IMPORTANT POINTS:
" None of the petitioners can put forth the contention of `legitimate expectation` or argue that their right to livelihood have been curtailed for reason only of their post being made a tenure post in the best interest of the Universities.
" Individual hardship cannot be a reason to interfere with the legislative exercise carried on by the State to implement a valid policy arrived at on the basis of expert opinion and intended at providing uniformity of tenure of statutory officers in the Universities in the State.

Vinod Chandran, J.

In controversy, is an Ordinance, which abruptly terminated the services of the appellants-writ petitioners who were occupying the posts of Registrar, Controller of Examinations and Finance Officer in the Mahatma Gandhi, Calicut and Kannur Universities. The appeals were filed from an order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the proceedings pursuant to the Ordinance were made subject to the result of the writ petitions. The appellants were aggrieved with the refusal of the learned Single Judge to stay the operation of the Ordinance and permit the appellants to continue in service. Especially considering the fact that a consideration of the Writ Appeal would in effect result in the consideration of the entire subject matter, we, with the consent of the parties, called for the writ petitions itself to be heard. We directed the pleadings to be completed, which has been done. In such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the matter finally.

2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, learned Counsel Sri. P.K. Ibrahim, Sri. V.A. Muhammed, Sri. Murali Purushothaman and Sri. Shyam Krishnan appearing for the petitioners. The learned Advocate General addressed arguments on behalf of the State and Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, Sri. M. Sasindran and Sri. Asok M. Cherian appearing on behalf of the Universities supported the State. Sri. Jaju Babu, Senior counsel represented the Chancellor.

3. Sri.George Poonthottam appearing for the Controller of Examinations of the Calicut University argues that the Ordinance is a clear abuse of the constitutional powers; for it being intended only at replacement of the Registrar of Kannur University, whose suspension has been interfered with by this Court directing reinstatement. Only to ensure that there is no allegation raised of a 'one man legislation', the Ordinance targeted all the crucial officers of certain Universities. Though no mala fides can be alleged against the Legislature, it is urged that there is an abuse of power, insofar as invocation of Article 213, actuated by extraneous reasons and there can be inferred a constitutional fraud as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2017) 3 SCC 1 [Krishna Kumar Singh & Another v. State of Bihar & Others]. It is pointed out that as per Exhibit P9 produced in W.P.(C) No.7416 of 2019, it is clear that the Legislative Assembly was in session from 25.01.2019 to 12.02.2019. Even as per the counter affidavit filed by the State, the Ordinance was issued pursuant to a recommendation of the Kerala State Higher Education Council [for brevity “Council”] as early as on 17.01.2019. The Government has thought it fit not to place the recommendations in the form of a Bill before the Legislative Assembly and has, after the session concluded; then acting in haste, brought out the Ordinance on 06.03.2019. It is also pointed out that the Ordinance has been brought out at a crucial time when the Universities are scheduled to hold the annual examinations. The change in the Administrative Officers of the University, especially those at the pinnacle, enjoined with the duty of conducting examinations, would put the examination exercise into jeopardy. It is also argued that the Government had already taken a decision on 29.08.2014 to enhance the retirement age of the statutory officers of the Universities in the State as provided in the University Grants Commission Regulations of 1998 [for brevity “UGC Regulations”] to 60 years from the existing 56 years, as is evidenced from Exhibit P7. The said decision was taken by the Government which was in office then, and the Ordinance is only an attempt by the incumbent Government to interfere with the earlier decision taken, apparently with oblique motives. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai v. T.D.B. [2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB)] is relied on to contend that when the Government has adopted Regulations of the UGC, then there cannot be a reduction in the retiremen