Judgment :- Bhaskaran, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment of the Mahatma Gandhi University Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in Appeal No.4 of 2003. The petitioner, a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Department of Economics, Devaswom Board College, Sasthamcottah, challenged the denial to him of promotion as Principal and granting promotion to respondents 5 and 6, who according to the petitioner are his juniors in the feeder category of Selection Grade Lecturers. The Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal without adverting to the crucial and basic contention of the petitioner. The facts of the case are not in serious dispute. 2. The Travancore Devaswom Board is a Corporate Management having four colleges under the University of Kerala and Mahatma Gandhi University. Section 59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act which is corresponding to S.57 of the Kerala University Act reads as follows: “59. Appointment of teachers in private colleges:- (1) Appointments to the lowest grade of teacher in each department of a private college shall be made by the education agency by direct recruitment on the basis of merit. (2) Appointments of principal shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, or by direct recruitment. (3) Where the appointment of principal is made by promotion, the education agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. (4) Appointments to the posts, other than those referred to in sub-section (1) and (2), shall be made by the education agency by promotion from among the teachers of college or all the colleges, as the case may be, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, or, if none among them is fit for promotion, by direct recruitment. (5) For making appointment under this section by direct recruitment, the post shall be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. (6) The education agency shall not abolish a course of study in private college without the proper approval of the University. (7) Every appointment under section shall be made by a written order of the Manager in such form as may be prescribed by Statutes, communicated to the person to be appointed, with copy to the University. (8) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. (7) Every appointment under section shall be made by a written order of the Manager in such form as may be prescribed by Statutes, communicated to the person to be appointed, with copy to the University. (8) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. (9) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal”. Sub-section (3) of S.59 states that where the appointment of principal is made by promotion, the education agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. 3. The Special Rules for the Kerala Collegiate Education Service also contains the method of appointment of Principal in Arts and Science Colleges. Rule (3) of the Rules after omitting unnecessary categories reads as follows: SECTION A-ADMINISTRATION Category Method of recruitment xx xx SECTION B-POSTS IN COLLEGES Class I Arts and Science Colleges 1. Principal (Special Grade) By promotion from the 2. Principal By appointment from the category of Reader and Lecturer (Selection Grade) 3. Reader By promotion from the category of Lecturer (Senior Scale) 4. Lecturer (Selection Grade) By placement from the category of Lecturer. 5. Lecturer (Senior Grade) By placement from the category of Lecturer. 6. Lecturer By direct recruitment and placement from the category of Lecturer. (Non-U.G.C. Scheme) 7. Lecturer in Physical Education (Selection Grade) By placement from the category of Lecturer in Physical Education (Senior Scale) 8. Lecturer in Physical Education (Senior Scale) By placement from the category of Lecturer in Physical Education. 9. Lecturer in Physical Education (a) By transfer from the qualified Physical Education Instructors of Physical Education Colleges and Government Poly Technics. (b) In the absence of suitable candidates in item (a) above by direct recruitment. xx xx xx xx xx 4. The above Rules framed under the Public Services Act apply only to Government Colleges. With respect to private colleges, a Full Bench of this Court in Suresh v. Manager, S.N.M. College (2003 (3) KLT 839) took note of the Scheme prepared by the U.G.C. circulated as per letter dated 16-10-1991 the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “Non-profession colleges: Teachers shall possess the following qualification. 1. Principal 1) A first class Master’s degree or a second class Master’s Degree with not less than 55% marks. 1. Principal 1) A first class Master’s degree or a second class Master’s Degree with not less than 55% marks. 2) Appointment to the post of Principal shall be made from among the holders of posts of senior Lecturers (Selection Grade) or Readers in the College or all the colleges in the case of corporate management. Desirable: Research Degree or published work of high standard. Note: In the case of teachers who are in permanent service as on the date of coming into force of this amendment, they shall be deemed to be qualified if they did possess the minimum qualification prescribed by the Regulation in force at the time of their appointment.” The Full Bench also held in paragraph 32 of the judgment as follows: “A perusal of the above provision shows that a person could be appointed as a Principal only if he has a First Class Master’s Degree or a Second Class Master’s Degree with not less than 55% marks. Secondly, only the senior Lecturers (Selection Grade) or Readers in the College were eligible to be considered.” It is seen that the Principal is to be appointed from the category of Reader and Lecturer (Selection Grade). 5. The controversy in this case is as to whether it is total seniority as Lecturer under the Management that is to be taken into account or the seniority in the cadre of Selection Grade Lecturer that is relevant. The petitioner is admittedly senior in the category of Selection Grade Lecturer to respondents 5 and 6. The relevant dates of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 for promotion as Selection Grade Lecturer are as follows: Date of promotion as Sel.Gr, Lecturer Janaradhanan Pillai (Petitioner) 1-10-1995 N. Suresh (5th respondent) 23-2-1996 K.P. Balachandran (6th respondent) 14-8-1996 If total seniority is to be taken into account, then the petitioner is junior to respondents 5 and 6. the particulars of the dates of 1st appointment of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are as follows: Date of appointment as Lecturer Janaradhanan Pillai (Petitioner) 1-10-1980 N. Suresh (5th respondent) 23-2-1980 K.P. Balachandran (6th respondent) 14-8-1980 6. The petitioner was given promotion as Selection Grade Lecturer on account of his obtaining M.Phil Degree. the particulars of the dates of 1st appointment of the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 are as follows: Date of appointment as Lecturer Janaradhanan Pillai (Petitioner) 1-10-1980 N. Suresh (5th respondent) 23-2-1980 K.P. Balachandran (6th respondent) 14-8-1980 6. The petitioner was given promotion as Selection Grade Lecturer on account of his obtaining M.Phil Degree. According to the 1st respondent, acquiring a placement in the Selection Grade one year earlier does not change the petitioner’s position in the seniority list and does not confer on him any right for claiming seniority. Earlier placement as Selection Grade Lecturer confers only monetary benefits and no new seniority list is prepared based on placement as Selection Grade Lecturers. 7. As per S.59(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, appointments of principals can be made by educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, or by direct recruitment, Sub-section (3) of S.59 says that where the appointment of principal is made by promotion, the education agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. In this case, the management has opted for appointment by promotion and not by direct recruitment. There is no dispute that if appointment of principal is made by promotion, the senior person should be promoted unless he is found to be unfit for the post of Principal. In this case, the selection committee has included the petitioner also in the select list which shows that he was not found to be unfit for the post of Principal. The only reason to rank him as junior to respondents 5 and 6 in the select list was by taking into account his original date of appointment as Lecturer which was subsequent to the date of appointment of respondents 5 and 6. 8. As noted by the Full Bench is Suresh’s case (2003 (3) KLT 839), it is clear that the feeder category for appointment for Principal is Selection Grade Lecturer and while considering the claims of rival contestants seniority in the feeder category of Selection Grade Lecturer is to be taken into account. The Full Bench has ruled that it is mandatory that the educational agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The Full Bench has ruled that it is mandatory that the educational agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. There is no discretion for the management to bypass the senior and select the junior unless it is fount that the senior is unfit for the post of principal. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that promotion to the post of Selection Grade Lecturer is only for the purpose of monetary benefits and not for any other purpose. The fact that the 1st respondent has not prepared any separate list of seniority of Selection Grade Lecturers by itself will not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming seniority among Selection Grade Lecturers as there is no dispute in this case that in the category of Selection Grade Lecturers, the petitioner was earlier promoted than respondents 5 and 6. In this connection, it has to be noted that the petitioner was granted promotion as Selection Grade Lecturer earlier on account of his acquisition of M.Phil Degree. Earlier acquisition of additional qualification if can count for earlier promotion as Selection Grade Lecturer can certainly count for further promotion to the post of Principal also. 9. The main contention of respondents 5 and 6 is that the seniority is to be reckoned from the date of entry into service and not that of Selection Grade Lecturer. According to the 5th respondent, the implementation of U.G.C. Scheme was common to all and there is no merit in the statement that the petitioner is senior in the cadre. In view of the provisions in the Act and the Scheme as quoted above, this contention cannot be accepted. The contention that earlier promotion as Selection Grade Lecturer is only for the purpose of giving monetary benefit and for no other purpose cannot be accepted. 10. The Tribunal has misunderstood the contention of the petitioner and not applied the provisions of the Act and Scheme correctly. The provisions in the Collegiate Education Service Rules, though not directly applicable, supports this view. There is no reason to adopt a different mode of promotion merely because the college is a private college. The petitioner has no other effective remedy to challenge the finding of the Tribunal except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. There is no reason to adopt a different mode of promotion merely because the college is a private college. The petitioner has no other effective remedy to challenge the finding of the Tribunal except to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the light of the above discussion, we find that the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted and that he is entitled to earlier promotion as Principal than respondents 5 and 6. Ext.P1 judgment is therefore set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders giving promotion to the petitioner as Principal earlier than respondents 5 and 6. Fresh orders in this respect must be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is allowed as above.