Point of Law: Hon'ble Supreme Court, to effect that two candidates cannot be evaluated for inter se merit, but that it should be confined to whether any of them are disqualified or without minimum qualification; subsequent to which, their promotion will have to take place strictly in - order of their inter se seniority.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. Among the three Writ Petitions above, W.P. (C) Nos. 9253/2021 and 20817/2022 have been filed by the Secretary of NSS College Central Committee - which is stated to be a Corporate Management, with several colleges under them, including ‘PR NSS College’ Kannur; while, W.P. (C) No. 16076/2022 has been filed by Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai, asserting that he is fully eligible to be promoted as the Principal of the aforementioned college, consequent to the evaluation of his credentials by its management, through a screening process.

2. The controversy in these cases has two layers:

(a) Whether Mahatma Gandhi University was justified in amending their Statutes, stipulating managements to select candidates for the purpose of promotion only after evaluation by a committee constituted in terms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.

(b) Whether the order of the Kannur University, refusing to grant approval to the appointment of Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai as the Principal of PR NSS College, solely on the ground that he was not assessed by a committee constituted as per the “UGC Regulations 2018” is justifiable.

3. Sri. R.T. Pradeep - learned counsel appearing for the Corporate Management in two of the afore cases, submitted that the action of the Kannur University in refusing to approve the selection of Dr. Gopalakrishna Pillai as the Principal of the College and the amendments brought in by the Mahatma Gandhi University to their Statutes, requiring even promotions to be assessed as per “UGC Regulations 2018” are illegal and unlawful. He argued that, in fact, when his clients had made selection from the existing teachers for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, it had been interdicted by this Court through judgment in W.P. (C) No. 35765/2018 - a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P3 in W.P. (C) No. 9253/2021 - holding affirmatively that promotions can be offered only as per the applicable University Regulations, which is to mean, on the principle of seniority cum fitness.

4. Sri. R.T. Pradeep argued that, therefore, the present stand of the Kannur University, in refusing approval to the appointment of Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai, which has been done by his client on the aforesaid principle; as also the amendments sought to be made by the M.G. University to their Statutes to bring in competition even in the case of promotions, are illegal and unlawful and contrary to the declarations by this Court. He thus prayed that W.P. (C) Nos. 9253/2021 and 20817/2022 be allowed and the University be directed to approve the appointment of Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai.

5. Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair - learned counsel appearing for Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai made similar arguments as Sri. R.T. Pradeep, but conceded that an evaluation of the minimum merit of every candidate will have to be made before a promotion to the post of Principal is effected. He submitted that, therefore, his client has no objection if a particular Committee is asked to evaluate all the candidates in this regard; however, adding that the principle of ‘seniority cum fitness’ cannot be upset in any manner, whatsoever. He concluded his submissions contending that the Corporate Management had, in fact, evaluated his client's merit to find that he has no disqualification and has all the necessary credentials for being appointed as the Principal and thus issued the Appointment Order, since he was the senior most among all the candidates. He thus prayed that W.P. (C) No. 16076/2022 be allowed and the orders impugned therein, namely Exts.P3 P5 and P16, be set aside.

6. Sri. I.V. Pramod - learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University, controverted the afore submissions, saying that his client is only interested to ensure that the best among the talented is selected and appointed as the Principal of the College. He explained that University has refused to grant concurrence to the appointment of Dr. S. Gopa