The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment to public service must adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity under Art.16(1) of the Constitution and must not be a result of an abuse of executive power.

1. These two Original Petitions arise out of the same facts, and they seek a common relief. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1211 is a first Grade Professor of Zoology in the University College, Trivandrum; and the petitioner in O. P. No. 1792 is a First Grade Professor of Chemistry in Maharaja's College, Ernakulam. Both of them are in the service of the State of Kerala. At the time of filing O. P. 1211, the petitioner in this Original Petition was the senior-most in that Grade. According to the petitioner in O. P. No 1792, there has been a subsequent correction in the seniority list of the First Grade Professors, as a result of which he became the seniormost. It is not clear whether there is a controversy between them regarding seniority. However, that question does not arise in these cases. The respondents in both the cases are the same. Arguments were advanced before me only in O. P. No. 1792 of 1967; and it was agreed at the hearing that O. P. No. 1211 can be disposed of in accordance with my judgment in the other case. I shall, therefore, be dealing with the contentions of parties in this judgment with reference to the pleadings and the documents filed in O. P. 1792.

2. The first respondent in O. P. No. 1792 was formerly the Principal of a private college, called the Guruvayurappan Collage, at Calicut. The second respondent is the State of Kerala. By an order of the Government of Kerala, Ex. P.1 dated 10-4-'67, the first Respondent was appointed as Principal of the Government College, Calicut, on contract basis for a period of three years from the date of his joining duty. O. P. No. 1211 whs filed on 24-4-1967 to quash the said order; and the petitioner in that case obtained from this Court on 25-4-1967 an interim order, staying the operation of the said order. Hence Ex. P.1 could non be implemented; In the meanwhile, a vacancy arose in the Principal's post in the Government College, Kasargod. The first respondent was, therefore, appointed by the Government to that post, by an order Ex. P2 dated 8-6-1957. This was also on contract basis; and Ex. C 1 dated 12-6-1967 is a copy of the agreement executed between the respondents, and containing the terras and conditions of the appointment. By an order Ex. P-3 dated 20-3-1967, the Government of Kerala have in consultation with the Public Service Commission, prescribed the qualifications for, and the method of recruitment to, the post of Principals in Government Colleges. The post is admittedly a selection post; but the appointment is made by promotion from among I Grade Professors, having the prescribed qualifications. The petitioners are the senior-most among the professors in the First Grade; and both of them have the requisite qualifications. The petitioner in O. P. No. 1792 has also acted as principal of the Maharaja's College, Ernakulam on an earlier occasion. It is, therefore, claimed by them that both of them have the right to be considered for appointment as Principal, and that one or the other of them would have been appointed as principal, if the first respondent was not appointed as stated above, when a vacancy arose in that post. The petitioners contended that the appointment of the first respondent as per Exs. P.1 and P. 2 is null and void on the ground (i) it is violative of Art.16 (1) of the Constitution, and (ii) it is a mala fide exercise of executive power of the Government. Accordingly they have filed these Original Petitions to quash the appointment of the first respondent as College Principal in the service of the Government.

3. Art.16 (1) reads:

"16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State".

The scope and ambit of the fundamental right guaranteed by this Article have been well-settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court. In General Manager, Southern Railway and another v. Rangachari AIR. 196