The court ruled that the appointment of the Registrar was valid as it followed the proper selection process, and the petitioner lacked locus standi and delayed in filing the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent- University by which the 6^th respondent was appointed as the Registrar. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition are as follows:

“i. To declare that the appointment of the 6^th respondent as Registrar of the Central University, Kerala is illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of the Central University Act, 2009, Rule 22 (q) (ii) of the Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non- teaching staff;

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Registrar of the Central University, Kerala;

iii. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling upon the 6th respondent to show under what authority he is holding the post of Registrar of the Central University of Kerala;

iv. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing Exhibit. P.5 order appointing the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the Central University of Kerala;

v. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the decision taken in Ext. P.4 minutes to abandon Rule 22 q(ii) as well as Clause 15 of Ext. P. 1 notification to appoint the 6th respondent as Registrar of the Central University of Kerala;

vi) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P.7 representation in the light of Clause 22 q (ii) of the Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non teaching staff of the Central University after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;

vii. To issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts in brief are as follows:

The 1^st respondent-University published Ext.P1 Notification on 16.02.2021, inviting applications from the qualified candidates for being appointed as the Registrar. As part of the selection process, the University constituted a Scrutiny Committee to shortlist the eligible candidates. Accordingly, a list of 24 candidates were shortlisted by the Committee and in the interview followed, 21 candidates appeared. Exhibit P2 is the short list prepared by the University in this regard. After completing the selection process, the 3^rd respondent Executive Committee resolved to appoint one Dr. Santhosh Kumar N. as the Registrar, as per Ext.P3 order. Accordingly, he was appointed as the Registrar with effect from 08.10.2021 for a term of 5 years or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier.

3. Later, Dr.Santhosh Kumar N. issued a 90-day prior notice to the University, intimating his intention to resign from the post of Registrar. The said notice was issued on 01.04.2022. Acting upon the same, the Executive Council, the 3^rd respondent herein, accepted the resignation of Dr. Santhosh Kumar N. Later, the Executive Council resolved to appoint the 6^th respondent herein, who was the next person in the select list, for the residual period of the outgoing Registrar or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. Exhibit P4 is the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of the 1^st respondent-University dated 30.06.2022, wherein the aforesaid decision was taken. Exhibit P5 is the appointment letter issued to the 6^th respondent herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P4 and P5, mainly on the reason that, according to him, Clause 15 of the General Instructions of Ext.P1 Notification itself contemplates that, if a candidate joins the post and subsequently resigns or relinquishes the office due to whatever reasons, the post shall be re-advertised and under such circumstances, the panel shall stand invalid. The petitioner also places reliance upon Clause 22(q)(ii) of the Central University Cadre Recruitment Rule For Non-teaching Staff, which contains a similar clause to that of Cl