JUDGMENT : The issue raised in these writ petitions is with regard to approval of appointments made by the selection committee to the post of Assistant Professors in Commerce in the Colleges under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. W.P(C).No. 16663, 18164, 17477 and 20624 of 2014 are preferred by the candidates who were appointed pursuant to a selection conducted. W.P(C).No.19164 of 2014 is preferred by a candidate who had participated in the selection and had been included as rank No.10 in the list. She had preferred complaints against the selection which led to the appointment of the selected candidates not being approved. The parties and documents are referred to as in W.P(C).No.19164 of 2014 for the sake of convenience and clarity. 2. The challenge in the first four of these writ petitions is against the orders of the University refusing to approve the appointments of the selected candidates. 3. It is submitted that the educational agency was permitted to fill up various vacancies in the Colleges run by it and advertisements were published inviting applications for appointment as Assistant Professors in various subjects on 30.11.2010. Pursuant to Exhibit P2, a selection committee was constituted as provided in Section 57 of the Calicut University Act ('the Act', for short) and the Calicut University First Statutes, 1979. Interview was conducted by the selection committee on 30.4.2011 and 6.5.2011. A ranked list was published and by order dated 27.6.2011, the candidates who had secured 1st, 2nd and 3rd ranks were appointed. Exhibit P5 is the tabulation sheet showing the marks awarded to the candidates who appeared in the selection. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner, who was ranked as serial No.10 in the list below respondents 5 to 8, had approached the Calicut University Appellate Tribunal and by Exhibit P11 judgment, the Tribunal held that the petitioner is entitled to approach the Tribunal only after approval of appointment by the University. She had also preferred Exhibit P9 representation before the University pointing out that the selection was irregularly done. Her contention was that the 5th respondent, the first rank holder Dr.G.S.Sandhya Nair (petitioner in W.P(C). No.16663 of 2014) did not have the requisite qualification, since M.Com degree of the Madras University was not recognised by the Calicut University as on the last date for submission of application or even on the date of the interview. Her contention was that the 5th respondent, the first rank holder Dr.G.S.Sandhya Nair (petitioner in W.P(C). No.16663 of 2014) did not have the requisite qualification, since M.Com degree of the Madras University was not recognised by the Calicut University as on the last date for submission of application or even on the date of the interview. With respect to the second rank holder, Sujitha K.A., the 6th respondent (petitioner in W.P(C). No.17477 of 2014), the contention was that her experience was only from an unaided institution and the marks awarded for experience was erroneous. With respect to the third rank holder, Minu M.Gopal, the 7th respondent (petitioner in W.P(C).No.18614 of 2014) also, it was contended that the rank awarded for experience was erroneous. With respect to the 9th rank holder, Deepthi S., the 8th respondent (petitioner in W.P(C).No.20624 of 2014), it was contended that she passed M.Com degree only in 2010 and therefore, her experience could not be counted. 5. It appears that a standing committee was entrusted by the Syndicate to look into the allegations raised with regard to the entire selection. When no orders were passed, the petitioner again approached this Court and by Exhibit P12 judgment, this Court directed the University to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders thereon with notice and hearing to all persons affected within three months. The committee submitted a report to the Syndicate wherein it was found that there is a change in the rank position of the candidate except in the case of Dr.G.S.Sandhya Nair. However, without going into the merits of the contentions, the Syndicate decided not to approve the appointments. This order is challenged by the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19164 of 2014 on the ground that it is hastily issued without any application of mind and without considering the specific grounds raised as regards the violation of Exhibit P6 norms. The selected candidates challenge the order on the ground that it is excess of jurisdiction and illegal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C). Nos.19164, 16663, 17477, 18614, 18599 & 20624 of 2014, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, the learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C). Nos.19164, 16663, 17477, 18614, 18599 & 20624 of 2014, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, the learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader. 7. The primary contention raised against Exhibit P14 order by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19164 of 2014 is that after finding that the selection was vitiated, further steps for rearrangement of the list was not done by the Syndicate. The appointed candidates, on the other hand, contend that the University, while granting approval to the appointment, is empowered only to consider the matters as provided in the Act and Statutes and the award of marks by the duly constituted selection committee is not a matter which can be gone into by the University while considering the question of approval of appointment. It is submitted that Section 57 of the Act provides for appointment to be made by the educational agency by direct recruitment. Section 57(5) of the Act provides for making of appointment after advertising the post in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. Section 57(8), (9) and (10) read as under: "57. Appointment of teachers in private colleges.- xx xx xx (8) Every appointment under this section shall be made by a written order of the manager in such form as may be prescribed by the Statutes communicated to the person to be appointed, with copy to the University. (9) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. (10) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal." 8. Statute 3 of Chapter 2 of the Calicut University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 provides for advertisement in two English and two Malayalam daily newspapers approved by the University giving a minimum period of thirty days for the aspirants to apply. Statute 4 of Chapter 2 specifies in detail the constitution of selection committee for appointments. Matters like quorum for meetings of the selection committee and the method of selection are also provided in detail in Statutes 5 and 10 of Chapter 2. Statute 14 reads as under: "14. Statute 4 of Chapter 2 specifies in detail the constitution of selection committee for appointments. Matters like quorum for meetings of the selection committee and the method of selection are also provided in detail in Statutes 5 and 10 of Chapter 2. Statute 14 reads as under: "14. Approval of appointment:- (1) Approval of every appointment to the teaching post shall be made by the Syndicate subject to the condition that the appointment is in accordance with the staff pattern fixed by the University and that the person so appointed is fully qualified for the post. (2) The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education concerned shall verify before making direct payment of salaries as to whether the post for which payment is claimed is in accordance with the staff pattern and workload fixed by the University. Doubtful cases shall be referred to the University for clarification and the correctness of direct payment ensured. (3) In the case of those private colleges coming under the Direct Payment Scheme, the Director of Collegiate Education or the Officer authorised by him in this behalf shall verify in consultation with the University as to whether the teaching posts in private colleges are in excess of the posts sanctioned by the University. However, in the case of incumbents declared as supernumeraries by the University, the controlling officers shall ensure that no fresh appointment is made against future vacancies until all the supernumeraries are absorbed against those vacancies. The direct payment of salaries shall not be made to the persons appointed against fresh vacancies, before the absorption of supernumeraries." 9. In view of the above provision, it is contended by learned counsel for the selected candidates as well as the management that the University and its Syndicate were empowered only to verify as to the compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Statutes as also to the possession of the qualification before the appointment is approved. Since Section 57(10) of the Act specifically makes appointments subject to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the aggrieved persons, it is contended that any other matter with regard to award of marks by the duly constituted selection committee could only be challenged by the aggrieved candidates before the Tribunal as provided under Section 57(10). It is, therefore, contended that the University has no manner of power to pass an order in the nature of Exhibit P14. 10. It is, therefore, contended that the University has no manner of power to pass an order in the nature of Exhibit P14. 10. On merits also, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.16663 of 2014 that the qualification possessed by her is recognised by the University and that there was no illegality in the awarding of marks. The petitioner in W.P (C).No.20624 of 2014 contends that even unapproved teaching experience could have been taken into account and it is only in the guidelines issued in 2012 that the requirement of approved service was prescribed. Therefore, it is contended that the refusal to approve her appointment was totally unjustified. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19164 of 2014 would contend that what was required was only an arithmetical calculation as regards the marks which could have been awarded to the respective candidates on the basis of the guidelines prescribed by the University for award of marks by the selection committee. It is contended that on an application of Exhibit P6 guidelines and by reduction of marks awarded to the 1st and 2nd rank holders illegally, in violation of the guidelines, the petitioner would be entitled to selection and no roving enquiry would be necessary. 12. Learned counsel for the educational agency would submit that notification procedures prescribed for selection have been scrupulously followed by the educational agency and there is no justification in the action of the University in refusing to approve the appointments. 13. It is clear that the guidelines for award of marks in respect of the selection in question was Exhibit P6, since the interview was conducted on 30.4.2011 and 6.5.2011. Exhibit P6 guidelines have been issued only on 3.2.2012 and are clearly prospective in operation. A Division Bench of this Court has in its judgment dated 30.11.2015 in W.A.No.1680 of 2014 held that the Syndicate, while considering the question of approval, is also empowered to go into the propriety of the selection since all relevant records of the selection committee are forwarded to the University for considering the question of approval. Therefore, it was held that where defects are apparent from only a perusal of the tabulation sheet with reference to the applicable guidelines, without any roving enquiry, any patent illegality noticed can be corrected. 14. However, in the instant case, no such exercise has been done by the Syndicate. Therefore, it was held that where defects are apparent from only a perusal of the tabulation sheet with reference to the applicable guidelines, without any roving enquiry, any patent illegality noticed can be corrected. 14. However, in the instant case, no such exercise has been done by the Syndicate. The specific case of the petitioner in W.P (C).No.19164 of 2014 against the 1st rank holder, the 5th respondent being that her qualification of M.Com from the University of Madras was not recognised by the University as on the last date for submission of application or even as on the date of the interview, that is a question which has to be addressed by the Syndicate at the time of grant of approval. This aspect has not been considered by the Syndicate in Exhibit P14 order. The question of award of marks in the interview on the basis of Exhibit P6 guidelines is also a matter which could be verified by the Syndicate. On a plain perusal of the score sheet with reference to Exhibit P6 guidelines, I am of the view that Exhibit P14 order of the Syndicate was vitiated by total want of application of mind. 15. In the above view of the matter, Exhibit P14 is set aside. The Syndicate of the University is directed to take up the issue of the legality of the selection made in terms of Exhibit P6 guidelines as well as the contention urged by the petitioner as regards the qualification of the 5th respondent and pass orders thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing all concerned. Since there is no allegation raised against the constitution of the selection committee, I am of the opinion that the Syndicate should examine whether the award of marks was in accordance with the guidelines in force. In case the Syndicate finds that any reworking of the list is necessary, the same shall be carried out in the light of Exhibit P6. On such reworking, revised orders of appointment shall be issued by the 2nd respondent Manager. On such appointments being effected, those appointments shall be duly approved by the University. The entire process shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the status quo as on today shall be maintained. On such appointments being effected, those appointments shall be duly approved by the University. The entire process shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the status quo as on today shall be maintained. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.