JUDGMENT :

A rather small issue, but with certain legal ramifications, has been impelled in this writ petition

2. The petitioner impugns Exts.P7 and P9 proceedings of the respondent – Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, which has placed her in the cadre of Professor only on 28.09.2017, instead of in June 2015, when she asserts to have acquired all eligibility qualifications.

3. Sri. K. Abdul Jawad – learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that his client had applied for placement as a professor in the year 2014, but admits that, though she had acquired the minimum eligibility period for doing so, she had not published five publications, which was an imperative condition. He says that, however, the 5th publication was published by his client in June 2015, and therefore, that she ought have been given her placement as Professor with effect from that date. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that Exts.P7 and P9 be quashed and the University be directed to place his client in the cadre of Professor with effect from the date on which the 5th publication was effected by her in June 2015

4. In response, Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken – learned Standing Counsel for the University, invited my attention to Clause 6.3.12 of Ext.P1, namely the “UGC Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for maintenance of standards in higher Education, 2010, (hereinafter referred to as UGC Regulations, 2010)”, to argue that, as per the interpretation of the said clause by the University, the petitioner will be entitled to be placed as a professor only from the date on which she made her application for that purpose. He explained that, even though she had made an initial application in the year 2014, it was found that the petitioner was not then eligible, because she had, admittedly, not achieved the minimum number of publications, leading to the Scrutiny Committee to resolve not to recommend her placement, as is evident from Ext.P4. He added that the petitioner, thereafter, made an application only through Ext.R1(a) on 28.09.2017 and therefore, that the Scrutiny Committee found her to be eligible from that date, thus resolving to place her in the cadre of Professor from then. The learned Standing Counsel predicated that this is the only manner in which the University could have acted, going by inviolable provisions of Clause 6.3.12 of Ext.P1 UGC Regulation 2010.

5. I have evaluated the afore submissions with great amount of care since, I am certain that anything that this Court now says will have an impact in other cases and in future.

6. The forensic response of this Court to the above focal issue in this case will certainly depend upon the manner in which Clause 6.3.12 of Ext.P1, namely the UGC Regulations, 2010, will obtain interpretation. For this purpose, it certainly has to read, and is hence extracted as under :

(a) If a candidate applies for promotion on completion of the minimum eligibility period and is successful, the date of promotion will be from that of minimum period of eligibility.

(b) If, however, the candidates find that he/she fulfills the eligibility conditions at a later date and applies on that date and is successful, his/her promotion will be effected from that date of application fulfilling the criteria.

(c) If the candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but succeeds in the eventful assessment, his/her promotion will be deemed to be from the later date of successful assessment.

7. The argument of the University is that, if a candidate applies, on completing the minimum eligibility period of three years and after having achieved the imperative qualifications including the minimum number of publications on that date, he or she will be offered promotion from the date of acquiring the minimum period of eligibility. They contend that, however, on the contrary, if a candidate does not obtain the minimum qualifications, even t