Qualified individuals cannot be unjustly demoted based on unsubstantiated claims of disqualification, especially if they meet established educational standards.

JUDGMENT

K oshy,J .

Writ petitioners in these cases were appointed as Lecturers in Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, a Sanskrit College affiliated to University of Calicut. Since they were qualified, their appointments were duly approved by the University. They were also confirmed in the post of Lecturer in the year 1975. The 2nd respondent society (appellant in these writ appeals) took over the college on 16.7.1979 and petitioners continued to work as Lecturers for an year. After one year, on the basis of the alleged recommendation of the screening committee they were told that they can only be continued as Junior Lecturers. In the absence of any alternative, they accepted the appointment and made representations for appointing them as Lecturers. In Ext.P7 judgment of this court in O.P.No.7521 of 1982 this court directed the appellant to consider their representations. So, it is not a case that they were keeping quiet in not questioning the act of making them as Junior Lecturers at the time of absorption of the Vidya Peetam notwithstanding the fact that they are qualified. Since their continued representations had no effect, these writ petitions were filed. According to them, several other juniors of the petitioners as well as students of the petitioners became Lecturers in the Vidya Peetam. Petitioners sought a direction to promote them as Lecturers with effect from 16.7.1979 as in the case of others similarly situated. In Ext.P2 at the time of absorption of Vidya Peetam it was observed as follows: “The Committee has already recommended the institution of Junior Lecturer's posts for specific reasons. However, if it is not possible for the Sansthan to conduct teaching of the graduate and post-graduate classes by Junior Lecturers, the Committee proposes that these posts also be elevated to those of Lecturers and that sufficient time may be given to the concerned persons coming under this category to improve their qualifications which should be scrutinized by another Committee.”

Subsequently, the petitioners obtained doctorate also. Doctorate degree is a desirable thing and it was not compulsory qualification for the post of a Lecturer. Later, UGC Scheme was made applicable with effect from 7.5.2002. Learned Judge found that petitioners are entitled to be appointed as Lecturers with effect from the date of taking over of the Vidya Peetam by the 2nd respondent and second respondent is bound to pass orders. Contention of the appellant is that at the time when Vidya Peetam declared the matter, there was screening and petitioners were appointed only as Junior Lecturers. In fact, that was noticed by the learned Single Judge and found that even though they were fully qualified and they were working as Lecturers in the Sanskit College and their appointment was approved by the concerned University at that time, there was no need to post them as Junior Lecturers. This court directed to consider the representations filed by the petitioners, but, it was not considered. Appellant had no case that the petitioners were not educationally qualified for appointment on the date of taking over of the Vidya Peetam. Before UGC Scheme was introduced, they obtained doctorate also. Apart from the statement that the screening committee found them disqualified, nothing was stated about their disqualification. They were not interviewed or tested. Principal of the College certified that they have sufficient teaching experience of more than 20 years in the establishment as graduate and post graduate Lecturers. Appellant did not conduct any interview of the petitioners for being appointed them as guest Lecturers. Their services are not liable to be rejected merely because Vidya Peetam was took over by the society and after going through the judgment, arguments and considering the contentions raised, we are of the opinion that learned Judge was fully correct in passing the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. However, we give two months' more time from toda