Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No.12503/2007 are the appellants. The respondents are respectively, the writ petitioner and respondent No.4 in the said writ petition. The point that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the agreement executed between an appointee to the post of Principal in a Private College affiliated to the M.G. University and the management has the efficacy to curtail the period of appointment of that incumbent.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following: Mar Thoma College for Women, Perumbavoor is a Private College affiliated to the M.G. University. The educational agency of that College has entered into an agreement with the Government for direct payment of salary to the teaching and nonteaching staff of that College by the Government. A vacancy in the post of Principal arose in the College on 33.2003, as a result of the retirement of the then Principal. Though, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner was the senior-most qualified person to be promoted as Principal, Smt.Mariam Kuruvila Joseph, who was junior to her, was promoted to that post. The 1st respondent challenged the said appointment before the University Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 20.9.2004 in Appeal No.10/2003 set aside the promotion of the said Smt. Mariam Kuruvila Joseph and directed the Manager to promote the 1st respondent as the Principal of the College. The judgment of the University Appellate Tribunal was challenged by the 2nd appellant Manager in W.P. (C) No.30646/2004 and this Court stayed the judgment of the Tribunal. The appointment of Smt.Mariam Kuruvila Joseph was for a period of two years and therefore, she stepped down from the post of Principal on 33.2005. The Manager proceeded to make a fresh selection to the post of Principal. The 1st respondent was also asked to apply for the post. In reply, she made a written representation, stating that by virtue of the judgment of the University Appellate Tribunal, she was entitled to be promoted as Principal. Ext.P1 dated 16.3.2005 is the said representation made by her. Thereafter, a compromise was arrived at between the 1st respondent and the management and the management agreed to promote her as Principal, on condition that she will not insist for promotion to that post with effect from 33.2003. Accordingly, the 1st respondent was put in charge of the post of Principal on 4.2005. On 6.4.2005 she was offered regular appointment to the post of Principal by the Manager. At that time, she was required to sign an agreement, stating that her tenure as Principal would be for a period of one year from 6.4.2005. According to the 1st respondent, she was told that the agreement was only a precautionary measure and the same would never be implemented. Since she had no other option, in order to continue in the post of Principal in which she had been acting since 4.2005, she was compelled to sign the said agreement. True copy of the agreement dated 4.2005 is Ext.P2. The above said appointment order for one year was forwarded to the University for approval. Thereupon, the University issued Ext.P3 communication dated 17.5.2005 to the Manager, seeking clarification why the 1st respondent is appointed only for a period of one year, as her superannuation is only in the year 2014. The University also wanted to know the reason for restricting her period of appointment and whether she has relinquished her claim for appointment after 4.2006. Thereupon, the Manager issued Ext.P4 appointment order dated 4.2005, appointing the 1st respondent as Principal without any time limit. The 1st respondent submits, as a condition for issuing Ext.P4, she was compelled to sign Ext.P5 agreement dated 30.7.2005, agreeing to restrict her term of appointment as two years. Thereafter, the Manager forwarded Ext.P4 appointment order to the University and her appointment was approved by Ext.P6 order of the University dated 11.2005.

3. While so, on 13.2007 the