The 1st petitioner, Carmel Polytechnic College is a Christian minority educational institution conducting Polytechnic Diploma Courses and is functioning after procuring the sanction from the Directorate of Technical Education and also with the approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). They have approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P9 and P11 orders and for further direction to the 2nd respondent to grant approval of appointments of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners w.e.f. 01.06.2016(FN) to 01.06.2017(FN) respectively, and also for direction to the 2nd respondent to grant permission to the 1st petitioner to fill up the post of Demonstrator in the Civil Department of the 1st petitioner institution and for incidental reliefs.

2. Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that challenging Exhibit P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent cancelling the order of approval of Sri. Thomaskutty Jose as Principal of the 1st petitioner institution, the 1st petitioner along with sri. Thomaskuty had approached this Court and had filed W.P(C.) No. 15285/2017. By Exhibit P5 judgment dated 22.01.2018, this Court quashed the proceedings and declared that Sri. Thomaskutty Jose shall be entitled to approval of appointment as Principal in the Polytechnic colleges, in case he has the qualification prescribed for appointment as Head of Department (HOD) with 10 years relevant experience. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, it was held as follows “7. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the clarification issued in Ext.P6 to the effect that PhD is an essential qualification for promotion as Principal in aided Polytechnics cannot be correct in view of Ext.P1 and is therefore unsustainable. The clarification therefore cannot go beyond the prescription in the first instance. In the absence of any amendment to Ext.P1, I am of the opinion that the statement in Ext.P6 to the effect that PhD is an essential qualification for appointment as Principal in Diploma level technical institutions cannot be sustained.”

3. Challenging Ext.P5 judgment Writ Appeal No.171/2019 was preferred and by judgment dated 04.02.2020, the Writ Appeal was disposed of with the following directions.

“11. In the result, in modification of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, while sustaining the order quashing Ext.P5, we direct the Directorate of Technical Education to consider whether the 2nd respondent qualifies to be appointed to the post of Principal with reference to the applicable regulations as stated above and if so, his appointment shall be approved. the appointment shall be made within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

4. It is stated that in tune with the directions issued by this Court, Exhibit P12 order was passed on 22.02.2021, whereby approval was granted to Sri.Thomaskutty Jose to the post of Principal with effect from 01.06.2016.

5. It is contended that in view of Ext.P12 order, it is only just and proper that approval of the appointment of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to their respective posts be granted from 01.06.2016(FN) and the 1st respondent be directed to grant permission to the 1st petitioner to fill up the vacancy of Demonstrator in the Civil Department of the 1st petitioner institution.

6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein it is stated that the Government vide letter No. L1/260/2017/H.EDN dated 29.03.2019 had directed to grant approval to the appointing authority to accord provisional promotion to Mr.Thomaskutty Jose as Principal with immediate effect as Principal as a special case in relaxation of the existing norms, as he had retired on 30.03.2019. It is stated that on the basis of the appointment of Mr. Thomaskutty Jose as Principal, the vacancy of HOD will only arise w.e.f. 30.03.2019 and in that view of the matter the 2nd petitioner can be appointed as HOD only with effect from the said date. It