K PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. KANNUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in these writ petitions is with regard to an appointment to the post of Principal in a private college affiliated to the Kannur University. The petitioners in these writ petitions, who were working as Associate Professors in the same college, challenge the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Principal by direct recruitment.

(2.) Shron of details, the contention of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent did not have the qualifications prescribed by the UGC Regulations for being appointed as Principal in the college by direct recruitment. I find from the arguments and pleadings placed before me that the qualification which, according to the petitioners, the 4th respondent lacks was a score of 400 or higher in the Academic Performance Indicator in terms of the performance based appraisal system prescribed by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staffs in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as UGC Regulations for short). It is not disputed before me that the 4th respondent had assumed charge as the Principal on 27.02.2016. The petitioners in both these writ petitions have since retired from service. Therefore, the only question to be decided is whether the appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal is liable to be interfered with at this stage in writ petitions preferred by the petitioners who are no longer in service.

(3.) The contentions of the petitioners as discernible from their pleadings is to the effect that since the qualifications specifically prescribed in the UGC Regulations were not met with, in full in the selection in question, the post had to be filled up by resorting to appointment on the basis of seniority cum fitness. It is contended that the criteria for appointment on the basis of Seniority cum Fitness are prescribed in the University order dated 09.09.2015 which is produced as Exhibit P8 in W.P.(C).No.11699/2016, The petitioner in W.P. (C).No.11699/2016 would contend that he has all the qualifications required for appointment as Principal on the basis of seniority cum fitness and therefore he should have been considered for appointment under the said method. Allegations are raised against the constitution of the selection committee as well.