JUDGMENT N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned senior counsel, Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel and Mr.Dr. RK Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned senior G.A., Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, Mr. A. Bimol, Mr. S. Gunabanta, Mr. Ph. Sanajaoba and Mr. L. Raju, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. These four writ petitions are taken up and heard together in view of the fact that these petitions relate to the same recruitment process for appointment to the posts of Principals, Government Colleges in the State of Manipur in terms of the same advertisement issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission. 3. In W.P.(C) No. 102 of 2014, two petitioners are seeking setting aside of the Advertisement dated 27.08.2013 issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) advertising 25 posts of Principals of Government Colleges in the State of Manipur and subsequent Notification dated 3.02.2014 issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission by which the candidature of 15 candidates including the present two writ petitioners (Dr. Thoudam Rajen Singh and Dr. Chungkham Sheelaramani) were rejected for various reasons mentioned in the said notification and seeking re-advertisement of the said posts. 4. In W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2014, three petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.02.2014 issued by the State Government constituting a Special Screening Committee for assessing the API scores as per the UGC norms for recruitment to the said 25 posts of Principals advertised by the Manipur Public Service Commission as well as the Notification dated 13.12.2014 by which three candidates (private respondents no. 3, 4 and 5) had been declared qualified for interview for appointment to the said advertised posts of Principals and for a direction to reassess the ACRs of the petitioners by reconstituting a new Committee. 5. In W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014, the lone petitioner has sought for issuing a writ in the nature of quo warranto challenging the appointment of the private respondents no. 4, 5 and 6 as Principals of Government Colleges vide Government order dated 14.11.2014 on the ground that they do not possess the requisite/essential qualifications prescribed for the said posts. 6. In W.P.(C) No. 941 of 2014, ten petitioners have sought for issue of writ of certiorari, mandamus and quo warranto for quashing the order dated 14.11.2014 by which the respondents no. 6. In W.P.(C) No. 941 of 2014, ten petitioners have sought for issue of writ of certiorari, mandamus and quo warranto for quashing the order dated 14.11.2014 by which the respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 were appointed as regular Principals in Government Colleges and also for quashing the Notification dated 13.02.2014 issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission declaring them to have been qualified for facing interview for appointment to the post of Principals, Government of Manipur. 7. Before we proceed to deal with the respective contentions raised in these writ petitions, certain facts which are necessary and relevant for decision by this Court may adverted to. 8. On the requisition made by the Government of Manipur for appointment to 25 posts of Principals for various Government Colleges, by way of direct recruitment, the Manipur Public Service Commission issued an advertisement being Advertisement No.3 dated 27.08.2013 inviting applications from the aspiring candidates for recruitment to the said 25 posts of Principals. As per the aforesaid advertisement, the following essential qualifications have been laid down for the said posts. “ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION:- (i) A Master’s Degree with at least 55% marks (or equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) by a recognised University. (ii) A Ph.D. Degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline(s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance. (iii) Associate Professor with a total experience of 15(fifteen) years of teaching/research/administration in Universities, Colleges and other Institutions of Higher Education. (iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in Appendix-III of the UGC Regulation, 2010 for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges which is given below :- (a) Consolidated API score requirement of 400(four hundred) points from Category-III of APIs. (b) Academic Background (20%);Research Performance based on API score & quality of publications (40%); Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (20%) & Interview Performance (20%). N.B.: 1. See details in the information for candidates attached in the application form. 2. Last date for issue and receipt of application form and for determination of age will be 14-11-2013. 3. Age : 35 years and above. 4. The prescribed essential qualifications are minimum and mere possession of the same does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview or short listing. 2. Last date for issue and receipt of application form and for determination of age will be 14-11-2013. 3. Age : 35 years and above. 4. The prescribed essential qualifications are minimum and mere possession of the same does not entitle a candidate to be called for interview or short listing. Where the number of applications received in response to the notification is large, the Commission may restrict the number of the candidates for interview to a reasonable limit on the basis of qualifications and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the notification.” 9. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners in these writ petitions applied for appointment to these posts. A notification was subsequently issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission on 27.01.2014 directing thirteen candidates to submit necessary documents which were found wanting. Thereafter, the Manipur Public Service Commission issued the Notification dated 03.02.2014 by which 49 (fortynine) candidates were declared to have possessed the educational qualifications and teaching experience prescribed for the post of Principal, Government College, Manipur (which includes some of these petitioners). However, it was mentioned in the said notification that their admissibility for interview shall be subject to securing of API scores to be furnished by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Manipur. 10. As part of the aforesaid recruitment process, the Department of Higher Education, Government of Manipur constituted a Special Screening Committee consisting of five officers/experts for checking the API score assessment as per the UGC norms. On the basis of the assessment made by the Special Screening Committee, three candidates/three private respondents were declared to have been qualified for facing interview for appointment to the posts of Principals, Government Colleges vide Notification dated 13.12.2014 issued by the Manipur Public Service Commission. Subsequently, on the basis of interview conducted by the Manipur Public Service Commission, these three private respondents were recommended for appointment to the posts of Principals of Government Colleges on which basis the Department of Higher Education, Government of Manipur issued the appointment order dated 14.11.2014 appointing them as regular Principals of the Government Colleges. 11. Different stages of the recruitment process for appointment to the posts of Principals, Government Colleges have been subjected to challenge in these writ petitions as mentioned above. 11. Different stages of the recruitment process for appointment to the posts of Principals, Government Colleges have been subjected to challenge in these writ petitions as mentioned above. However, what had been deliberated for a considerable length of time is on two aspects, i.e., the maintainability of the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 392 of 2014 seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto questioning the validity of the appointment of three private respondents as Principals of the Government Colleges and the other is the related issue of the eligibility of the three recommendies/appointees to the posts of Principals. Though the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 941 of 2014 have also generally prayed for issue of the writ of certiorari/Mandamus, quo warranto, they have not seriously pressed the issue of writ of quo warranto and have dealt more on the irregularities in the process of recruitment. Accordingly, we will firstly proceed to deal with these two issues with particular reference to W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 and later with the other issues. 12. It is the case of Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 that since the post of Principal is a public office, a writ of quo warranto could be issued to remove any person who lacks eligibility to hold that office. Mr. Devananda, learned counsel submits that the private respondents do not possess the essential qualifications and as they lack the eligibility for appointment to the post of Principal of the Government College, a writ of quo warranto would lie to remove them from the office of Principal of Government Colleges. Mr. Devananda, learned counsel therefore, submits that as the post of Principal of Government College is a public office, and since the private respondents do not possess the essential qualifications for the said post, their appointments are without valid legal basis, and hence are usurpers of the office of the Principal and are liable to be removed from the office of the Principal by issue of writ of quo warranto. It has been submitted that petitioner is not seeking any relief for herself and anybody could approach this Court for issue of a writ of quo warranto for removal of any person who is holding a public office without valid authority. 13. It has been submitted that petitioner is not seeking any relief for herself and anybody could approach this Court for issue of a writ of quo warranto for removal of any person who is holding a public office without valid authority. 13. This contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 has been vehemently contested not only by the private respondents but also by the official respondents contending that this petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 was a candidate for recruitment to the said posts in issue and is motivated by malice and ill will. Hence, no such writ of quo warranto could lie at her instance. It has been submitted that the writ of quo warranto would not be maintainable if the same had been filed with malice. It has been submitted that the petition had been filed for settling personal scores, it has not been filed with bonafide intention but with an oblique motive after the petitioner herself was unsuccessful in the recruitment process. Accordingly, the respondents have submitted that the petition seeking issue of quo warranto is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 14. As we proceed, it may be apposite to refer briefly to the scope of the writ of quo warranto. “Quo Warranto” literally means “by what authority”. It is the name of the writ by which an action is initiated to remove any holder of office who has no legal right or legal title to do so. It is a remedy whereby the Court examines the legality of the claim by which a party assumes an office. The scope of this writ has been succinctly summed up by Gajendragadkar, J in University of Mysore vs. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 ; (1964) 4 SCR 575 in the following words : “Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases, persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of connivance of the executive or with its active help and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the court to issue writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted, and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy. It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not.” 15. In the writ of quo warranto, the Court is primarily concerned with the issue whether the person holding a public office lacks eligibility criteria or the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The concept of locus standi which is strictly applicable to service jurisprudence for the purpose of canvassing the legality or correctness of the impugned action normally does not come in the way of deciding the validity of the appointment order in a writ of quo warranto. As the primary purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional Courts to see that the public office has not been usurped by any person without any legal authority, to that extent, issue of writ of quo warranto ordinarily should not be ousted on the ground of lack of locus standi of the person moving the constitutional Court. However, since the issue of a writ is discretionary, the Courts in due course have evolved certain self-imposed limitations in throwing wide open the door to anybody seeking issue of quo warranto. However, since the issue of a writ is discretionary, the Courts in due course have evolved certain self-imposed limitations in throwing wide open the door to anybody seeking issue of quo warranto. Some of the limitations which have been evolved by the Courts are that the writ of quo warranto can only be granted in respect of an office which is of public nature not for any non statutory office. Further, challenge to such appointment must be made directly in a proceeding and not by way of collateral attack. Thirdly, the writ being discretionary in nature, those who approach the Court must come without any ill motive or any vested interest. In other words, the petitioner must approach the Court with clean hands and with a genuine bonafide intention and without any oblique motive. There are other limitations, namely, that the petition must not suffer from delay and laches, and availability of alternative remedy may also be a ground for not entertaining a petition for quo warranto and issue raised should not be a futile and only for academic purpose. In the present case, we are not so much concerned about the various limitations, except the issue relating to the conduct and motive of the petitioner in filing the petition seeking issue of quo warranto, to which strong exceptions have been taken by the respondents. The respondents have vehemently opposed the petition for issue of quo warranto on the ground that the petitioner herself was a candidate in the aforesaid recruitment process and having applied, she had taken a chance for consideration, though it is altogether a different matter that her candidature was rejected. It has been submitted that since she had also applied for the said post and was unsuccessful, it cannot be said she had filed the petition seeking issue of writ of quo warranto without any personal interest or motive or ill will/motive. In short, it is the contention of the respondents that it is a case of grapes turning sour and she has sought for issue of writ of quo warranto after she was unsuccessful in the recruitment process and since the conduct and motive of the petitioner are questionable and as there is lack of bonafide, writ of quo warranto sought, ought to be refused by this Court. 16. 16. We have given our anxious thoughts on this issue of maintainability of the petition for issue of writ of quo warranto. What we have noted from the pleadings and the records available is that the petitioner, K. Kunjani Devi in W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 was herself a candidate in the recruitment process. Though she was declared initially eligible in terms of the notification dated 3.2.2013 issued by the MPSC, her name does not find place in the final list of eligible candidates issued by the MPSC on 13.02.2014 in which only the three private respondents were declared to be qualified for facing interview. In other words, though the petitioner was declared to be not qualified by the MPSC as per Notification dated 13.02.2014, the petitioner did not challenge the said Notification. It has been also noted that petitioner was one of the three Principals-in-Charge who were displaced subsequently upon appointment of the three recommendees vide order dated 14th November, 2014. The petitioner was earlier serving as the Principal-in-Charge in Lilong Haoreibi College. However, by order dated 14.11.2014 she has been reverted to her substantive post of Associate Professor in the Lilong Haoreibi College in her place the respondent No. 3, Dr. A. Nabachandra Singh was appointed as the regular Principal. Thus, the contention of the respondents that filing of this writ petition by Dr. K. Kunjani Devi in seeking issue of a writ of quo warranto is actuated by personal motive cannot be said to be wholly without any bias. Certainly, the petitioner was not only aggrieved by the appointment of the respondent no. 3 as the Principal on regular basis but also by her removal from the post of incharge Principal of Lilong Haoreibi College. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is total absence of personal motive in the present writ petition. We have also observed that nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a petition for issue of an appropriate writ of certiorari as has been done by other petitioners in assailing the appointment of the private respondents as Principals of the Government Colleges. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is total absence of personal motive in the present writ petition. We have also observed that nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a petition for issue of an appropriate writ of certiorari as has been done by other petitioners in assailing the appointment of the private respondents as Principals of the Government Colleges. Therefore, in this particular petition in W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, we are of the view that the petition cannot be said to be wholly bonafide and entirely devoid of any personal motive and since other effective alternative remedy is also available, and being a discretionary writ, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition viz., W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 for the purpose of issuing a writ of quo warranto and accordingly, hold that the writ petition is not maintainable. 17. Though we have held that W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 is not maintainable, it may be noted that this Court had already decided to hear all the connected writ petitions together in which the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashing the appointment of the private respondents. It may be mentioned that a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and quo warranto are normally heard by the Division Bench and petitions seeking other writs viz., certiorari or mandamus etc. by a Single Bench. But, remanding the other writ petitions at this stage to a Single Bench may entail undue delay as there had been already considerable deliberations on the issue of eligibility of the private respondents. Hence, we have decided to take up the remaining writ petitions for hearing. Accordingly, we will proceed to decide the issue of non-eligibility of the private respondents for appointment to the posts of Principals raised in other writ petitions. 18. As regards this issue of eligibility, it is the common contention of the petitioners that the private respondents do not fulfil the essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement as well as as per the UGC norm. At outset, it may be stated that Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 namely, Dr. Elangbam Nixon Singh in W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2014 had submitted on 14.01.2015 that since the respondent no. At outset, it may be stated that Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 namely, Dr. Elangbam Nixon Singh in W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2014 had submitted on 14.01.2015 that since the respondent no. 3 in W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2014, is presently serving in the Mizoram University, he has no intention to join this post of Principal offered by the State Government and accordingly, does not wish to contest the writ petition and sought for deletion of his name from this petition. Accordingly, in view of the above submission made by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.3, his name was deleted. Though such similar order has not been passed in other writ petitions where the said Dr. E. Nixon Singh has been impleaded as private respondent, we take it that the said recommendee namely, Dr. E. Nixon Singh would not contest the other writ petitions also, where his recommendation and appointment as Principal of the Government College has been challenged. We have noted that he has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition in the remaining writ petitions. Hence, we would treat that the said Dr. E. Nixon Singh offers no resistance to the allegations made against him. 19. The petitioners contended that in the advertisement issued by Manipur Public Service Commission it has been clearly mentioned that one of the essential qualifications is possession of a Ph.D. degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline(s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance. It is the common case of the petitioners in these writ petitions that the said essential requirement consists of not only possession of Ph.D degree in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline(s) by the concerned candidates but there must be evidence of their published work and also of evidence of research guidance. It had been submitted by the petitioners that the private respondent, Dr. A. Nabachandra Singh does not have the experience of research guidance as he was authorised to be a research guide by the Manipur University only on 30.01.2014 vide O.O. No. 1190 which is long after the last date of the receipt of the application form for the said post which was fixed on 14.11.2013. The petitioners contend that every candidate must possess the essential qualifications within the last date of submission of application or the date fixed in the advertisement. The petitioners contend that every candidate must possess the essential qualifications within the last date of submission of application or the date fixed in the advertisement. Since, the last date was fixed by the MPSC for submission of application form on 14.11.2013 in the advertisement, it will be the relevant cut off date for determining eligibility. It has been contended that since the private respondent, Dr. A. Nabachandra Singh became a research guidance only in the year 2014, after the last date of submission of application forms, he could not be said to have any experience on research guidance at the time of advertisement of the post. Hence, his experience as a research guide after the last date of submission of forms could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of judging his eligibility. It has been also submitted that another essential qualification specifically mentioned in the advertisement is that a candidate must have a minimum score as stipulated in Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS), as set out in Appendix-III of the UGC Regulation, 2010 for direct recruitment of Professors in Colleges which are reproduced herein below. “(a) Consolidated API score requirement of 400(four hundred) points from Category-III of APIs. (b) Academic Background (20%);Research Performance based on API score & quality of publications (40%); Assessment of Domain Knowledge and Teaching Skills (20%) & Interview Performance (20%).” 20. Drawing attention of this Court to the score given by Special Screening Committee relating to the API scores, it had been submitted that though the said private respondent, Dr. A. Nabachandra Singh does not have any experience of research guidance at the relevant time of the advertisement of the said posts, he was erroneously given 41 points for research guidance. Since he is not entitled to the said 41 points awarded for experience in research guidance the said 41 points have to be deducted from the total API scored by him of 410. Thus, by deducting the said 41 points from the total score of 410 he would only get 369 which is below the required 400 points as mentioned in the advertisement. In that event, he will not be eligible. 21. Similarly, in respect of the other private respondent, namely, Dr. Md. Thus, by deducting the said 41 points from the total score of 410 he would only get 369 which is below the required 400 points as mentioned in the advertisement. In that event, he will not be eligible. 21. Similarly, in respect of the other private respondent, namely, Dr. Md. Raheijuddin Sheikh, it has been stated that he is not yet been conferred the status of research guide till date by the Manipur University in his subject which is clearly indicated in the score sheet where he had not been given any mark under the said head. Therefore, if the said respondent does not have experience of research guidance, he cannot be said to have fulfilled the said essential qualification mentioned in the advertisement. Accordingly, it had been submitted that the said private respondent Dr. Md. Raheijuddin Sheikh is also not eligible. Hence, he also cannot be considered for appointment to the said post. 22. Similar allegation has been made about the other private respondent Dr. E. Nixon Singh, that he was not a research guide at the relevant time and also does not have the mandatory 15 years experience in teaching/research/administration. 23. The private respondents no. 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014 (Dr. A. Nabachandra Singh and Dr. Md. Raheijuddin Sheikh) have vehemently opposed these allegations and have contended that they possess all the essential qualifications. They have submitted that the requirements of published work and research guidance as mentioned in the advertisement are not part of the essential qualifications. It is their contention that experience of research guidance as mentioned in the advertisement would be the experience of the concerned candidate of having been guided in research while undertaking the Ph.D. course. They contend that there are two kinds of Ph.Ds conferred by the Universities, one, after having fulfilled the academic criteria and another kind of Ph.D. which is conferred as honorary degree to various persons of eminence without having undertaken any research guidance, without any published work or having been guided by a research guide. It has been submitted by the private respondents that, for instance, Honorary Ph.D degrees are awarded by reputed University to several personalities like Lalu Prasad Yadav, Amitabh Bachann, Amir Khan, Akshay Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan, Sachin Tendulkar Aziz Premji, Laishram Birendrakumar Singh etc. It has been submitted by the private respondents that, for instance, Honorary Ph.D degrees are awarded by reputed University to several personalities like Lalu Prasad Yadav, Amitabh Bachann, Amir Khan, Akshay Kumar, Shah Rukh Khan, Sachin Tendulkar Aziz Premji, Laishram Birendrakumar Singh etc. They contend that it is only such honorary Ph.D awardees/holders who do not have any evidence of published works or do not have the experience of being guided by a research guide, who will not be eligible for appointment to the post of Principal of Government College. They contend that the meaning of the expression “A Ph.D. Degree in concerned/allied/relevant discipline(s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance” would mean that the candidate must have obtained a Ph.D. degree after having certain works published and after having been guided by a research guide. According to them, the aforesaid expression, therefore, would refer to candidates who have been awarded degree of Ph.D. after being guided by a research guide. This interpretation according to them is consistent with the provision for award of mark in the API score relating to publication of work and research guidance. They submit that the provisions of published work and research guidance have been incorporated under various heads and sub heads under Category III of the API score sheet, which have been merely emphasised by mentioning along with the requirement of Ph.D. degree. It has been, therefore, submitted that clause (ii) of the advertisement under the heading essential qualifications has to be referred to the honorary Ph.D degree obtained by such candidate which was awarded without any published work or experience of research guidance under a guide and only such persons would not be eligible for appointment to the post of Principal. It has been submitted that since the private respondents have obtained the Ph.D. Degree after having guided in their research for their Ph.D by their respective guides, they fulfil the essential qualification. 24. The petitioners, have raised another ground relating to the experience of research guidance. It has been submitted that since the private respondents have obtained the Ph.D. Degree after having guided in their research for their Ph.D by their respective guides, they fulfil the essential qualification. 24. The petitioners, have raised another ground relating to the experience of research guidance. It has been contended by the petitioners that in the UGC Regulation, 2009 (Minimum Standards and Procedure for award of M.Phil/Ph.D degree) issued on 1.06.2009, it has been provided that notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations or any other rule or regulation for the time being in force, no university, institution, deemed university/college/institution of national importance shall conduct M.Phil/Ph.D programme through distance education mode. It has been submitted that the private respondent no. 4, Dr. Asem Nabachandra Singh, was declared as a research guide by the CMJ University in Shillong though he was never part of the faculty of the said University. The said University is a private university which has been embroiled in various controversies and any Ph.D degree awarded by the University is of doubtful nature. That apart, the CMJ University was allowed to conduct M.Phil/Ph.D programme in regular mode only in its main campus in Shillong, Meghalaya and as such, in terms of the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2009 as mentioned above, the Ph.D cannot be awarded unless the same is conducted in the main campus of Shillong. The petitioners contended that the respondent no. 4 Shri A. Nabachandra Singh was not a faculty member of the CMJ University as he was serving as an Associate Professor in Thoubal College, Manipur on regular basis. Hence, he could not have validly guided any Ph.D student under the CMJ University in Shillong as any Ph. D programme conducted through distance education is prohibited by the UGC Regulations, 2009. For similar reason, the research experience of the Respondent no. 4 obtained with reference to other universities outside the State of Manipur cannot be taken into account. The petitioners, therefore, contend that on this score, the alleged experience of research guidance through distance mode, being impermissible, cannot be counted in his API score in terms of the UGC regulations. It has been further contended that the certificates (in Annexure R-1(colly)) of award of Ph.D to two candidates of the CMJ University allegedly guided by the respondent no. The petitioners, therefore, contend that on this score, the alleged experience of research guidance through distance mode, being impermissible, cannot be counted in his API score in terms of the UGC regulations. It has been further contended that the certificates (in Annexure R-1(colly)) of award of Ph.D to two candidates of the CMJ University allegedly guided by the respondent no. 4 show that those candidates were registered for undergoing Ph.D. during the year 2010-2012, though the respondent No. 4 was given approval by the CMJ University for guideship in Physics only on1.07.2011. Therefore, it has been contended that the said A. Nabachandra Singh could not have been a research guide prior to 1.07.2011. This according to the petitioners clearly shows that the aforesaid research guidance of the said respondent no. 4 is highly suspect apart from the fact that it was done through distance mode, which is impermissible. Hence, it has been submitted by the petitioners that the private respondent no. 4 Dr. A. Nabachandra Singh does not have valid guiding experience in research in terms of the advertisement issued by the MPSC for appointment to the post of Principal. The petitioners also contend that as regards the other private respondents, nothing has been shown on record showing their experience in research guidance. 25. Dr.R.K. Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 941 of 2014 has raised an additional ground stating that otherwise also, the marks given to the private respondents in the API score is contrary to the UGC notification issued on 30th June, 2013 in which a cap has been placed on the various sub-categories in the Category III (research and publication and academic contributions), which has not been followed while awarding scores of the API as in respect of some heads, and more marks than permissible have been awarded. It has been contended that if the marks allotted beyond the cap provided are deducted none of these private respondents would score the minimum requirement of 400 API scores. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the private respondents do not fulfil the essential qualifications for recommendation and hence their appointment as Principals of the Government Colleges are illegal. 26. We are not able to accept the contentions of the respondents. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the private respondents do not fulfil the essential qualifications for recommendation and hence their appointment as Principals of the Government Colleges are illegal. 26. We are not able to accept the contentions of the respondents. The argument advanced by the private respondents that the requirement of “research guidance” of a candidate relates to the guidance received by the candidate concerned under a guide in course of obtaining the Ph.D. Degree flies in the face of the rules. The essential qualification for appointment to the post of Principal as per the Advertisement and the UGC norms is the possession of “Ph.D. Degree in the concerned/ allied/ relevant discipline(s) in the institution concerned with evidence of published work and research guidance.” What the rules therefore, require is that the candidate should be (i) A Ph.D. Degree holder in the concerned discipline, (ii) There must be evidence of the candidate having (a) published works (b) research guidance. In other words, the candidate must not only be a doctorate in the concerned discipline, but must have published works to his credit and must have guided some research scholars since the job concerned (i.e., Principal) is for administration and teaching. This is what one gathers from a plain reading of the aforesaid expression. However, what the private respondents would like us to accept is that the said experience of research guidance is with reference to the experience obtained by the candidate himself of being guided by a guide. while the candidate himself was undergoing Ph.D. course. Thus according to the respondents, the experience of research guidance mentioned in the rules is the experience of the candidate himself of being guided in research while undergoing the Ph.D. course and not the experience gathered in providing guidance to other researcher after the candidate himself obtained the Ph.D. degree. This interpretation advanced by the respondents is not only contrary to the plain meaning of the essential qualifications laid down the advertisement and the UGC rules, but also inherently absurd by stretching too far the meaning of expression used. The private respondents would submit that there could be Ph.D. degrees which could be obtained by not undertaking any research under the guidance of a guide by mentioning to Honorary Ph.D. The private Respondents are referring to those Honorary Ph.D. Degree holders in interpreting the aforesaid clause. The private respondents would submit that there could be Ph.D. degrees which could be obtained by not undertaking any research under the guidance of a guide by mentioning to Honorary Ph.D. The private Respondents are referring to those Honorary Ph.D. Degree holders in interpreting the aforesaid clause. But the relevant rules do not use the expression “Honorary Ph.D.” anywhere. It may be mentioned that Honorary Ph.D is not part of any academic course for the purpose of educational qualifications for appointment to any post with which the UGC is concerned. The UGC has framed certain regulations known as the “UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009” which governs the grant of Ph.D Degree by the academic institutions. As per the aforesaid Regulations, no one can be awarded Ph.D. degree unless one undertakes academic exercises mentioned in the said Regulations, which includes academic research under the guidance of a recognized guide. No other method has been laid down for grant of Ph.D. Degree. Under the UGC Regulations undertaking academic research under a research guide is an inherent part of the Ph.D. course without which no one can be granted Ph.D. degree. In view of the above, there could not be any Ph.D. without undertaking the academic research, other than the “Honorary Ph.D.” for which the UGC has not framed any rules or regulations. Hence, if we accept the interpretation of the private respondents, it would lead to the position where a proper Ph.D. could be still obtained without undertaking any academic research which would be quite contrary to the aforesaid UGC Regulations of 2009. When the legislature/rule making authority had used the expression “evidence of ….. research guidance” along with the essential requirement of possession of Ph.D. Degree, it cannot mean what is already inherent and already part of the Ph.D. Degree, as the rule making authority cannot be expected to use an expression which is redundant. Therefore, the only meaningful construction would be that the evidence of “research guidance” relates to an experience which is not an integral part of the Ph.D. degree. In that event, the experience of “research guidance” will be the experience which is not part of the Ph.D. course but the experience outside the Ph.D. course which he can gain only by giving research guidance to some other research scholars. In that event, the experience of “research guidance” will be the experience which is not part of the Ph.D. course but the experience outside the Ph.D. course which he can gain only by giving research guidance to some other research scholars. The attempt by the private respondents to bring in Honorary Ph.D. to interpret the rules is misplaced as the UGC Regulations do not recognize any such Honorary Ph.D. Degrees as a qualification for appointment to any teaching/non teaching/administrative post. Hence, any reference to Honorary Ph.D. degree is of no consequence as far as the present issue is concerned. In any event, the official respondents have not taken this line of argument of the private respondents. The official respondents, on the contrary, have tried to justify the eligibility of the private respondents by referring to the experience of research guidance allegedly being given to some other Ph.D. students and by referring to the documents to show that the private respondents were given recognition as research guides by the Universities. If the contention of the private respondents is to be accepted, there is no need to refer to these documents, since the private respondents will be deemed to have already obtained the experience of research guidance while they themselves were undertaking Ph.D. courses. 26. We, therefore, hold that the “evidence of …… research guidance” mentioned in clause (ii) of the essential qualifications in the advertisement would mean the evidence gathered by the candidate after obtaining his own Ph.D. in guiding some other researchers. Any other interpretation will not only be contrary to the plain meaning of the expression used in the rules but also be absurd. We also hold that this requirement of experience of research guidance is also an essential qualification as this requirement has be read along with the possession of Ph.D. Degree as both these are mentioned in the same clause of essential qualification. If this experience of research guidance was not an essential requirement, there was no need to mention this under the clause laying down the essential qualifications. To do otherwise would be also against the plain meaning of the expression used. If this experience of research guidance was not an essential requirement, there was no need to mention this under the clause laying down the essential qualifications. To do otherwise would be also against the plain meaning of the expression used. We cannot accept the contention of the private respondents that these words have been mentioned only to clarify the contents of the heads and subheads as mentioned in Category III for calculating the API scores, since there are other heads/subheads which do not find mention under the clause of essential qualifications. There are other items/subjects which are included under Category III, yet do not find mention under the clause of essential qualifications. Therefore, obviously, these are not essential qualifications/requirements. Having taken this view, since we have found that there is no evidence of any experience of the private respondents having validly guided researchers, we would hold that the private respondents do not fulfill the essential qualifications of having evidence of research guidance laid down for appointment to the post of Principals of Government Colleges and they are not eligible for appointment to the said posts. 27. In view of the conclusion arrived at by us that the private respondents lack the essential qualification of the experience of research guidance, they obviously cannot be given appointment to the posts of Principals of the Government College. Accordingly, their recommendation by the Manipur Public Service Commission for appointment as Principals of Government Colleges and their subsequent appointment as such by the State government vide order dated 14.11.2014 are not valid and cannot be sustained and their appointment order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In view of this, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the other grounds raised to challenge the said appointment order. It may be also noted that the other issues raised in these petitions were not properly canvassed or were done in a fleeting manner before us without the seriousness which these issues deserve, we are not dealing with the other issues raised in these petitions. Furthermore, these writ petitions, other than W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014, could have been heard by a Single Bench of this Court in which event, the appellate forum would have been available to the parties. Furthermore, these writ petitions, other than W.P.(C) No. 932 of 2014, could have been heard by a Single Bench of this Court in which event, the appellate forum would have been available to the parties. We, therefore, clarify that other than the issues which we have specifically considered and decided in this judgment, all other issues raised in the said writ petitions are kept open to be decided at the appropriate proceeding and time. 28. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition (C) No. 932 of 2014 fails but the other writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 102 of 2014, W.P.(C) No. 216 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 941 of 2014 are allowed to the extent indicated above by setting aside the order No. 7(2)/6/2003-HE dated 14.11.2014 issued by the State government by which the private respondents, Dr. Elangbam Nixon Singh, Dr. A. Nabachandra Singh and Dr. Md. Raheijuddin Sheikh were appointed as Principals of the Government Colleges on regular basis, on the basis of the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service Commission.