Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 278 (KER)

Tiji Zachariah v. Mahatma Gandhi University

2022-03-23

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2022
JUDGMENT : The Baselious Paulose II Catholicos College is a Private Aided College affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. The College has been declared and recognised as a Minority Educational Institution by a certificate dated 6.4.2009 issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions and in view of the same, the College is a Minority Educational Institution covered under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the communication issued by the University refusing the approval of the appointment of Dr. Tiji Zachariah as Principal from 1.10.2015 and from 1.10.2016 for the reason of absence of qualifications as enumerated in clause 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. 2. W.P.(C) No.5956/2020 is filed by Dr. Tiji Zacharia and W.P.(C) No.5965/2020 is filed by the Manager challenging the aforesaid order. The facts and Exhibits shall be referred to as described in W.P.(C) No.5965/2020 unless stated otherwise. 3. The case of the petitioner as is borne out from the pleadings are as under: The petitioner institution has been granted the status of a Minority Educational Institution in view of Ext.P1 certificate dated 6.4.2009 issued by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institution. The management has entered into a ‘Direct Payment Agreement’ in terms of which the College is entitled to make appointments to the posts of teaching as well as non-teaching staff subject to the compliance of the provisions therein. 4. By Ext.P2 order dated 1.4.2014, the management appointed Dr.Tiji Zachariah, a Senior Teacher in the College, as Principal-in-charge and Drawing and Disbursing Officer as envisaged in clause 78 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statute in the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of the former Principal, Dr. Sunny Kuriakose, on his attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2014. Since then, Dr. Tiji Zachariah had been discharging the duties and functions as the Principal-in-charge. 5. The 1st respondent, by Ext.P3 order, granted approval to the appointment of Dr.Tiji Zachariah as Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the period from 1.4.2014 to 30.6.2014. Later, Ext.P4 order was issued on 22.7.2014, approving the appointment of the 4th respondent as Drawing and Disbursing Officer for a further period of three months from 1.7.2014 to 30.9.2014 subject to the rider that no further extension shall be granted until the proposal for appointment of Principal was submitted by the management to the University. 6. Later, Ext.P4 order was issued on 22.7.2014, approving the appointment of the 4th respondent as Drawing and Disbursing Officer for a further period of three months from 1.7.2014 to 30.9.2014 subject to the rider that no further extension shall be granted until the proposal for appointment of Principal was submitted by the management to the University. 6. The management, in the above circumstances, resolved to initiate proceedings for selection and appointment of a suitable and qualified person to the post of Principal of the College. 7. The Managing Council constituted a Selection Committee to selecta person from the community, and who was suitable for the post of Principal in terms of the provisions of the University Statutes. It was resolved that a suitable person shall be selected and appointed by promotion as prescribed in Section 59 of the MG University Act, 1985 as the Principal from among the teachers of the College. 8. Accordingly, the Selection Committee considered the profiles of senior teachers, evaluated their academic excellence, leadership qualities and administrative experience, demonstrated and proven during their tenure and selected the 4th respondent. Ext.P5 order dated 28.9.2015 was issued appointing Dr.Tiji Zachariah as the Principal of the College with effect from 1.10.2015. The 4th respondent joined duty as the Principal and started discharging duties as Principal. However, while issuing Ext.P5 order, the tenure of the 4th respondent as Principal was confined to a period of one year. The appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal was intimated to the 3rd respondent by Ext.P6 letter. However, approval was not granted. Later, Ext.P8 order was issued on 30.9.2016 extending the appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal from 1.10.2016 till the date of his superannuation. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P9 letter was issued to the 3rd respondent by the institution requesting for approval of the appointment. 9. After about 2 years, Ext.P10 order dated 20.7.2018 was issued by the 3rd respondent intimating the institution that approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal from 1.10.2015 and from 1.10.2016 had been rejected by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 19.5.2018 for the absence of qualifications as enumerated in clause 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. 10. 10. The petitioner contends that they realized that Ext.P5 order was defective as the period of appointment as the Principal could not have been curtailed at all in view of the law laid down by this Court in Malabar Mar Thoma Syrian Christian Evangelistic Association v. Lally Mathew [ 2009 (2) KLT 221 ], they submitted Ext.P11 letter appending Ext.P12 revised order and requested the University to grant approval. In response, the 4th respondent was served with Ext.P13 communication issued by the University that his approval as Drawing and Disbursing Officer had been extended till 31.12.2019 or till approval was granted to the appointment of a regular Principal. Directions were issued to the management by the University to submit the relevant documents pertaining to the API (Academic Parameter Indicators) Score in accordance with clause 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 (IV amendment). The said communication was followed up with Ext.P15 order dated 14.1.2020 issued by the University granting approval to the appointment of the 4th respondent as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the College from 1.1.2020 to 31.3.2020 or till the approval of the appointment of the Principal. 11. According to the petitioner, the University is under a duty to consider the proposal for approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent with effect from 1.10.2015 since the vacancy arose on the retirement of the previous incumbent in 2014. 12. It is contended that it was by order dated 10.12.2010 that the Government of Kerala had resolved to adopt the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2010 with effect from 18.9.2010. Directions were also issued to the Universities to amend their Statutes accordingly by incorporating the UGC Regulations. A Full Bench of this Court in Radhakrishna Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 2016 (2) KLT 245 ], had held that irrespective of whether the University Acts enacted under Entry 25 of List III or the Statutes framed thereunder were amended in line with the UGC Regulations or not, in view of its adoption by the State of Kerala with effect from 18.9.2010 as per Government Order dated 10.12.2010, the Universities and affiliated Colleges in the State of Kerala are bound to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010. In tune with the law laid down by the Full Bench, Ext.P17 order was issued by the University on 1.2.2017 stipulating that in the case of appointments of Principals of Aided Colleges, the UGC Regulations 2010 would apply from 23.2.2016, the date of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench. 13. The petitioner contends that the decision of the Full Bench of this Court came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18938/2017 and after considering the matter in all its perspectives, it was declared that the judgment dated 23.2.2016 will be applicable only from the date of judgment, i.e., 23.2.2016, except in the case of individual parties before the High Court. However, it was made clear that in case any University has amended the Statute prior to the date of the judgment, the effect would be from the date as indicated in the judgment or the date of the actual order of implementation of the Statute. 14. According to the petitioner, the UGC Regulations insofar as appointment as Principal in Aided Colleges are concerned would come into force only from 23.2.2016 in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court. The petitioner also points out that the University also had issued Ext.P17 order stipulating that the UGC Regulations would apply from the date on which the judgment of the Full Bench was pronounced. In view of the above, there was no justification on the part of the University in not granting approval of the appointment and in insisting upon qualifications based on UGC Regulations which had not even come into force. It is on these contentions that the Writ Petition No. 5965/2020 was filed seeking the following reliefs: i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or other appropriate writ or order quashing Exhibit P10 and Exhibit P14 issued by the respondent University. ii) To issue a declaration that the University is bound to consider Exhibit P12 revised order of appointment issued by the 4th respondent in accordance with the applicable statutory and other provisions existing as on the date of appointment i.e.1/10/2015. ii) To issue a declaration that the University is bound to consider Exhibit P12 revised order of appointment issued by the 4th respondent in accordance with the applicable statutory and other provisions existing as on the date of appointment i.e.1/10/2015. iii) To issue a declaration that in terms of the judicial pronouncements on the subject as well as Exhibit P17 order issued by the University, the University was not justified in issuing Exhibit P14 order directing to submit all relevant documents pertaining to the API(Academic Parameter Indicators) score of the 4th respondent in accordance with clause 4.2.0. of the UGC Regulations 2010 (IV Amendment) 15. Similar reliefs have been sought for in W.P.(C) No. 5956/2020 as well. 16. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent by the learned standing counsel appearing for the University, it is admitted that the petitioner institution is recognized as a Minority Educational Institution. It is contended that the 4th respondent was never appointed as Principal in charge of the College. In view of the temporary absence of the Principal and owing to the delay in appointing the Head of the College, any senior teacher can be provisionally appointed as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer. The approval of appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal was rejected as he failed to furnish the required API Score and he failed to produce any proof for research guidance and details of published work, as envisaged in Regulation 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. It is contended that UGC Regulations are equally applicable to Direct Recruitment and Promotion. According to the University, as the UGC Regulations have been adopted by the Government of Kerala by order dated 10.12.2010 with effect from 18.9.2010, the appointment of the Principal can only be in tune with the Regulations. It is further stated that by U.O.No.4233/L/Acad/2011 dated 1.8.2011, the University has endorsed the UGC Regulations and hence, the provisions in those Regulations are applicable to all appointments. The Minority status cannot be considered as insulation to appoint an unqualified person to the post of Principal and as the 4th respondent failed to produce materials showing the qualifications, he is not entitled to function as the Principal. 17. I have heard Sri. George Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 5956/2020, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel as instructed by Sri. 17. I have heard Sri. George Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 5956/2020, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior counsel as instructed by Sri. Arun Chandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5965/2020 and Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University. 18. The Baselious Paulose II Catholicos, admittedly, is a Private Aided College, declared and recognized as a Minority Educational Institution and hence, the said institution is entitled to protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose and Another [ 2007 (1) SCC 386 ], after considering the entire precedents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down as under: 22. The Principal or Headmaster of an educational institution is responsible for the functional efficiency of the institution, as also the quality of education and discipline in the institution. He is also responsible for maintaining the philosophy and objects of the institution. 23. In State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial [ (1970) 2 SCC 417 ] this Court upheld the decisions of the Kerala High Court declaring sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 53 of the Kerala University Act, 1969 relating to appointment of Principals were ultra vires Article 30(1) in respect of minority institutions. This Court affirmed the following findings of the High Court (Very Rev. Mother Provincial v. State of Kerala [ 1969 KLT 749 (FB)] without independently considering the same: (Very Rev. Mother Provincial case[ 1969 KLT 749 (FB)], KLT pp. 770-71, para 38) “The principal of a college is, as Section 2(12) recognises, the head of the college, and, the post of the principal is of pivotal importance in the life of a college; around him, wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching; and the right to choose the principal is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a college. The imposition of any trammel thereon-except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience or otherwise fostering the interests of the institution itself-cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and, for the reasons, we have already given, by Article 19(1)( f) as well. The imposition of any trammel thereon-except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience or otherwise fostering the interests of the institution itself-cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution, and, for the reasons, we have already given, by Article 19(1)( f) as well. To hold otherwise would be to make the rights ‘a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality. Provision may, of course, be made to ensure that only proper persons are appointed to the post of principal; the qualifications necessary may be prescribed, and the mode of selection for the purpose of securing the best men may be laid down. But to go beyond that and place any further fetter on the choice would be an unreasonable interference with the right of management. Therefore, so far as the post of principal is concerned, we think it should be left to the management to secure the services of the best person available. This, it seems to us, is of paramount importance, and the prospects of advancement of the staff must yield to it. The management must have as wide a field of choice as possible; yet sub-section (2) of Section 53 restricts the choice to the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, and enables the appointment of an outsider only if there is no suitable person in such college or colleges. That might well have the result of condemning the post to a level of dull mediocrity. A provision by which an outsider is to be appointed, or a junior member of the staff preferred to a senior member, only if he is of superior merit, the assessment of which must largely be left to the management, is understandable; but a provision which compels the management to appoint only a teacher of the college (or colleges) unless it pronounces all the teachers unsuitable, is clearly in derogation of the powers of the management, and not calculated to further the interest of the institution. … But we might say that there can be no objection to the appointment of the principal as of any other member of the staff being subject to the approval of some authority of the University so long as disapproval can be only on the ground that the person appointed has not the requisite qualifications. … But we might say that there can be no objection to the appointment of the principal as of any other member of the staff being subject to the approval of some authority of the University so long as disapproval can be only on the ground that the person appointed has not the requisite qualifications. Also that if disapproval is not to be only on some such stated ground, but is left entirely to the will and pleasure of the appointing authority, that would be to deprive the educational agency of its power of appointment and would be bad for offending Article 19(1)( f) and Article 30(1).” (emphasis supplied) 24. The importance of the right to appointment of Principals/Headmasters and teachers of their choice by minorities, as an important part of their fundamental rights under Article 30 was highlighted in St. Xavier's [ (1974) 1 SCC 717 ] thus: (SCC pp. 815-16, para 182) “182. It is upon the principal and teachers of a college that the tone and temper of an educational institution depend. On them would depend its reputation, the maintenance of discipline and its efficiency in teaching. The right to choose the principal and to have the teaching conducted by teachers appointed by the management after an overall assessment of their outlook and philosophy is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer an educational institution. … So long as the persons chosen have the qualifications prescribed by the University, the choice must be left to the management. That is part of the fundamental right of the minorities to administer the educational institution established by them.” (emphasis supplied) 25. In N. Ammad [ (1998) 6 SCC 674 ] the appellant contended that he being the seniormost graduate teacher of an aided minority school, should be appointed as the Headmaster and none else. He relied on Rule 44-A of the Kerala Education Rules which provided that appointment of Headmaster shall ordinarily be according to seniority from the seniority list prepared and maintained under clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 34. This Court held: (SCC p. 680, paras 18-19) “18. Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or Principal of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that educational institution. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. This Court held: (SCC p. 680, paras 18-19) “18. Selection and appointment of Headmaster in a school (or Principal of a college) are of prime importance in administration of that educational institution. The Headmaster is the key post in the running of the school. He is the hub on which all the spokes of the school are set around whom they rotate to generate results. A school is personified through its Headmaster and he is the focal point on which outsiders look at the school. A bad Headmaster can spoil the entire institution, an efficient and honest Headmaster can improve it by leaps and bounds. The functional efficacy of a school very much depends upon the efficiency and dedication of its Headmaster. This pristine precept remains unchanged despite many changes taking place in the structural patterns of education over the years. 19. How important is the post of Headmaster of a school has been pithily stated by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Aldo Maria Patroni v. E.C. Kesavan [ AIR 1965 Ker 75 : 1964 KLT 791 (FB)]. Chief Justice M.S. Menon has, in a style which is inimitable, stated thus: ‘The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him, wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching. The right to choose the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon-except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience-cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The right to choose the headmaster is perhaps the most important facet of the right to administer a school, and we must hold that the imposition of any trammel thereon-except to the extent of prescribing the requisite qualifications and experience-cannot but be considered as a violation of the right guaranteed by Article 30(1) of the Constitution. To hold otherwise will be to make the right “a teasing illusion, a promise of unreality”.’ ” Thereafter, this Court concluded that the management of minority institution is free to find out a qualified person either from the staff of the same institution or from outside, to fill up the vacancy; and that the management's right to choose a qualified person as the Headmaster of the school is well insulated by the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the Constitution and it cannot be chiselled out through any legislative act or executive rule except for fixing up the qualifications and conditions of service for the post; and that any such statutory or executive fiat would be violative of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 30(1) and would therefore be void. This Court further observed that if the management of the school is not given the wide freedom to choose the person for holding the key post of Principal subject, of course, to the restriction regarding qualifications to be prescribed by the State, the right to administer the school would get much diminished. 26. In Board of Secondary Education & Teachers Training [ (1998) 8 SCC 555 ] this Court held: (SCC p. 556, para 3) “3. The decisions of this Court make it clear that in the matter of appointment of the Principal, the management of a minority educational institution has a choice. It has been held that one of the incidents of the right to administer a minority educational institution is the selection of the Principal. Any rules which take away this right of the management have been held to be interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by the management and the third respondent are qualified and eligible for appointment as Principal according to rules. The question is whether the management is not entitled to select a person of their choice. The decisions of this Court including the decisions in State of Kerala v. Very Rev. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by the management and the third respondent are qualified and eligible for appointment as Principal according to rules. The question is whether the management is not entitled to select a person of their choice. The decisions of this Court including the decisions in State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial [ (1970) 2 SCC 417 ] and Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat [ (1974) 1 SCC 717 ] make it clear that this right of the minority educational institution cannot be taken away by any rules or regulations or by any enactment made by the State. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in holding otherwise. The State has undoubtedly the power to regulate the affairs of the minority educational institutions also in the interest of discipline and excellence. But in that process, the aforesaid right of the management cannot be taken away, even if the Government is giving hundred per cent grant.” (emphasis supplied) 27. It is thus clear that the freedom to choose the person to be appointed as Principal has always been recognised as a vital facet of the right to administer the educational institution. This has not been, in any way, diluted or altered by T.M.A. Pai [ (2002) 8 SCC 481 ]. Having regard to the key role played by the Principal in the management and administration of the educational institution, there can be no doubt that the right to choose the Principal is an important part of the right of administration and even if the institution is aided, there can be no interference with the said right. The fact that the post of the Principal/Headmaster is also covered by State aid will make no difference. 28. The appellant contends that the protection extended by Article 30(1) cannot be used against a member of the teaching staff who belongs to the same minority community. It is contended that a minority institution cannot ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same community, senior to the person proposed to be selected, merely because the institution has the right to select a Principal of its choice. It is contended that a minority institution cannot ignore the rights of eligible lecturers belonging to the same community, senior to the person proposed to be selected, merely because the institution has the right to select a Principal of its choice. But this contention ignores the position that the right of the minority to select a Principal of its choice is with reference to the assessment of the person's outlook and philosophy and ability to implement its objects. The management is entitled to appoint the person, who according to them is most suited to head the institution, provided he possesses the qualifications prescribed for the posts. The career advancement prospects of the teaching staff, even those belonging to the same community, should have to yield to the right of the management under Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in unequivocal terms that the management of the minority institution is free to find a qualified person either from the staff of the same institution or from outside to fill up the vacancy and the management’s right to choose a qualified person is well insulated by the protective cover of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. It cannot be chiseled out through any legislative act or executive rule except for fixing up of the qualifications and conditions for service of the post. Furthermore, having regard to the key role played by the Principal in the management and administration of the educational institution, under no circumstances can there be interference with the said right as the right to choose the Principal is an important part of the administration. The fact that the post of Principal is also covered by State aid will make no difference. 20. Now the question is whether the petitioner possesses the qualification prescribed for the posts. Approval of the appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal was rejected on the ground that he does not possess the necessary qualifications as mentioned in clause 4.2.0 of UGC Regulations 2010. The question is whether the University is justified in insisting that the petitioner should possess the qualification prescribed by the UGC Regulations. 21. In the case on hand, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the College by order dated 28.9.2015 with effect from 1.10.2015. The question is whether the University is justified in insisting that the petitioner should possess the qualification prescribed by the UGC Regulations. 21. In the case on hand, the petitioner was appointed as the Principal of the College by order dated 28.9.2015 with effect from 1.10.2015. The appointment was made in the vacancy that arose due to the retirement of the former Principal Dr Sunny Kuriakose on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2014. The management noticed that the duration of the appointment as a Principal could not have been curtailed, they initially issued Ext.P8 order extending the appointment of the 4th respondent as Principal from 1.10.2016 till the date of superannuation and thereafter had issued Ext.P12 revised order. 22. A Full Bench of this Court in Radhakrishna Pillai (supra), while overruling the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in S.N.College v. N.Ravindran [ 2001 (3) KLT 938 ] had held that irrespective of whether the University Acts under Entry 25 of List III or the Statutes framed thereunder are amended in line with the UGC Regulations or not, in view of its adoption by the State of Kerala with effect from 18.9.2010 as per Government order dated 10.12.2010, the Universities and affiliated Colleges are bound to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010. It appears that the University is banking on the directions issued by the Full Bench while insisting that the petitioner shall have the qualifications prescribed as per the UGC Regulations 2010. However, the Apex Court, while considering an appeal filed by the University as SLP No.18938-18942/2017, after referring to the Full Bench judgment, had passed an order on 17.7.2018 as under. I.A No… (Application for impleadment) in SLP(C) No. 18938/2017 is taken on Board. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No. 29253 of 2012 and connected matters. The crux of the dispute was the applicability of U.G.C. Regulations, 2010, regarding both Annexure and Appendix (qualifications and conditions of service). In S.N College v. N. Raveendran, [ 2001 (3) KLT 938 ], in the year 2001, the High Court had taken a view that unless the Statutes are amended by the Universities concerned, U.G.C Regulations will not be binding. In S.N College v. N. Raveendran, [ 2001 (3) KLT 938 ], in the year 2001, the High Court had taken a view that unless the Statutes are amended by the Universities concerned, U.G.C Regulations will not be binding. The Full Bench, as per the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2016, has held that in view of the fact that the State Government had adopted the U.G.C. Regulations would apply from the date of adoption of the Regulations by the State. Though several contentions are taken before us, it is not necessary for us to deal with them, since essentially we are of the view that for doing complete justice, this is a case where we have to only invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, since we do not propose to interfere with the impugned decision. As a matter of fact, even when first notice was issued by this Court on 27.01.2017, it has been indicated so in the following lines:- “The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Kerala submits that as far as the parties before the High Court are concerned, they are willing to implement the impugned judgment of the High Court, wheres in the case of others whose appointments had been made on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in “S.N.College Vs. N. Raveendran”reported in (2001) 3 KLT 938 , their cases may not be re-opened based on the impugned Full Bench Judgment. Issue notice to the respondents excluding the petitioner(s) before the High Court, returnable in six weeks. Issue notice on the prayer for interim relief as well” 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 132 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. 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 application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the entire facts had declared that the judgment dated 23.02.2016 rendered by the Full Bench of this Court 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. It was also made 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 Statute. In the statement filed by the University, it is not stated that the University has amended the Statutes prior to the date of the judgment. In view of the above, since the appointment of the petitioner as Principal was prior to 23.2.2016, the University cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner is unqualified to the post as he failed to furnish the required API Score and he failed to produce any proof for research guidance and details of published work, as envisaged in Regulation 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. 24. In the statement filed by the University, it is stated that vide G.O. No.4233/L/Acad/2011 dated 1.8.2011, the University has endorsed the UGC Regulations and hence the provisions in those Regulations are applicable. I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted as the same question had come up before this Court in Manager, St. Thomas College and Another v. Dr Varghese Philip and Ors [2019 KHC 5633], wherein it was held as follows: 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners have argued that by Ext.P4 dated 1/08/2011, the Vice-Chancellor exercising powers conferred under S.10(17) of Chap.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. 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. S.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. 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, the 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. 25. In view of the law laid down above, the contention of the University that they have endorsed the UGC Regulations and the same would be applicable to the petitioner cannot be accepted. Furthermore, I find that the University has issued Ext.P17 order on 1.2.2017 stipulating that in the case of appointments of Principals of Aided Colleges, the UGC Regulations, 2010 would apply only from 23.2.2016. Furthermore, I find that the University has issued Ext.P17 order on 1.2.2017 stipulating that in the case of appointments of Principals of Aided Colleges, the UGC Regulations, 2010 would apply only from 23.2.2016. The appointment of the 4th respondent having been carried out prior to the cut off date and as the exceptions ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not take in the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the University was not justified in insisting that the 4th respondent should have qualifications as stipulated in clause 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010. 26. In view of the discussions above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is ordered by issuing the following directions: a) Ext.P10 and P14 orders in W.P.(C) 5965/2020 (Ext.P11 and P16 orders in W.P.(C) No. 5956/2020) will stand quashed. b) It is declared that clause 4.2.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010, which insists on the production of documents pertaining to Academic Parameter Indicators (API) Score cannot be made applicable to the petitioner and therefore, the respondents are not justified in insisting for the same. c) There will be a direction to the University to consider Ext.P12 revised order produced in W.P.(C) No. 5965/2020 in accordance with the applicable statutory and other provisions existing as on 1.10.2015 and take a decision within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.