University statutes requiring approval of lecturer appointments must be adhered to, and refusals based on unsubstantiated claims of irregularities are deemed illegal.

1 The main prayer in these writ petitions is to quash the order dated 31/10/2007 issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University declining to approve the appointment of lecturers appointed in the St. Teresa's College, Ernakularn. There is a further prayer to direct the University to grant approval to the appointment of the Lecturers in terms of the provisions contained in the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes. There are other consequential prayers also.

2 While WP (C) Nos. 33281 and 33462 of 2007 are filed by the concerned lecturers, WP (C) No. 34172 of 2007 is filed by the Manager and Principal of St. Teresa's College, Ernakulam. Since the issue involved is identical, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and for convenience, I shall be mainly referring to the pleadings and documents as they are marked in WP (C) No. 33462 of 2007.

3 As per the staff pattern fixed by the University in 2003, there were several vacancies of lecturers in the St. Teresa's College, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management' for short). However, the vacancies could not be filled up on account of the failure of the State Government and the University to nominate their representatives to the Selection Committee. The Manager of the College filed a writ petition before this Court as WP (C) No. 22237 of 2004 praying for a direction to the State Government and the University to nominate members of the Selection Committee and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext. P6 judgment dated 28/07/2004 directing that required steps be taken for enabling the Manager to fill up the existing vacancies in sanctioned posts.

4 According to the petitioners in order to fill up the existing vacancies in sanctioned posts, Ext. P1 vacancy notification was issued by the Principal of the College, inviting applications to open merit, permanent and leave vacancies, in subjects such as Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Home Science, English, Economics, History and Physical Education. The petitioners, being eligible candidates, submitted their applications. It is also stated that in compliance with Ext. P6 judgment the Government of Kerala issued Ext. P7 order dated 03/09/2004, permitting the Manager to fill up the existing vacancies in sanctioned posts. Thereafter, the State Government and the University deputed their representatives and selection committee was duly constituted. Accordingly, selection was held during February, 2005 and select lists were prepared, in which among the petitioners in WP (C) No. 33462/2007, petitioners 1 and 2 were included at Rank Nos. 2 and 4 against the vacancy in the Chemistry Department. The 3rd petitioner, was Rank No. 1 and the 4th petitioner was selected against a leave vacancy, in the Home Science Department.

5 15 candidates were appointed as lecturers in various departments. Insofar as the petitioners in WP (C) No. 33462 of 2007 are concerned, Exts. P2 to P5 are the orders of appointment, pursuant to which they joined service on 01/03/2005, 11/03/2005, 23/02/2005 and 07/03/2005 respectively. Petitioners 1 to 3 are continuing in the permanent vacancies to which they were appointed and the 4th petitioner's leave vacancy, though expired on 31/07/2007, since the leave is continuing, it is stated that she is also continuing in that post. By Ext. P8, the Principal of the College forwarded proposals to the University seeking approval of appointment of 15 the Lecturers mentioned therein, enclosing necessary documents.

6 University in its counter affidavit has stated that in March, 2005 they had received Ext. R4(a) letter dated 31/03/2005 from a person complaining that though his daughter was an applicant for the post of lecturer in Economics and was eligible, the applicants were short listed as a result of which, his daughter was denied an opportunity to appear before the Selection Committee. According to the University, the Manager was intimated of Ext. R4(a) and by Ext. R4(b), it was replied stating that the