JUDGMENT : A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. These two cases arise from judgment dated 1.3.2017 in WP (C) No. 11917/2013. WA No. 913/2017 has been filed by the Manager of St. Thomas College, who is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition and WA No. 921/2007 has been filed by the 5th respondent in the writ petition. 2. The short facts of the case are as under:- A post of Principal in the College became vacant on 01.04.2013 consequent to the retirement of the earlier incumbent. It is alleged that promotion to the said post has to be made based on the seniority cum fitness. The college issued Ext.P1 notification calling for applications for the said post, pursuant to which petitioners and the 5th respondent applied. According to the petitioners, though the 5th respondent did not have the qualification prescribed by UGC Regulations, the Management chose to appoint the 5th respondent as Principal which came to be challenged. In the judgment, it was observed that though the parties have already retired from service, the 3rd respondent was directed to reconsider the issue and pass orders with retrospective effect considering the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the petitioners' qualification, seniority and suitability taking note of UGC Regulations, 2010. 3. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned senior counsel for the appellants would point out that in so far as the Management is a minority institution, it is entitled to fill up the post of Principal from among the members of the minority candidates who applied for it and seniority cannot be a criteria for such a decision. After referring to the judgment in S.N. College vs. Raveendran, 2001 (3) KLT 938 , it is pointed out that though UGC Scheme was introduced from 1.1.1986 and Government passed GO (P) No. 171/ 1999/H.Edn dated 21.12.1999 for implementation of the said scheme, unless and until amendments are effected in the University statutes, the same would not be applicable to private colleges. It was held that Management of private colleges are not bound to follow the same. The Full Bench of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB) (which was relied upon by the learned Single Judge) was clarified by the Apex Court. The Apex Court while considering an appeal filed by the University as SLP Nos. The Full Bench of this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2016 (2) KLT 245 (FB) (which was relied upon by the learned Single Judge) was clarified by the Apex Court. The Apex Court while considering an appeal filed by the University as SLP Nos. 18938-18942/2017, after referring to the Full Bench judgment, passed an order on 17.7.2018 as under:- “All the applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed. The fact remains that the law has been settled by the High Court finally by the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 23.02.2016 regarding the application of U.G.C. Regulations. Therefore, it is only in the interest of justice and for doing complete justice between the parties to declare that the judgment dated 23.02.2016 will be applicable only from the date of the judgment i.e. 23.02.2016, except in the case of the individual parties before the High Court. Declared accordingly. With the above clarification, all these special leave petitions are disposed of. However, we make it clear that in case any University has amended the Statutes, prior to the date of the judgment, the effect will be from the date as indicated in the amendment or the date of the actual order of implementation of the Statutes. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” In the light of the aforesaid clarification issued by the Apex Court, necessarily, all appointments made until 23.2.2016 will have to be upheld. The Apex Court had also observed that, as far as individual parties before the High Court are concerned i.e., who were parties in the said case, the Full Bench judgment squarely applies. Though the writ petition in the above case was filed prior to the judgment in Radhakrishnan Pillai's case (supra), the clarification issued by the Apex Court, applies to this case as well. It is pointed out that the contesting respondents had been impleaded in the case before the Apex Court. But still, while issuing the clarification, the Apex Court had given the benefit of the judgment only to parties before the High Court. 4. As far as this case is concerned, application of the Full Bench judgment will only be in respect of appointments made after 23.2.2016. But still, while issuing the clarification, the Apex Court had given the benefit of the judgment only to parties before the High Court. 4. As far as this case is concerned, application of the Full Bench judgment will only be in respect of appointments made after 23.2.2016. The Apex Court had also held that, if the University has amended the Statutes prior to the date of judgment, the effective date will be from the date of amendment or the date of actual order of implementation of the Statutes. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have argued that by Ext.P4 dated 1.8.2011, the Vice Chancellor exercising powers conferred under S.10(17) of Chapter 3 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 has adopted the Regulations promulgated by the UGC vide its notification dated 30.6.2009. It is therefore argued that when the Vice chancellor exercising powers of the Syndicate had brought into effect the UGC Regulations, the same has to be complied with by the College. 6. Section 10(17) of the M.G. University Act, reads as under:- “If at any time, except when the Syndicate or the Academic council is in session, the Vice-Chancellor is satisfied that an emergency has arisen, requiring him to taken immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council by or under this Act, the Vice Chancellor may take such action as he deems fit and shall, at the next session of the Syndicate or the Academic Council, as the case may be, report the action taken by him to that authority for such action as it may consider necessary and that authority may, after considering the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor is of the view that such action shall not have been taken by him, refer the matter to the Chancellor whose decision thereon shall be final.” But the Apex Court in its order dated 17.7.2018 had only saved those cases where the statutes were amended prior to the date of judgment. The order passed by the Vice Chancellor in terms of S.10(17) does not amount to amendment of the statute. That apart, the action taken has to be placed at the next session of the Syndicate or the Academic Council, as the case may be, for ratification. The order passed by the Vice Chancellor in terms of S.10(17) does not amount to amendment of the statute. That apart, the action taken has to be placed at the next session of the Syndicate or the Academic Council, as the case may be, for ratification. S.23 of the M.G. University Act has specified the powers of the Syndicate which includes making of Statutes and Ordinances, to amend the same or repeal the same. Therefore, exercise of power by the Vice Chancellor under S.10(17) of the M.G. University Act under special circumstances by itself cannot be termed as an amendment to the Statute. 7. Though it is argued by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the Regulations prescribed a minimum qualification only for teachers appointed by way of direct recruitment, even while giving promotion to the post of Principal, the qualification prescribed under the Regulations has to be complied and that exactly was the issue dealt in Radhakrishnan Pillai's case (supra). 8. The learned counsel for the appellant in WA No. 921/2017 points out that he was appointed as a Principal pursuant to the notification under challenge from 2.5.2013 for a period of two years. At the relevant time, when the vacancy arose, he did not have Ph.D. However, he was awarded Ph.D on 12.9.2013. After the two year period, he was again appointed as Principal from 2.5.2015 and he retired on 31.5.2016. In fact, the second appointment as Principal was not challenged by any person. Writ petitioners retired on 31.5.2014 and 31.5.2015 respectively. 9. The 5th respondent was appointed as Principal for the second time, by which time, he had already acquired the requisite qualification. The writ petitioners have also retired during the pendency of the writ petition. That apart, seniority cannot be the criteria for appointing Principal in a minority institution which is well settled by the Apex Court in a long line of judgments and one of which is Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College vs. T. Jose, (2007) 1 SCC 386 . It is settled law that if the institution is a minority institution, the management will have to call for applications from qualified persons among the minority community, conduct a selection process and thereafter it is open for them to take a decision to appoint an eligible person as Principal irrespective of the seniority. It is settled law that if the institution is a minority institution, the management will have to call for applications from qualified persons among the minority community, conduct a selection process and thereafter it is open for them to take a decision to appoint an eligible person as Principal irrespective of the seniority. Such being the legal position, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing that seniority has to be considered for appointment of Principal in a minority institution. 10. In the above circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in recasting the select list to the post of Principal which became vacant on 01.04.2013. 11. In the result, these appeals are allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the writ petition stands dismissed.