IMPORTANT POINT
The syndicate could not have legislated through an executive order that the order issued by the Registrar of the University cannot be treated as an amendment to the qualification prescribed in the schedule annexed to the Kerala University First Ordinance, 1978.

JUDGMENT :

The dispute in these Writ Petitions is with respect to the requirement of pass in Departmental test for promotion from the post of Assistants in Kerala University. The petitioners in all these cases were selected and appointed by the very same process of selection based on a select list published in the year 2008. Their selection was under challenge before this Court in W.P(C).No.37082 of 2007 and also before the Lok Ayukta. Due to the interim order passed by this Court on 30.06.2009 in W.P.(C) No.37082 of 2007 directing that none of the appointees shall be promoted until further orders pending disposal of the Writ Petition, none of them were granted promotion. As per judgment dated 21.02.2017 in W.P.(C) No.491 of 2012 and connected cases, this Court upheld their selection and directed the University to grant all the benefits to the appointees including promotion in preference to their juniors. University thereafter issued orders granting promotion to the cadre of Senior Grade Assistants, Selection Grade Assistants and Section Officers. Brief facts in each of the cases are the following:

2. W.P(C) No.1366/2018

2.1. This Writ Petition was filed on 12.01.2018 aggrieved by the promotions granted to respondents 4 to 34 as Selection Grade Assistants and as Section Officers in preference to them. They are challenging Ext.P1 order dated 23.02.2017 and Ext.P2 order dated 16.08.2017, to the extent respondents 4 to 34 were granted promotion as Selection Grade Assistants in preference to them. They claimed that they had completed their probation in May/June, 2009 after passing the departmental tests in January, 2009 and they became eligible for promotion as Senior Grade Assistants in June 2009, as shown in Ext.P3 list. At the same time, even though the party respondents had passed the departmental tests only in July, 2009, as shown in Ext.P4 list, they were granted promotion as Section Officers overlooking the petitioners. Aggrieved by those promotions, the petitioners had submitted a representation before the Vice Chancellor on 27.02.2017. Thereupon the Vice Chancellor constituted an Anomaly Rectification Committee (ARC) comprising Joint Registrar, Administration, Joint Registrar (Finance), Deputy Registrar Administration I, Assistant Registrar Administration I and Section Officer, Finance III Section, in order to examine and report the anomalies. The ARC submitted Ext.P5 report to the Vice Chancellor on 17.05.2017 recommending to grant promotion to Assistants of 2008 batch to the cadre of Senior Grade w.e.f 03.12.2009 and to Selection Grade w.e.f 01.04.2011. The Vice Chancellor called for objections on the report to be submitted before 31.05.2017. After examining the objections the committee submitted a draft proposal on 28.06.2017; the Vice Chancellor on 06.07.2017 directed the committee to submit a comprehensive report after verifying all the available records. Thereafter, the ARC submitted Ext.P6 report on 10.8.2017, in which the promotions granted to respondents 4 to 34 in Exts.P1 and P2 orders were found to be wrong and therefore placed them in the list in accordance with the date on which they passed the departmental test. As no steps were taken to revise the promotions in tune with Ext.P6 report, the petitioners filed W.P(c).No.30240/2017 seeking directions to the University to promote the petitioners as Selection Grade Assistants with effect from the date of Ext.P1 in accordance with Ext.P6 report. This Court as per Ext.P7 judgment dated 13.10.2017 directed the University to call for and obtain objections against the report and to take a final decision within a further period of one month and to effect promotions without any further delay.

2.2. But the Vice Chancellor (who is personally impleaded as 3rd respondent), instead of implementing Ext.P6 report, sought for the opinion from the Legal Adviser of the University