULATIONS AS AMENDED IN 2013 NOTIFIED BY NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.F1-2/2009 (EC/PS) V (I) VOL-II DTD 13.06.2013** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **LSN**