The UGC regulations governing teacher promotions prevail and must be implemented from 23.02.2016, despite subsequent procedural changes.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of December 2020 Petitioners three in number, through the instant petition seek intervention of this Court for issuance of direction to the respondent to consider approval of their promotion as Principals in the respective colleges under the control of the 5th respondent and disbursement of salary.

2. In support of the aforementioned prayer, it has been averred that they are Post Graduate and having a Ph.D. Degree an essential qualification for consideration for promotion to the post of Principal. Reliance has been laid to Exts.P1 to P14 in this regard. In the year 2016, they were promoted as Principals and have been rendering the services but till date the case for approval of promotion has not been considered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the interregnum the university promulgated Kerala University Act , 1974. However, regarding the criteria for appointment and for various other purposes University Grants Commission issued regulation in 2010 which was adopted on 31.10.2018. A controversy with regard to the qualification arose resulting into filing of various writ petitions. Single Bench of this Court referred the matter to Division Bench and ultimately reached the Full Bench. The Full Bench as per judgment dated 23.02.2016 held that the appointments would be governed only by UGC Regulations and not by the provisions of the University Act. Matter further reached Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the implementation of the UGC Regulations would be applicable with effect from 23.02.2016.

4. It was further submitted that in view of the reply of respondent Nos.3 and 4, the case of the petitioner No.1 is pending consideration for finalisation of promotion and therefore, he is not pressing the writ petition but urged this Court for issuing of a direction for expediting the matter. As far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, their cases have not been resubmitted by the educational agency as per the current norms as stipulated in order dated 30.11.2018. In order to buttress his argument it was also submitted that in view of Ext.R5(d) attached with the reply of respondent No.5, it is evident that the condition of Academic Performance Indicator (API) under the Career Advancement Scheme has been adopted by the University only on 30.11.2018 and ordered to be uploaded, petitioners would not be in a position to upload and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court would not be applicable as it pertains only to qualification. In other words, he submitted that the modified Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) and API templates for placement/promotion of teachers under Career Advancement Scheme cannot be filled by the petitioners as it was uploaded in 2018 whereas, the case for finalisation of promotion is pending since 2016. The adoption as per Ext.R5(d) is in terms of regulation No.6 of UGC Regulations which says that the University shall adopt the Regulation for selection of committees and selection procedure through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent Colleges/affiliated colleges (Government/Government-aided /Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all selection process. The aforementioned template was required to be sent separately by UGC to the Universities. It is in this background University had adopted the aforementioned template only on 30.11.2018 and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 cannot be rendered ineligible for approval of the promotion as there would be no impediment. Management is required to resubmit their applications as in the case of the petitioner No.1.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the University do not deny the fact of re-submission of the application for approval viz-a-viz the petitioner No.1 but opposes the prayer with regard to petitioner No.2 and 3 in view of the fact that