Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorari challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005, appointing Dr. G. Govindaraj, Reader, Department of Physics, Pondicherry University, the second respondent herein, as the Co-Ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, replacing the petitioner, who was holding the post of the Head of the Department of the University Science Instrumentation Centre, renamed as the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. 2. The petitioner has stated that he holds a B.E. degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering and an M.E. degree with Specialisation in Instrumentation Systems and Micro Processors. Based on his educational qualifications, he had been selected and appointed as a Technical Officer-II, in the Pondicherry University, in the month of October, 1994. The University Science Instrumentation Centres had been introduced in the Universities, by the University Grants Commission, with a view to provide sophisticated instruments for teaching and for advanced research in Science and Technology. The University Grants Commission had given the assistance to the universities to create such centres and it had also issued the necessary guidelines for implementation of the scheme. 3. It has been further stated that the revised guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, vide its letter, bearing F.No.2-18/92/SR-III, dated 5.2.1999, lays down the objectives of the University Science Instrumentation Centres Programme and the three levels at which they had been envisaged. Paragraph 6(B) of Part I of the guidelines stipulates that the University Science Instrumentation Centres shall have the senior most Teacher/Technologist in Instrumentation as the Head of the Centre. Paragraph 6 (C) of the guidelines is with regard to the staff to be appointed in the Centres and the qualification necessary for such appointments. Since, the petitioner had possessed all the necessary qualifications prescribed for the post of Technical Officer - II, he had been appointed as such in the University Science Instrumentation Centres of the Pondicherry University, in the year, 1994. Thereafter, vide office order No.58, dated 16.5.1995, issued by the first respondent, the petitioner had been appointed as the head of the University Science Instrumentation Centres. As the head of the Department of the University Science Instrumentation Centres, the petitioner has been rendering blemish less service. Thereafter, vide office order No.58, dated 16.5.1995, issued by the first respondent, the petitioner had been appointed as the head of the University Science Instrumentation Centres. As the head of the Department of the University Science Instrumentation Centres, the petitioner has been rendering blemish less service. While so, the first respondent had issued the impugned office order, No.273, dated 29.12.2005, appointing the second respondent as the Co-ordinator and directing the petitioner to hand over the charge of the centre to him. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Ms.G.Thilagavathy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the appointment of the second respondent as the head of the University Science Instrumentation Centres, renamed as the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, is illegal and contrary to the University Grants Commissions guidelines. While the petitioner possesses all the necessary qualifications to be the Head of the Centre, the second respondent does not possesses the qualifications prescribed in paragraph No.6(B) of the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. Even though the guidelines state that the University Science Instrumentation Centres should have the full time person as the head, the second respondent has been appointed only as the Co-ordinator, to be in additional charge of the centre, by the impugned order, dated 29.12.2005. Further, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005, has been issued without reference to the committee constituted by the executive council of the Pondicherry University. Though there is no monetary loss, the impugned order is punitive in nature, as it seeks to reduce the status of the petitioner and since, it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Futher, as the petitioner had not been given an opportunity of hearing before the passing of the impugned order, dated 29.12.2005, it is bad in law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that since, the appointment of the second respondent had been made without reference to the advisory committee of the University Science Instrumentation Centres and the Standing Committee constituted in accordance with the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, the appointment of the second respondent is bad in the eye of law. The University of Pondicherry cannot act in an authoritarian manner, without following the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. The University of Pondicherry cannot act in an authoritarian manner, without following the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. Being a Central University, it is being funded by the University Grants Commission and therefore, the guidelines of the commission would be binding on the University. As such, any appointment made contrary to the guidelines of the University Grants Commission cannot be held to be valid. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has been stated that the appointment of the second respondent, as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, has been made, based on the recommendation of the Committee of the University Grants Commission. The said Committee had recommended that one of the senior faculty from the Science Department of the University could be made as a Co-ordinator and the head of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. The second respondent had been appointed only with a view to strengthen the University Science Instrumentation Centres, renamed as the Centre Instrumentation Facility, based on the resolution of the executive council of the university, by its resolution No.2004.109 passed in its 79th meeting held, on 12.10.2004. 7. It has been further stated that the appointment of the second respondent, who was a senior science faculty member, as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility was based on a review of the functioning of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, by a committee comprised of Senior deans of the university, who had recommended the appointment of a senior science faculty, as the Co-ordinator for the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, in their report, dated 19.12.2005. 8. It had also been stated that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the University Grants Commission’s support for the University Science Instrumentation Centres was only for a period of five years after which the maintenance of the Centre, including the payment of salary of the employees, would be from the funds of the Pondicherry university. Further, there is no upgradation and development of the Centre for nearly a decade, with regard to the new and the growing demands of the faculty, researchers and the students of the science departments. Therefore, the University Science Instrumentation Centres had been converted as Centre for Instrumentation Facility, to enhance and expand its service and utility. Further, there is no upgradation and development of the Centre for nearly a decade, with regard to the new and the growing demands of the faculty, researchers and the students of the science departments. Therefore, the University Science Instrumentation Centres had been converted as Centre for Instrumentation Facility, to enhance and expand its service and utility. The appointment of the second respondent as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility had been ratified by the academic council of the University, in its meeting held on 19.1.2006. In such circumstances, the appointment of the second respondent, as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, by the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005, cannot be held to be invalid. 9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, the averments and allegations of the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the appointment of the second respondent is only based on his qualifications and as per the guidelines of the University Grants Commission. The appointment of the second respondent was based on the recommendations made by the experts committee, consisting of senior deans of the University. The petitioner has been appointed as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, with effect from 2.1.2006. The second respondent had also enumerated the qualifications possessed by him. 10. It has also been submitted that the usage of the facilities had been steadily increasing, from the year, 2005. The nature of the jobs carried out by the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, from the year, 2005, is by using sophisticated analytical instruments for scanning the samples and materials of research, used by the students and the faculty, for their various properties. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent University Grants Commission, it has been stated that in order to implement the scheme of the University Science Instrumentation Centres in the individual universities, the University Grants Commission had framed certain guidelines. Clause 3 of the guidelines provides the objectives of the University Science Instrumentation Centres programme. The guidelines of the University Grants Commission is binding on all the universities, in which the commission had approved the establishment of the University Science Instrumentation Centres. Therefore, the University cannot conduct its affairs relating to the University Science Instrumentation Centres in the Pondicherry university, without following the guidelines. 12. The guidelines of the University Grants Commission is binding on all the universities, in which the commission had approved the establishment of the University Science Instrumentation Centres. Therefore, the University cannot conduct its affairs relating to the University Science Instrumentation Centres in the Pondicherry university, without following the guidelines. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had submitted that the petitioner cannot have any grievance, with regard to the appointment of the second respondent, as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. The petitioner has not been adversely affected in monetary terms. Further, no civil consequences arise in the matter, due to the passing of the impugned order, dated 29.12.2005, by the first respondent. The appointment of the second respondent is only in accordance with the University Grants Commissions guidelines and that the said guidelines are binding on the Pondicherry University. The University Grants Commission has been the funding agency for the Centre, for the past five years. Thereafter, the State Government should provide the financial assistance for its maintenance. However, with regard to the Pondicherry University, which is a Central University, the University Grants Commission is the funding agency. 13. It has also been submitted that the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission are binding in nature and that the minimum standards prescribed by the said Commission shall be followed by the concerned University. However, there is no prohibition for the University to create higher posts for the betterment and for the establishment of the higher standards in the functioning of the Instrumentation Science Centre. The petitioner is only a technologist, whereas, the second respondent is possessing various higher qualifications, as compared to that of the petitioner. He is also the senior most teacher qualified to be appointed as the Co-ordinator of the Centre. The expert committee had also recommended the appointment of the second respondent as the Co-ordinator of the Centre. Even though the university Grants Commission had known about the upgradation of the Centre and the appointment of the second respondent as its Co-ordinator, it had not raised any objection, till date. The funding for the Centre, including the payment, salary and other emoluments of the second respondent, had been done by the University Grants Commission. Even though the university Grants Commission had known about the upgradation of the Centre and the appointment of the second respondent as its Co-ordinator, it had not raised any objection, till date. The funding for the Centre, including the payment, salary and other emoluments of the second respondent, had been done by the University Grants Commission. Since, the pay scale of the petitioner had not been affected and no civil consequences have arisen due to the appointment of the second respondent as the Co-ordinator of the Centre, the petitioner can have no grievance due to the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005. Further, the petitioner has not alleged that the appointment of the second respondent is mala fide in nature. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous, since, the appointment of the second respondent, by way of the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005, had come to an end on his going on sabbatical leave, from 1.8.2006 to 11.5.2007, during which period Dr.T.K.Nambinarayanan, Reader, Department of Physics, had been appointed as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. Thereafter, the second respondent had been re-appointed as the Co-ordinator of the facility, for a period of one year, by an order of the first respondent, dated 2.8.2007. Later, by an order, dated 25.7.2008, he had been reappointed as the Co-ordinator, for a further period of one year, with effect from 2.8.2008. By the order, dated 31.8.2009, issued by the first respondent, the second respondent had been continued as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, until further orders. Since, the petitioner has not challenged the subsequent orders of the first respondent, appointing the second respondent as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, the present writ petition challenging the order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005, had become infructuous. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 15. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 15. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005, appointing the second respondent as the Co-ordinator for the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, in addition to his normal duties, subject to the ratification of the Executive Council of the Pondicherry University, is bad in law. Though the petitioner has alleged that the appointment of the second respondent, as the Co-ordinator for the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, is contrary to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, he has not been able to substantiate such a claim. Unless, the petitioner has a vested right to be incharge of the Centre for Instrumentation facility, earlier known as the University Science Instrumentation Centre, he cannot have a valid ground to challenge the order of the first respondent, dated 29.12.2005. 16. The decision of the Pondicherry University to detach the University Science Instrumentation Centre renamed as the Centre for instrumentation facility, from the Department of Physics, to enable it to function as an independent Centre, with the petitioner, who is a Technical Officer Grade-II, as the Head of the Centre, vide Officer Order No.58, dated 16.5.1995, and the subsequent Office Order No.51, dated 22.8.2003, cannot be construed to be creating a permanent right or interest in the petitioner, in respect of the post, which he was holding. Even if the claim of the petitioner that he is possessing the necessary qualifications to be incharge of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, it would not be open to him to claim that no other person, including the second respondent, can be appointed, as the Co-ordinator of the said Centre. Further, it is not in dispute that the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, is binding on the Pondicherry University. However, there is nothing to show that the said guidelines had been violated by the Pondicherry University in appointing the second respondent, as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. Further, it is not in dispute that the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, is binding on the Pondicherry University. However, there is nothing to show that the said guidelines had been violated by the Pondicherry University in appointing the second respondent, as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. The appointment of the second respondent, as the Co-ordinator for the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, is based on his educational qualifications and his experience and it has been stated that the appointment has been made only for fulfilling the objectives of the University Science Instrumentation Centre Programmes and for maintaining high standards in the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. Further, it is noted that by an order, dated 28.7.2006, one Dr.T.K.Nambinarayanan, Reader, Department of Physics had been appointed as the Co-ordinator for the Centre for Instrumentation Facility. Thereafter, by subsequent orders, dated 25.7.2008 and 31.8.2009, the second respondent had been appointed as the Co-ordinator of the Centre for Instrumentation Facility, for further periods. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said orders. In such circumstances, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petitions are closed.