JUDGMENT : P.B.Suresh Kumar, J. The questions arising for consideration in these appeals are closely interlinked and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. Among the appeals, W.A.No.1070 of 2022 is directed against the judgment in W.P. (C) No.5638 of 2022 and W.A.No.1136 of 2022 is directed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2022. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.5638 of 2022. 2. The petitioner is the Manager of St. Dominics College, a private aided Arts and Science College coming under the Direct Payment Scheme of the State Government. The College is affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University (the University) constituted under the Mahatma Gandhi University Act (the Act). When the Principal of the said College (the College) retired, the Educational Agency decided to fill up the vacancy by direct recruitment in terms of Section 59(2) of the Act. It is stated that a Selection Committee was accordingly constituted and one Dr.Seemon Thomas who was selected by the Selection Committee was appointed as the Principal of the College. Thereupon, the proposal for approval of the appointment of the Principal was forwarded by the Manager to the University in terms of the provisions contained in the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 (the Statutes). The said proposal was, however, rejected by the University in terms of Ext.P8 order on the ground that the College does not have five hours of teaching workload per week for the subject viz, Statistics to be allocated to the Principal. Before issuing Ext.P8 order, the University had, in fact, sought a clarification from the Government as to whether it was obligatory for the Principal to have teaching workload as per Ext.P1 order issued by the Government earlier providing for teaching workload for Principals of private colleges which was later modified by the Government in terms of Ext.P2 order. On the said request, the Government clarified that it is necessary for the Principal to have minimum teaching workload of five hours per week. It is on the basis of the said clarification that Ext.P8 order was issued by the University. Ext.P8 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. On the said request, the Government clarified that it is necessary for the Principal to have minimum teaching workload of five hours per week. It is on the basis of the said clarification that Ext.P8 order was issued by the University. Ext.P8 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 3. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that minimum teaching workload is not insisted for Principals of Arts and Science colleges neither in the Ordinance issued by the Syndicate of the University under Section 37 of the Act nor in the Regulations issued by the University Grants Commission (the UGC) and that the University cannot, therefore, decline approval of the appointment of the Principal on the ground that there is no teaching workload in the College for the subject of the person appointed as the Principal. It is also the case of the petitioner that Ext.P1 order of the Government which provides that the Principals of private colleges shall have five hours of teaching workload in his/her subject per week has been modified by the Government as per Ext.P2 order which does not provide for teaching workload for Principals. It is the further case of the petitioner that insofar as the candidate appointed as Principal of the College was duly qualified in terms of the Regulations issued by the UGC, the University ought to have approved his appointment. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State contending that the State is empowered to fix the teaching workload of teachers in private colleges; that the minimum workload of five hours per week is mandatory for Principals in terms of the orders issued by the Government in this regard; that it is on account of a mistake that the workload of the Principal was omitted to be mentioned in Ext.P2 order and that the said mistake has been rectified as per Ext.R3(a) order. 5. Ext.R3(a) order was issued by the Government after the institution of the writ petition, and W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2022 was instituted by the petitioner challenging the same. 6. 5. Ext.R3(a) order was issued by the Government after the institution of the writ petition, and W.P.(C) No.10888 of 2022 was instituted by the petitioner challenging the same. 6. The learned Single Judge took the view that insofar as Statute 81 of Chapter 45 of the Statutes which enumerates the duties and responsibilities of Principals of Arts and Science colleges does not provide that there shall be teaching workload for Principals, and insofar as the Mahatma Gandhi University Ordinance regarding Workload and Staff Pattern of Teaching Staff of Private Aided Arts and Science Colleges, 2018 (the Ordinance) issued under Section 37 of the Act dealing with the workload of teachers prescribes only a maximum workload of 5 hours per week for Principals, it cannot be said that there shall be a minimum teaching workload for the Principal. The learned Single Judge also took the view that in the light of the scheme of the Act as also the Statutes and Ordinances issued thereunder, the Government cannot prescribe workload for teachers and Principals of private colleges. It was also held by the learned Single J. that at any rate, Ext.R3(a) does not apply to the appointment of the Principal of the College effected prior to the said order. In the circumstances, the writ petitions were allowed and Ext.P8 order of the University and Ext.R3(a) order of the Government were set aside, and the proposal for approval of the appointment of the Principal of the College was remitted for fresh consideration by the University untrammelled by Exts.P1 and R3(a) orders. The State and its officials are aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge and hence these appeals. 7. Heard the learned Government Pleader, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. 8. The learned Government Pleader submitted at the outset that the impugned judgment is contrary to the scheme and provisions of the Act as also the Statutes and Ordinances issued thereunder. Placing reliance on Section 5(xiii) of the Act, the learned Government Pleader submitted that concurrence of the Government as paymaster is required for the University to prescribe the duties and conditions of service of teachers as well as Principal in private colleges. Placing reliance on Section 5(xiii) of the Act, the learned Government Pleader submitted that concurrence of the Government as paymaster is required for the University to prescribe the duties and conditions of service of teachers as well as Principal in private colleges. According to the learned Government Pleader, Exts.P1, P2 and R3(a) orders cannot, therefore, be said to be issued without any authority, and the contrary view expressed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in terms of Ext.P2 order, the Government has only modified Ext.P1 order, and Ext.P2 order does not therefore affect the prescription in Ext.P1 order as regards the minimum teaching workload of Principals. According to the learned Government Pleader, Ext.R3(a) is only an order issued explaining this aspect and the same cannot therefore be understood as an administrative order issued with retrospective effect. It was also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that even though the learned Single Judge did not set at naught Ext.P1 order specifically in terms of the judgment, the learned Single Judge has in fact, nullified the said order by providing that the proposal for approval of the appointment of the Principal of the college shall be considered dehors Ext.P1 order. 9. As regards the aspect relating to the teaching workload of Principals, the learned Government Pleader submitted that merely for the reason that the Ordinance issued by the University prescribes only a maximum teaching workload of 5 hours per week for Principals, it cannot be said that a candidate who will not have a teaching workload in his/her subject in a college can be appointed as the Principal of that college. According to the learned Government Pleader, this question has to be examined in the background of the various Regulations issued by the UGC. Placing reliance on the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (UGC Regulations), the learned Government Pleader submitted that only teachers are permitted to be appointed as Principals, and it cannot, therefore, be said that the Principals are absolved completely from the obligation of taking classes on his/her subject in the college. If the scheme of the UGC Regulations was otherwise, there was absolutely no necessity at all to appoint teachers as Principals, submits the learned Government Pleader. In short, the submission made by the learned Government Pleader was that the Principal of the college should certainly have a teaching workload, and the contrary view expressed by the learned Single Judge is against the provisions of the Ordinance and contrary to the scheme of the UGC Regulations. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the University fully supported the arguments advanced by the learned Government Pleader. In addition, it was also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the Ordinance which is part of the record as Ext.P9 prescribes the procedure for calculating the number of teachers required for a Department and if the provision therein prescribing workload of various category of teachers is understood harmoniously with the procedure prescribed for calculating the number of teachers, it could be seen that the Ordinance does not absolve the Principal of the college completely from the teaching responsibilities. 11. At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction issued by this Court in the impugned judgment has already been complied with by the University by approving the appointment of the Principal of the College and it is therefore unnecessary for this Court to examine the various contentions raised by the Government in the appeals. However, insofar as the learned Senior Counsel did not dispute the locus standi of the State to challenge the impugned judgment, he made submissions on the merits of the matter as well. As regards the merits, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 59(2) of the Act which confers authority on the Educational Agency running the college to appoint a Principal for the college by direct recruitment does not provide that Principal shall be a person who will be in a position to take classes in the college. According to the learned Senior counsel, anybody who satisfies the qualification criteria prescribed by the UGC can be appointed as Principal and it is not necessary that he should take classes in the college. The learned Senior Counsel has even gone to the extent of saying that even a person whose educational qualifications pertain to a subject which is not taught in the college can also, therefore, be appointed as the Principal of the college. The learned Senior Counsel has even gone to the extent of saying that even a person whose educational qualifications pertain to a subject which is not taught in the college can also, therefore, be appointed as the Principal of the college. The learned Senior Counsel has reinforced the said submission, placing reliance on Statute 81 of Chapter 45 of the Statutes dealing with the duties and responsibilities of the Principals of private colleges, asserting that insofar as the same does not provide for teaching workload for Principals, it cannot be said that it is mandatory for the Principal of a private college to have teaching workload. It was also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Act conferring power on the Syndicate of the University to make Ordinances providing for the workload and pattern of teaching staff in the colleges, it may not be appropriate for the Government to prescribe the teaching workload of teachers. The learned Senior Counsel has also asserted alternatively that even assuming that the State has the power to fix the workload of the teaching staff of private colleges, insofar as the prescription made in Ext.P1 order to that effect has been substituted by the Government in Ext.P2, absolving the Principals completely from the teaching workload, the Government was not justified in issuing a clarification to the contrary to the University in the matter of taking a decision on the proposal for approval of appointment of the Principal of the College. The learned Senior Counsel has also asserted that Ext.R3(a) order issued by the Government after the appointment of the Principal of the College cannot have any application, at any rate, inasmuch as the appointment was one effected prior to the said order. The learned Senior Counsel has also asserted, placing reliance on the UGC Regulations that the scheme of the said Regulations is also that the Principals of the colleges shall not have any teaching workload. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned judgment is, therefore, in order and no interference is called for in these appeals. 12. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 13. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the impugned judgment is, therefore, in order and no interference is called for in these appeals. 12. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 13. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following questions emerge for consideration : i) Whether the State Government is empowered to issue orders fixing the workload of teachers including Principals of private colleges? ii) Can Ext. R3(a) order be said to be only explanatory in nature? iii) Do the Act and the Statutes and Ordinances issued thereunder, as also the UGC Regulations absolve the Principal of an Arts and Science college completely from the teaching responsibility? iv) Does the impugned judgment call for any interference in these appeals? 14. Question (i): In order to examine this question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions. Section 2(17) of the Act which defines “private college” reads thus: “Private College" means a college maintained by an educational agency other than the Government or the University and affiliated to the University.” The relevant portion of Section 5 of the Act dealing with the powers of the University to regulate the pattern and to prescribe the duties of teachers in private colleges reads thus: “Powers of the University:- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the University shall have the following powers, namely:- x x x x x x x x x x x x (xiii) with the previous sanction of the Government, to regulate the emoluments and pattern and to prescribe the duties and conditions of service of teachers and non-teaching staff in private colleges; x x x x x x x x x x x x” In the light of the extracted provision, in order to regulate the pattern and to prescribe the duties of teachers in private colleges, previous sanction of the Government is necessary. In the light of Section 2(29) of the Act, a teacher includes Principal also. The workload of teachers in private colleges being a matter that falls within the scope of Section 5 (xiii) of the Act, the same can be fixed only with the concurrence of the Government. In the light of Section 2(29) of the Act, a teacher includes Principal also. The workload of teachers in private colleges being a matter that falls within the scope of Section 5 (xiii) of the Act, the same can be fixed only with the concurrence of the Government. Obviously, the provision is intended to enable the Government which is the Paymaster in relation to the teaching staff in private colleges who have entered into agreements with the Government for direct payment of salary to their staff, to have a control over the functioning of such private colleges. In other words, even though power is conferred in terms of the provisions of the Act on the Syndicate of the University to prescribe the workload and pattern of teaching staff in colleges, insofar as the same is subject to the provisions of the Act, it is clear that in all matters relating to fixation of workload of teachers including Principals in private colleges, previous sanction of the Government is required. To put it otherwise, the Government has a say in the matter of fixing the workload of teachers in private colleges and the said position is reflected in the recital in Ext.P9 Ordinance that the workload fixation made therein is in accordance with the specification laid down in Ext.P1 order issued by the Government in this regard and the same shall stand modified to the extent of amendments, which the Government would make from time to time. The authority of the Government to issue an order prescribing the workload of teachers of aided private colleges cannot, therefore, be questioned. It is all the more so since Statute 21 of Chapter 45 provides that the salaries of teachers in aided colleges run by Educational Agencies which have entered into written agreements with the Government for direct payment of salary to their staff by Government, the salary shall be paid in accordance with the orders of the Government issued from time to time. Statute 21 reads thus: “21. Salary: (1) Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, the salaries of teachers for a month shall be paid by the Educational Agency before the fifth of the succeeding month. Statute 21 reads thus: “21. Salary: (1) Except as otherwise specified in this chapter, the salaries of teachers for a month shall be paid by the Educational Agency before the fifth of the succeeding month. (2) In the case of those, Educational Agencies which have entered into written agreements with the Government for direct payment of salary to their staff by Government, the salary shall be paid in accordance with the orders of Government issued, from time to time, and in accordance with such agreement.” In the light of the extracted provision, at any rate, Educational Agencies running private colleges which have entered into agreements with the Government for direct payment of salary to their staff, cannot question the authority of the Government in issuing orders prescribing the duties of teachers including their workload, if the same do not run counter to any statutory provision. The question is therefore answered in favour of the State. 15. Question (ii): Many a arguments have been advanced as regards the competence of the Government to issue an order in the nature of Ext.R3(a), since it is made clear in the said order that the same will have retrospective effect from the date of Ext.P1 order namely, 09.05.2018. The materials on record would indicate that in terms of an earlier order passed on 03.01.2001, the Government has issued orders regulating the workload and teaching hours of staff in private colleges consequent to the implementation of the UGC Regulations in the State. Even though the said order was modified on a few occasions later, it was found in course of time that the fixation of workload and teaching hours of staff in private colleges needs modification and accordingly, the Government constituted an Expert Committee to examine the academic aspects of the workload, appointment of teachers etc. The said Committee, after a detailed study, submitted its report with specific recommendations regarding the afore aspects in private colleges. Ext.P1 order prescribing the workload of teachers and Principals of private colleges was issued in the light of the report of the Expert Committee referred to above. As noted, Ext.P1 order categorically recites that the Principals should handle five hours of workload of his/her subject per week. Ext.P1 order was later modified in terms of Ext.P2 order, as it was found that the criteria applied by the Government in Ext.P1 order are not in line with the UGC Regulations. As noted, Ext.P1 order categorically recites that the Principals should handle five hours of workload of his/her subject per week. Ext.P1 order was later modified in terms of Ext.P2 order, as it was found that the criteria applied by the Government in Ext.P1 order are not in line with the UGC Regulations. The modified order provided that paragraph 3 of Ext.P1 order will stand deleted and the provision made in Ext.P2 order will stand incorporated in its place. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Ext.P2 order read thus: “3. In these circumstances, Government have re-examined the matter in detail. The Government Order read as 2nd Paper above is hereby modified by deleting the para (3) for fixing the workload of teaching posts in the Arts and Science Colleges and by incorporating the following criteria: (i) In all Aided Arts and Science Colleges in the State, workload of 16 hours per week is required for sanctioning and filling up of regular teaching posts. No regular teaching post will be allowed for a workload of less than 16 hours, even if it is a single faculty subject. Service of Guest lecturer alone will be permitted for subjects with a workload of less than 16 hours. (ii) It is also ordered that existing teachers whose appointments have already been approved will not be terminated on this account, even if they have less than 16 hours of workload now. The posts existing with less than 16 hours of workload will vanish away on the retirement/ resignation/relieving of the present teacher or occurrence of vacancy in any other manner. No Manager is permitted to fill up any teaching post which carries less than 16 hours of workload. (iii) PG weightage will not be considered since it is not provided under UGC Regulations. 4. These modified criteria will come into force with effect from 09/05/2018. The orders read as paper 1st and 2nd above are modified to the above extent.” It is based on the recitals in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Ext.P2 order, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that even though Ext.P2 order provides that it only modifies Ext.P1 order, it is in effect a substitution of Ext.P1 order and the Government cannot therefore be heard to contend that the teaching workload of the Principals of the colleges prescribed in terms of Ext.P1 order continues even after Ext.P2 order. As noted, the stand taken by the Government in this regard is that while issuing Ext.P2 order, the Government never intended to do away with the teaching workload prescribed in Ext.P1 order for Principals and it is by mistake that the said provision was omitted to be included in Ext.P2 order. It is in this background, according to the Government, Ext.R3(a) order was issued with retrospective effect. The relevant portion of Ext.R3(a) order reads thus: “The Government, vide G.O. Read as paper 1st above, ordered that the Principal should handle five hours of workload of his/her subject per week. Later, when this order was revised and issued new workload criteria vide G.O. read as paper 2nd above, the portion specifying the mandatory workload required for the Principal was missed by mistake. 2) Therefore, the Government have re-examined the matter in detail and here by modify the Government order read as paper 2nd above by incorporating the workload of Principal as envisaged in the Government Order read as 1st above (5 hours per week) 3) This Order has retrospective effect from 9/5/2018”. When it is stated that the mandatory workload required for Principals of colleges was omitted to be included in Ext.P2 order by mistake, in the absence of any material to show that the omission was conscious and not due to any mistake, Ext. R3(a) order could only be understood as an explanatory order and not as an administrative one issued with retrospective effect, for no one can claim the benefit of a mistake. It is all the more so since Ext.P1 order was governing the field till it was modified and when the Government never intended to do away with the provision therein prescribing the workload of Principles of private colleges, in the absence of an order in the nature of Ext. R3(a), there would not only be a vacuum in the field during the interregnum, but also utter chaos. Needless to say, Ext. R3(a) order cannot be said to be illegal merely for the reason that it is made operational with effect from the date of Ext.P1 order. The question is answered accordingly. 16. Question (iii): Section 37 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, the Syndicate of the University shall have power to make Ordinances providing for the workload and pattern of teaching staff in colleges. The question is answered accordingly. 16. Question (iii): Section 37 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and the Statutes, the Syndicate of the University shall have power to make Ordinances providing for the workload and pattern of teaching staff in colleges. Ext.P9 Ordinance is one issued invoking the power under Section 37 of the Act. Ext.P9 Ordinance does not provide that the Principal of the college shall have a minimum teaching workload. Instead, what is provided therein is only that the maximum number of period for direct teaching for Principal shall be 5 hours per week. Statute 81 of Chapter 45 of the Statutes dealing with the duties and responsibilities of the Principal of private colleges reads thus: “81. Duties and Responsibilities of the Principal: (a) (1) The Principal shall prepare the salary bills of the staff on the basis of the data available as on the 15th of every month and present it to the office of the Zonal Deputy Director of Collegiate Education concerned on or before the 20th of every month. (2) The Principal shall also furnish along with the bills a statement showing particulars of remittance, date of remittance, amount remitted, Chalan No. and Head of Accounts and a statement of the staff showing particulars of leave taken and the number of days of casual leave availed of by the staff. (3)A certificate of remittance of the previous month shall be furnished along with the bill for the succeeding month. (4) The orders issued by the Government, from time to time, regarding the preparation of salary bills of the staff in private colleges, shall apply to such colleges and it shall be the duty of the Principals to follow such orders. (5) The Principal shall be held personally responsible for the proper maintenance of accounts, vouchers and such other records relating to direct payment, fee collection and remittance thereof as prescribed, from time to time, by the Government. (6) In the case of Private Arts, Science and Training Colleges it shall be the duty of the Principal to collect the tuition fee and fines from students and remit the same in the Government Account in the Treasury, the remittance being effected within the next four working days, after the collection, under the head of account provided for the purpose. In the case of a Private Engineering College, it shall be the duty of the Chairman, Governing Body or any member of the Governing Body so authorised by the Chairman to ensure the collection of the tuition fee and fine from students through the Principal and remit the sums in the Government Account in the Treasury within the next four working days from the date of collection. (7) The Principal shall disburse the salaries to the members immediately on encashment and get their acquaintance in the acquittance roll register and also in two more copies (loose sheets) in the same form. These copies shall be signed by the Principal. One of the two copies so signed by the Principal shall be sent to the countersigning authority and the other to the Director of Collegiate Education with an encashment statement as in the form given below within three days from the last date of disbursing of the money. While disbursing the salary the drawing officer shall see that any amount found, not due in view of later events, shall be, withheld.” Encashment Statement Name of College District Place 1. Bill No. 2. Period of claim 3. Amount 4. Date of passing 5. Date of encashment 6. Name of Treasury 7. Date of disbursement and amount 8. Balance of undisbursed amount (Signature of Principal) Deduction on account of income tax shall be made in the pay bills. (8) Any failure on the part of the Principal to disburse the salary or to remit the fee collection into the Treasury shall be treated as defalcation of Government money, in case the failure is due to the fault of the Principal. He shall be liable for disciplinary action as well as penal action under any law for the time being in force. (9) The local audit of the accounts of colleges falling under this chapter shall be conducted by the staff of the Zonal Deputy Director of Collegiate Education concerned.” The extracted provision also does not provide that the Principal of the college shall have a minimum teaching workload. It is placing reliance on the said provisions, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Act and the Statutes as also the Ordinances issued thereunder, absolve the Principals of Arts and Science colleges completely from teaching responsibility. It is placing reliance on the said provisions, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Act and the Statutes as also the Ordinances issued thereunder, absolve the Principals of Arts and Science colleges completely from teaching responsibility. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner supported the said view pointing out that even the UGC Regulations absolves Principals of Arts and Science colleges from the teaching responsibilities. 17. Merely for the reason that the relevant Statute dealing with the duties and responsibilities of the Principal does not provide that the Principal shall have teaching workload as well, it cannot be said that Principals are absolved completely from teaching responsibilities, especially since the Principal of the college is also a teacher in terms of Section 2(29) of the Act and the Ordinances made by the Syndicate of the University providing for the workload of the teaching staff in colleges, including the Principal. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the question whether the Ordinance prescribed a minimum teaching workload for Principal is only academic inasmuch as it is issued subject to the condition that the Ordinance will stand modified in tune with the amendments made to Ext.P1 order, if at all amendments are made. Be that as it may, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, Ext.P9 order does not provide that the Principal of the college should have a minimum teaching workload. Instead, what is provided in the Ordinance is that the maximum number of period of direct teaching for Principal shall be 5 hours per week. According to us, for the said reason alone, it cannot be said that teaching workload is not mandatory for Principals. If the intention of the Syndicate was to absolve the Principals of Arts and Science colleges completely from teaching responsibilities or to make teaching responsibilities optional for them, it could have been so specified and there was no necessity at all to prescribe the maximum teaching workload for the Principal. When the maximum teaching workload of the Principal is prescribed, it implies that the Principal shall have a teaching workload and since minimum is not prescribed, it could be anything up to the maximum. When the maximum teaching workload of the Principal is prescribed, it implies that the Principal shall have a teaching workload and since minimum is not prescribed, it could be anything up to the maximum. It appears to us that the intention behind providing a maximum teaching workload for the Principal is to ensure that the principal is not burdened with teaching responsibilities exceeding the maximum prescribed period in the Ordinance. However, as already mentioned hereinabove, that does not mean that the intention of the Ordinance is to absolve the Principals from teaching obligations completely or to make the teaching responsibility of the Principals optional. Needless to say, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it is not mandatory in terms of the Ordinance for the Principals to have teaching workload, is unsustainable in law. We are fortified in the said view also by the prescription in Ext.P9 Ordinance as regards the procedure for calculating the number of teachers required for a Department. The relevant provision reads thus: “(9). Procedure for calculating the number of teachers required for a Department. i. Total hours of teaching work per week (Lecture/Practical) shall be 25. Apart from the above there shall be Tutorials, Tests, Exams, Field Work and extracurricular activities, which do not come under the purview of fixing the Staff Pattern. ii. The total number of lecture hours per week and supervision periods of practical classes for Science subjects shall be calculated first on the basis of hours prescribed for the concerned subject in the syllabus for the respective hours and strength of subjects. iii. From the total hours so calculated the workload of Principal (if the Principal belongs to that Department) shall be deducted. The balance hours so arrived at shall be divided pro rata by the maximum workload of all categories of teachers after deduction as prescribed above. If there is a balance of 9 hours or more, a proposal for the creation of an additional post may be made as per section 59(1) of Mahatma Gandhi University Act 1985. The workload shall be distributed equally among all teachers.” As evident from the extracted provision, it can be seen that for calculating the number of teachers required for a department in a college, the workload of the Principal is liable to be deducted, if the Principal belongs to that department, from the total hours calculated. The workload shall be distributed equally among all teachers.” As evident from the extracted provision, it can be seen that for calculating the number of teachers required for a department in a college, the workload of the Principal is liable to be deducted, if the Principal belongs to that department, from the total hours calculated. In other words, if the clause in the Ordinance prescribing the maximum number of period for directing teaching for the Principal is understood harmoniously with the procedure for calculating the number of teachers required for a department, it could be seen that the Ordinance does not absolve the Principals of the colleges completely from the teaching responsibilities, for if the intention was otherwise, there would not have been a clear and unambiguous provision that the workload of the Principal shall be deducted from the total teaching hours calculated for the department while computing the number of teachers required for the department. That apart, the qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal are prescribed by the UGC. The said prescription in terms of the UGC regulations, 2018 reads thus: “V. College Principal and Professor (Professor's Grade) A. Eligibility: (i) Ph.D. Degree (ii) Professor/Associate Professor with a total service/ experience of at least fifteen years of teaching/research in Universities, Colleges and other institutions of higher education. (iii) A minimum of 10 research publications in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals. (iv) A minimum of 110 Research Score as per Appendix II, Table 2 B. Tenure (i) A College Principal shall be appointed for a period of five years, extendable for another term of five years on the basis of performance assessment by a Committee appointed by the University, constituted as per these regulations. (ii) After the completion of his/her term as Principal, the incumbent shall join back his/her parent organization with the designation as Professor and in the grade of the Professor.” As evident from the extracted qualifications, an Associate Professor or a Professor with a total service/experience of fifteen years of teaching/research in Universities, Colleges and other institutions of higher education with a PhD degree and with a minimum of 10 research publications in peer-reviewed or UGC-listed journals as well as a minimum of 110 Research Score in terms of the prescriptions made in Table 2 of Appendix II to the said Regulations, alone is eligible to be considered for appointment as Principal. If the Principal is not supposed to take classes in the college, we do not find any reason why the said qualifications are prescribed for appointment to the said post, especially when duties and responsibilities of the Principal in terms of the Statute as extracted in paragraph 16 above are only ministerial. Of course, the Principal of the college has to lead the teaching staff and guide them appropriately, apart from discharging the ministerial functions referred to above. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently and persuasively argued that the teaching/research experience is insisted for the Principal only for the purpose of leading the institution and to guide the teachers, and the same is not intended for teaching. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the scheme of the UGC Regulations is such that even a Law College Principal can be appointed in an Arts and Science college and vice versa. We are unable to agree. True, the UGC Regulations do not prescribe a minimum teaching workload for Principals of Arts and Science colleges. Merely for the said reason, it cannot be said that the scheme of the UGC Regulations dealing with measures for the maintenance of standards in education is that the Principals need not have to take classes. Needless to say, the Act and the Statutes and Ordinances issued thereunder, as also the Regulations issued by the UGC, do not absolve the Principal of an Arts and Science college completely from teaching responsibility. The question is answered accordingly. 18. Question (iv): As noticed, approval was declined for the appointment of the Principal on the ground that five hours of teaching workload is not available in the college for the Principal. Let us now examine the question as to whether the said stand of the University is correct. Ext.P7 communication issued by the University to the Director of Collegiate Education indicates that the workload in Statistics, the subject of the Principal in the college is 16.5 hours and there is a sanctioned post, and a permanent teacher is working against that post. Looking at the facts in the above perspective, the university cannot be faulted for having declined approval of the appointment of the Principal. Looking at the facts in the above perspective, the university cannot be faulted for having declined approval of the appointment of the Principal. But, as noticed, Ordinance 9(3) which is extracted in paragraph 17 above specifies that from the total hours of teaching calculated for a particular department, the workload of the Principal, if the Principal belongs to that Department, shall be deducted and the balance so arrived at shall be divided pro rata by the maximum workload of all categories of teachers. It is also provided therein that if there is a balance of 9 hours workload or more, a proposal for creation of an additional post can be made. Assuming that there was no teacher for Statistics in the college, a teacher could have been appointed in the college after the appointment of the Principal, of course, after making a proposal before the Government for creation of an additional post and in that case, there would not have been any issue relating to the approval of the appointment of the Principal as also the teacher so appointed, for the workload available even after deducting the workload of the Principal is more than 9 hours. Of course, the situation here is different inasmuch as a teacher is already working. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the impugned judgment, the appointment of the Principal of the college has already been approved. The question therefore, is as to whether the said decision of the University should be interfered with by reversing the judgment, as the approval was accorded for the appointment based on the direction in the impugned judgment. The University has not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned judgment. As we find that the Government would have certainly obliged to sanction an additional post taking upon itself the financial obligations arising out of the same, had this been a case where there was no teacher in the college for the subject Statistics, we deem it appropriate to refrain from interfering with the decision of the learned Single Judge, treating the direction as one passed in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of the court. The impugned judgment, in the circumstances, is affirmed, though on different grounds. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed.

Director of Collegiate Education v. Manager St. Dominic College