JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

By these two writs petitions, the petitioners have challenged the Constitutional validity of Clause 5.1.6(d) of the University Grants Commission Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointments of teachers and other academic staff in the Universities and Colleges and measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010. The petitioners have prayed for striking down of the said Clause as being arbitrary and hence, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioners that introduction of the said Clause and its subsequent amendment has the result of converting permanent post of Principal of a College to a tenure post of 5 years and up to a maximum of 10 years, as opposed to the earlier position, whereby a Principal once appointed could continue on the said post, till attaining age of superannuation i.e. 62 years. According to the petitioners, introduction of the said Clause is not only arbitrary, but, it has no rational nexus to the purported objective of improving the standards of higher education and administration of Colleges.

2. The petitioners were appointed as Principals in various Colleges between the years 2012 to 2016 for five year terms as per the aforesaid Clause 5.1.6(d) of the said Regulations. The respondents submitted at the outset that since the term of 5 years of the petitioners was over, it was not necessary to consider challenge to the aforesaid Clause at the behest of such petitioners, whose terms of appointments were already over. But, the admitted facts on record do indicate that petitioner No.3 in Writ Petition No.1593/2017, was appointed on 08/08/2016 for 5 year term and petitioner No.5 in the said writ petition was appointed on 16/09/2016 for 5 year term and that, therefore, in so far as the aforesaid two petitioners are concerned, their term is still alive and challenge to the aforesaid Clause could certainly be considered at least at their behest. In any case, this Court is called upon to examine as to whether the aforesaid Clause is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, liable to be struck down. Such a challenge can certainly be considered by this Court and its implications for the individual petitioners would depend on the admitted facts regarding their terms of employment.

3. There was no restriction of tenure of appointment to the post of Principal to a College prior to introduction of Clause 5.1.6(d) of the aforesaid Regulations. The said clause was introduced by amendment in the year 2010, which specified that term of appointment of a College Principal shall be five years with eligibility of reappointment for only one more term after similar process of selection. A further amendment was introduced in the aforesaid Clause in the year 2016, as a result of which the said Clause reads as follows :

‘The term of appointment of College Principal shall be five years with eligibility for reappointment for one more term only after a Selection Committee process which shall take into account an external peer review, its recommendations and its outcomes. The framework of external peer review shall be specified by the UGC”.

4. As a consequence of introduction of the aforesaid Clause, the term of appointment of College Principal, which earlier used to be up to age of superannuation i.e. 62 years, stood reduced to a fixed period of five years with only one more term of five years and that too after facing similar selection process indicated in the aforesaid Clause. Thus, a College Principal once appointed could continue in the said post for a maximum of 10 years. It becomes apparent that the post of Principal now became a tenure post with maximum period restricted to 10 years.

5. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions submitted that the aforesaid Clause deserves to be struck down as unconstitutional, because it reduced the post of Principal to