SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Ker) 303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Manu – Appellant
Verses
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Represented by its Registrar – Respondent
W.A. No. 1249 of 2025
Decided On : 23-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Joshi N. Thomas, V. Gangadharan, Aleena Jolly
For the Respondents: Nisha Bose, S. Krishnamoorthy, Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, T. Ramprasad Unni

Timely submission of academic qualifications and publications is essential for faculty promotions under UGC regulations; delays in challenges to university decisions can invalidate claims.

Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ appeal challenging university decisions relating to the placement of a professor - Appellant's eligibility under UGC Regulations not met. (Paras 2-14)

(B) Higher Education - Career Advancement Scheme - Necessity for academic qualifications and research publications for professorship. (Paras 9-12)

(C) Timeliness of appeals - Delay in challenging university decisions impacting eligibility. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a professor and head of a department, sought earlier placement as Professor citing past service and government orders; however, he faced delays in recognition and approval of his publications.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge found no illegality in the university's adherence to UGC regulations regarding placement as Professor and noted that the petitioner failed to challenge previous decisions timely.

Issues: The core issues dealt with eligibility for professorship under UGC regulations, the proper process for placement without sufficient qualifications, and the timeliness of legal challenges to university decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the university's application of UGC regulations, emphasizing the need for fulfilling qualifying criteria before promotion to professorship, and confirmed that the petitioner's lapse in timely challenge foreclosed his claim.

Result: Writ appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. basis for the appellant’s claims and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. counterarguments by the 1st respondent addressing the claims. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis supporting the dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 12)
4. final observations on the implications of ugc regulations. (Para 10 , 11 , 13)
5. conclusion and order dismissing the writ appeal. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24652 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. W.P.(C) No.24652 of 2024 is filed by the appellant-petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P2, Ext.P4 and Ext.P12 and quashing the same.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 1st and 2nd respondent to modify Ext.P7 order by giving placement to the petitioner as Professor w.e.f. 01.06.2009.

iii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to be placed as Professor w.e.f. 01.06.2009.

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P13 representation of the petitioner.”

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant is now serving as Professor and Head of the Department at the 4th Respondent Central University of Kerala, Periya, Kasargod, after availing voluntary retirement from the 1st Respondent Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, on 31.10.2022. The appellant served as a lecturer at Mahatma Gandhi Government Arts College, Mahe, for ten years and 6 months as a lecturer and thereafter joined the 1st Respondent University as a lecturer on 14.07.1999. The appellant requested that his past service at Government Arts College, Mahe, be counted as per Government Order G.O.(P)171/99/H.Edn. dated 21.12.1999 which stipulates the implementation of revised U.G.C. Scheme, 1998, with effect from 01.01.1996. The modified provision regarding minimum length of service for career advancement is to be implemented from 27.07.1998, the date of notification. The 1st respondent considered his application only on 30.09.2010, and thereafter, on 20.10.2011, his application was allowed, and fixation of salary was ordered on 02.01.2012, in the Grade of Selection Grade Lecturer. Ext.P2 is the Minutes of the screening committee of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent vide, Ext.P4 communication dated 26.11.2012, informed the appellant that he cannot be placed as a professor as he has not secured the score category. The Government of Kerala Passed G.O.(P)No.58/2010/HEdn. dated 27.03.2010 ordering Revision of Scale of teachers in Universities and colleges, etc. By the said order, the Government declared that there shall be only three designations of teachers, i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. By the application of Clause 6.1.11 of the said order, the appellant was placed as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. Though the said order prescribes the appointment of an Associate Professor with three years of experience as Professor, the appellant's application for placement as Professor was not considered in time, and he was placed as Professor only with effect from 12.11.2017, after the lapse of nearly eight years, vide Ext.P7 order dated 25.09.2018. The appellant filed a representation on 12.04.2019 before the 1st respondent, which was rejected by the University, vide Ext.P12 order dated 10.10.2019, without considering or complying with the orders of the Supreme Court. The Government of Kerala adopted UGC REGULATIONS in the year 2010, which was upheld by the Full Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 23.02.2016, which, on challenge before the Supreme Court, ordered the date of effect of U.G.C Regula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top