Manjula Chellur, C.J.

1. Appellant in W.A.No.766 of 2013 was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. He approached the learned Single Judge challenging appointment of the fifth respondent to the post of Director of the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute').

2. The undisputed facts placed before the Court, in brief, are as under: The writ petitioner was an Additional Professor in the service of the Institute, who was also one of the aspirants for the post of Director of the Institute in pursuance of Exhibit P1 notification. The fifth respondent initially was appointed as Lecturer in Neurology in the Institute and worked between 22.10.1979 and 4.3.1980 and suppressing this fact, he secured employment as Lecturer in Neurology in the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. In spite of pointing out this fact by the appellant before the selection and appointment process of the fifth respondent, the authorities concerned did not take into consideration such challenge. According to them, Rule 14(a) of the Service and Personnel Conduct Rules of the Institute (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') was also ignored while reserving lien of the fifth respondent on his appointment as Director. Contrary to this Rule, Exhibit P5 appointment order of the fifth respondent indicated that the fifth respondent will continue to have a lien as Professor in the Department of Neurology. This has adversely affected the prospects of appellant/writ petitioner in getting appointment as Director and also his right to be considered for appointment as Professor of Neurology. When a representation was forwarded to the authorities seeking suspension of the lien of the fifth respondent as Professor followed by another representation, no action was taken, therefore, he had no other remedy other than approaching this court. Other allegations of drawing allowance at the highest rate without owning a car which is unbecoming of a Professor to continue as Director was also raised in the Writ Petition.

3. It was brought on record that the appointment to the post of Director of the Institute was included as item No.6 of the agenda when meeting of the Institute Body was held on 20.7.2009. The Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala Dr.A.Jayakrishnan, who also happens to be a member of the Institute Body, asked for the list of candidates, who had applied, the list of candidates short-listed, the list of candidates interviewed and the list of candidates recommended for the appointment in the order of priority by the Selection Committee. The outgoing Director remarked that such informations could not be disclosed in the meeting and suggested that Dr.Harigopal, representative of Secretary, DST would send those documents to the Vice Chancellor. According to them, such documents were not made available to Dr.A.Jayakrishnan. The contention of the appellant is that awarding a five year term to the first rank candidate, i.e., Prof.Radhakrishnan was also objected to by Dr.A.Jayakrishnan on the ground that Prof.K.Radhakrishnan would exceed the age of superannuation of 65 years, if a five year term is awarded and his appointment has to be for five years or upto 65 years, whichever is earlier, since the existing Personnel and Conduct Rules of the Institute do not permit any one to continue as Director beyond 65 years. The said remark was ignored and the same was not even placed in the minutes presented. According to the appellant, majority of the members of the Institute Body had undue interest in the fifth respondent, therefore, in spite of the fact that the age of superannuation for administrative and other staff is 60 years and the age of superannuation of the members of the faculty in the grade of Professor or Scientist/Engineer-G is 65 years, the fifth respondent was appointed who was 61 years and was granted a five year term of app