JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. 1. Among the three Writ Petitions above, W.P. (C) Nos. 9253/2021 and 20817/2022 have been filed by the Secretary of NSS College Central Committee - which is stated to be a Corporate Management, with several colleges under them, including ‘PR NSS College’ Kannur; while, W.P. (C) No. 16076/2022 has been filed by Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai, asserting that he is fully eligible to be promoted as the Principal of the aforementioned college, consequent to the evaluation of his credentials by its management, through a screening process. 2. The controversy in these cases has two layers: (a) Whether Mahatma Gandhi University was justified in amending their Statutes, stipulating managements to select candidates for the purpose of promotion only after evaluation by a committee constituted in terms of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018. (b) Whether the order of the Kannur University, refusing to grant approval to the appointment of Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai as the Principal of PR NSS College, solely on the ground that he was not assessed by a committee constituted as per the “UGC Regulations 2018” is justifiable. 3. Sri. R.T. Pradeep - learned counsel appearing for the Corporate Management in two of the afore cases, submitted that the action of the Kannur University in refusing to approve the selection of Dr. Gopalakrishna Pillai as the Principal of the College and the amendments brought in by the Mahatma Gandhi University to their Statutes, requiring even promotions to be assessed as per “UGC Regulations 2018” are illegal and unlawful. He argued that, in fact, when his clients had made selection from the existing teachers for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, it had been interdicted by this Court through judgment in W.P. (C) No. 35765/2018 - a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P3 in W.P. (C) No. 9253/2021 - holding affirmatively that promotions can be offered only as per the applicable University Regulations, which is to mean, on the principle of seniority cum fitness. 4. Sri. R.T. Pradeep argued that, therefore, the present stand of the Kannur University, in refusing approval to the appointment of Dr. 4. Sri. R.T. Pradeep argued that, therefore, the present stand of the Kannur University, in refusing approval to the appointment of Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai, which has been done by his client on the aforesaid principle; as also the amendments sought to be made by the M.G. University to their Statutes to bring in competition even in the case of promotions, are illegal and unlawful and contrary to the declarations by this Court. He thus prayed that W.P. (C) Nos. 9253/2021 and 20817/2022 be allowed and the University be directed to approve the appointment of Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai. 5. Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair - learned counsel appearing for Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai made similar arguments as Sri. R.T. Pradeep, but conceded that an evaluation of the minimum merit of every candidate will have to be made before a promotion to the post of Principal is effected. He submitted that, therefore, his client has no objection if a particular Committee is asked to evaluate all the candidates in this regard; however, adding that the principle of ‘seniority cum fitness’ cannot be upset in any manner, whatsoever. He concluded his submissions contending that the Corporate Management had, in fact, evaluated his client's merit to find that he has no disqualification and has all the necessary credentials for being appointed as the Principal and thus issued the Appointment Order, since he was the senior most among all the candidates. He thus prayed that W.P. (C) No. 16076/2022 be allowed and the orders impugned therein, namely Exts.P3 P5 and P16, be set aside. 6. Sri. I.V. Pramod - learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University, controverted the afore submissions, saying that his client is only interested to ensure that the best among the talented is selected and appointed as the Principal of the College. He explained that University has refused to grant concurrence to the appointment of Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai not because they had any doubts regarding his credentials or qualification, but because the screening done by the Corporate Management was not in accordance with the “UGC Regulations 2018.” He explained that under the said Regulations, only a Committee, as constituted thereunder, could have conducted evaluation of the candidates; but conceded that appointment will finally have to be made on the principle of 'seniority cum fitness. 7. Sri. 7. Sri. Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University, supported the amendments made to the Statutes of his client, saying that, as rightly argued by Sri. I.V. Pramod, though the principle of ‘seniority cum fitness’ will have to be followed in the case of promotions to the post of Principal, evaluation of minimum merit cannot be done by the Corporate Management or by persons of their choice, but by the Committee constituted as per the “UGC Regulations 2018” under the specific criteria therein, including the API Scores. He argued that, in such perspective, the writ petitions filed by the Corporate Management are untenable and unnecessary. 8. When I evaluate the afore submissions, I must say that I find substantial force in the contentions of both Sri. I.V. Pramod and Sri. Surin George Ipe, because there is no contest that promotions to the post of Principal of any College under the Corporate Management will have to be done scrupulously on the principle of seniority cum fitness. This concept has already been well defined by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to the effect that two candidates cannot be evaluated for inter se merit, but that it should be confined to whether any of them are disqualified or without the minimum qualification; subsequent to which, their promotion will have to take place strictly in - the order of their inter se seniority. Therefore, at least for the purpose of assessing the minimum merit of the candidates and the presence of any vitiating circumstances, including disqualification, every such candidate will have to be evaluated by a Committee. 9. Axiomatically, the only surviving question is what is the nature of the aforesaid Committee. 10. Both the Kannur University and the M.G. University say that, since the “UGC Regulations 2018” postulates a particular Committee under it, the Corporate Management must follow it for the purpose of even evaluating the candidates under the principle of ‘seniority cum fitness’ and for consequent promotion to the post of Principal. I cannot find error in this reasoning, because the Committee - as stipulated in the “UGC Regulations 2018” is an independent one, though having nominated members from the side of the Management also. 11. I cannot find error in this reasoning, because the Committee - as stipulated in the “UGC Regulations 2018” is an independent one, though having nominated members from the side of the Management also. 11. I cannot, therefore, see any reason for the Management to be, in any manner, aggrieved, particularly when the Chairperson of the afore said Committee is the President of the Governing Body of the College or their nominee. 12. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the writ petitions filed by “NSS Central College Committee” cannot find my favour; while, the one filed by Dr. S. Gopalakrishna Pillai deserves to be ordered, albeit to a limited extent. 13. Resultantly: (a) W.P. (C) Nos. 9253/2021 and 20817/2022 are dismissed; however, clarifying that, for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal, only the concept of ‘seniority cum fitness’ can be followed and applied. (b) W.P. (C) No. 16076/2022 is ordered to the limited extent of allowing the Corporate Management to constitute a Committee in terms of the “UGC Regulations 2018” and if the petitioner is, thereafter, found to satisfy the minimum required criteria/qualifications, then he will be allowed to be appointed, reckoning his senior most position in the Seniority List. The Management will be free to complete this process at the earliest; and if the afore directions are complied with implicitly, the Kannur University will approve the petitioner's appointment, subject to all other imperative requirements being satisfied, without any avoidable delay. (c) It goes without saying that, as and when the Corporate Management approaches either of the Universities for the purpose of constitution of the Committee as per the “UGC Regulations 2018” they shall make their nominations without any delay, so that the processes can be then completed expeditiously. 14. After I dictated this part of the judgment, Sri. Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel for the M.G. University, intervened to say that, while considering the candidates on the principle of ‘seniority cum fitness’ and the minimum qualifications, their API Scores will also have to be taken into account. 15. Needless to say, if the applicable Regulations or Statues of the University and/or the “UGC Regulations 2018” provide minimum qualification for the purpose of promotion to the post of Principal will require an assessment of API also, then it shall be done by the Selection Committee in terms of law.