The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of seniority and fair consideration based on seniority in the appointment process, as interpreted under Statute 18 of the University Act.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 8th April 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1st March, 2021 and directing the Cochin University of Science and Technology to nominate respondent no. 1 as Head of the Department (in short “HOD”)/Director of School of Management Studies of Cochin University.

3. The relevant facts in brief culled out from the record are that both the appellant and respondent no. 1 are members of the teaching faculty and the appellant is senior to respondent no. 1 as the appellant became Professor in April 2009, whereas respondent no. 1 on 1st October, 2013. Even otherwise, the seniority of the appellant qua respondent no. 1 is not in dispute.

4. In terms of Section 39(1) of the University Act, the Government of Kerala framed its Statute. That Statute 18 envisages the appointment of a Director/HOD. For appointment of the Director/HOD, the Syndicate shall nominate a teacher not below the rank of an Associate Professor with Ph.D or an equivalent post, as prescribed by UGC Regulations or Regulations based on seniority on a rotational basis for a period of three years. One Dr. Moli P. Koshy, the senior Professor in the School of Management was nominated by order dated 15th July, 2015 as HOD/Director of the School of Management Studies. He was relieved from the post of Director on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 6th December, 2017. The appellant, who was the next senior most Professor in queue, was eligible to be nominated by rotation as HOD. However, vide communication dated 18th July 2017, the appellant expressed his unwillingness because of his preoccupation in teaching and research. Taking into consideration the unwillingness expressed by the appellant at the given point of time, the next eligible Professor Dr. Mavoothu D. was nominated as Director/HOD by an Order dated 23rd November 2017 for a period of three years with effect from 7th December, 2017.

5. Before the term of Dr. Mavoothu D. of three years was going to expire, the appellant showed his willingness at that stage to consider him for appointment as Director/HOD and communicated the same to the Registrar of the University vide letter dated 26th June, 2020. At the same time, respondent no. 1 who was next to the appellant in seniority equally protested the claim of the appellant by a letter dated 3rd November, 2020.

6. The Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on 20th November, 2020, after taking note of Statute 18 (Agenda Item No. 681.18) observed that the relinquishment made by the appellant was specific to the nomination after the term of Dr. Moly P. Koshy and that was the reason Dr. Mavoothu D. was nominated for the post of HOD/Director. Taking note of Statute 18, the rotation begins according to seniority and not at the point at which earlier nomination was made. Hence, it is the appellant who has to be considered first and also noticed the number of precedents in the University where seniority was given preference and senior professors were nominated as HOD after they relinquished their actual chance. The reason behind is that the University gives paramount importance to academic and research work and doesn’t want to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior Professor when his turn arises but intend to nominate the teacher after those activities are over, and accordingly recommended the name of the appellant to be appointed as HOD.

7. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 20th November, 2020, the appellant was nominated as HOD for a period of three years by Order dated 27th November, 2020 and that became the subject matter of challenge by filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge of the High Court at the instance of respondent no. 1.

8. It reveals from t