JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3 rd day of August, 2021 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent University to approve the appointments of petitioners 2 to 4 pursuant to the proposals submitted by the college.

ii. Issue a writ declaring that the inordinate delay in approving the appointments of petitioners 2 to 4 is highly unjust, arbitrary and unfair.

iii. Issue a writ declaring that the 1st respondent University cannot adopt a pick and choose method in approving the appointment of teachers appointed following a due selection procedure.

iv. Issue a writ declaring that the action of the 1st respondent University in delaying the approval of petitioners 2 to 4 at the instance of Teachers' Organisation having its affinity to ruling party is totally arbitrary and illegal.”

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University.

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is a college affiliated to the respondent University and that petitioners 2 to 4 were appointed as Assistant Professors in the department of Political Science pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The 2nd petitioner was appointed on 15.7.2019 while the 3rd and 4th petitioners were appointed on 30.8.2019. Though appointments of other teachers made along with petitioners or even later had been approved, the petitioners' appointments had not been approved only on extraneous considerations. It is submitted that even though the queries raised with regard to the proposals for approval had been duly answered by the petitioners as early as on 16.6.2020 and the proposals had been placed before the Syndicate, the petitioners' appointments had not been approved raising further queries without any justification whatsoever. It is submitted that the delay in approving the appointments of petitioners 2 to 4 is completely unjustifiable.

4. A statement has been placed on record by the respondents.

It is submitted therein that the University had considered the proposals for approval of petitioners 2 to 4 as submitted by the 1st petitioner and certain defects had been found in the said proposals. It is submitted that therefore, Ext.P9 communication had been issued by the University requiring the 1st petitioner to rectify the defects and to make available the documents as sought for. It is stated in the statement that though the defects had been communicated to the 1st petitioner College by Exts.P9 and P12 letters, the defects had not been rectified. It is further submitted that with regard to the 2nd petitioner, the 2nd petitioner had not cleared the National Eligibility Test and he had to submit a compliance certificate to show that Ph.D had been obtained by him in accordance with UGC Regulations, 2016. It is submitted that the compliance certificate was produced by the 2nd petitioner only after the appointment had been effected. It is further submitted that with regard to the 3rd petitioner, he had been required to pay the fee for verifying the genuineness of the Ph.D acquired by him and the evidence of such payment of fee had to be submitted before the University. It is contended that it was only due to the delay in getting the clarifications as sought for by the University that the proposals for approval could not be considered by the Syndicate. It is further submitted in paragraph 6 of the statement that the allegations raised by the petitioners with regard to political consideration as reason for the delay are completely without any justification and are denied. With regard to the 2nd petitioner, a further contention raised in the statement to the effect that there was a complaint received from one Kshidi Sreeram Ravindran by the Governor, who is a Chancellor of the University which had been forwarded to the University by letter dated 27.10.2020. It is submitted that the contentions in the complai