Antony Dominic, J.

1. Among these cases, the writ petitions came up before a learned single Judge of this Court and the common question raised was whether the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Regulations, 2010', for short) was applicable while making appointments to the post of Principal in colleges affiliated to the Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi Universities. When the matters were heard, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.N.College v. N.Raveendran [2001 (3) KLT 938], it was contended that the conditions of service of teachers of affiliated colleges are to be prescribed by the University concerned in terms of the Act governing the same and that in the absence of any amendment being made to the University Act or the Regulations framed thereunder, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are inapplicable. However, in view of the principles laid down in the Apex Court judgments in Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar [AIR 1963 SC 703], Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120], State of Tamil Nadu v. S.V.Bratheep [(2004) 4 SCC 513], Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department [(2009) 4 SCC 590] and University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013) 10 SCC 519], learned single Judge doubted the correctness of the said principles laid down in the judgment in Raveendran's case (supra). Accordingly, learned Judge referred the writ petition to be heard by a larger Bench.

2. Thereafter, the writ petitions, the writ appeal and the OP(KAT) were considered by a Division Bench and order dated 17.7.2015 was passed agreeing with the learned single Judge that Raveendran's case required reconsideration. Accordingly, the cases were referred to be heard by a Bench of appropriate strength. It was accordingly that these matters were placed before the Full Bench for hearing and we heard the counsel for the parties.

3. Before we deal with the merits of the individual cases, it is apposite to consider the correctness of the Division Bench judgment in Raveendran's case (supra). Raveendran's case arose from an order passed by the University Appellate Tribunal setting aside the appointment of the respondent therein as Principal of the appellant college. This was on the ground that the appointee did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed in the UGC scheme of 1998 so as to be appointed as Principal of a special grade college. This question was considered in the light of the provisions contained in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed thereunder and also the Kerala University Act. In its judgment, the Division Bench held thus:

"8. S. 57 of the Kerala University Act stipulates that conditions of service of teachers of the affiliated colleges are to be prescribed by the University. As per S. 58 of the Kerala University Act, teachers of colleges shall possess such qualifications as may be prescribed by regulations by Academic Council. As has already been indicated the said scheme was brought in by the Regulations of the Kerala University as per amendment made in the Regulation by academic council on 10.12.1990 which has not been amended yet in line with UGC Scheme. In fact in CCC 721/2000 which was filed in connection with O.P. 12665/2000 State Government filed a statement stating that UGC Scheme was introduced from 1.1.1986 based on the directions from the Government of India. The qualification for the post of Lecturers/Principals etc. of Universities and Colleges were prescribed by the U.G.C. and Government passed GO(P)171/99/H.Edn. dated 21.12.1999 for implementation of the said scheme. Unless and until amendments are effected in the University statutes the same would not be applicable