JUDGMENT : The A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University (hereinafter referred to as “Technological University” for short), was created by the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (“Technological University Act” for short), transferring all technological courses from various other Universities in Kerala to it, with the intent of creating a specialized University to foster higher standards of education. 2. In the “Technological University Act”, a schedule was incorporated, including six Universities – namely, the University of Kerala, University of Calicut, Mahatma Gandhi University, Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT), Sree Sankaracharya University of Calicut and the Kannur University – with a stipulation in Section 7 thereof, that the staff of the Universities so enumerated, who are affected by the establishment of the “Technological University”, will be afforded options for being appointed in the latter University. 3. The Government, thereafter, created 16 posts of ‘Assistants’ in the “Technological University”, based on which, said University issued a notification, bearing No.ATU/A/333/2016 dated 11.08.2016, calling for applications from regular employees of the Universities mentioned in the afore schedule of the “Technological University Act”, to exercise option to come over to their services, making it clear that the selected employees will be bound to serve it, their options deemed to be final. 4. It transpires that employees from the various Universities applied and some of them were appointed, while the others were not. This is led to the controversy projected in these cases, since the petitioners are aggrieved because their options were neither considered nor were they appointed by the "Technological University". 5. I am considering these two writ petitions together because, at the essence of its factual pleadings and the reliefs, sought for, is the assertion that the petitioners therein ought to have been appointed, though they take two different avenues for their challenge. 6. In W.P.(C)No.21320/2019, the argument of the petitioner - who is now serving the Calicut University - is that allotment of posts, from out of the aforementioned 16, to her University is insufficient and therefore, that the "Technological University" must be directed to redo the appointments, thus to include her also. 6. In W.P.(C)No.21320/2019, the argument of the petitioner - who is now serving the Calicut University - is that allotment of posts, from out of the aforementioned 16, to her University is insufficient and therefore, that the "Technological University" must be directed to redo the appointments, thus to include her also. In substantiation of this plea, she says that Section 7(3) of the "Technological University Act” unequivocally, stipulates that the nonteaching staff of any of the Universities specified in the Schedule of the "Technological University Act” and who are affected by the establishment of the "Technological University", can alone be given options for being appointed in its services. 7. Sri.P.T.Dinesh – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019, pointed out that, concededly, not a single College or course was de-linked from the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and therefore, that even if it is included in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act”, none of its employees could have been offered the option of exercising a choice to come over to the "Technological University". 8. As a supplementary argument, Sri.P.T.Dinesh submitted that distribution of posts to each of the Universities, as now done by the "Technological University", is incorrect, since their own Executive Committee had taken a decision that same will be dependent on the loss suffered by each of such Universities, due to the delinking of the Colleges and the Courses. His specific assertion is that, if this criterion had been adopted, then larger number of posts could have been allotted to the employees of the Calicut University than the present three. 9. Sri.P.T.Dinesh concluded his submissions, saying that, even if the allotment made by the "Technological University", as of now, is found to be proper - without admitting it – the allocation of an additional seat to the employees of the Mahatma Gandhi University (“M.G.University”, for short) is in error, because that ought to have been granted only to the Calicut University, even going by the Scheme which they have adopted. 10. As far as W.P.(C)No.4173/2021 is concerned, the petitioners therein are working in the “M.G.University” and they assail the Schedule in the “Technological University Act”, to the extent to which the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, has been included therein. 10. As far as W.P.(C)No.4173/2021 is concerned, the petitioners therein are working in the “M.G.University” and they assail the Schedule in the “Technological University Act”, to the extent to which the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, has been included therein. Their specific contention is that this University had no technological course or colleges under it and hence, was not in any manner – even remotely – affected by the constitution of the "Technological University". They argue that, therefore, if the Schedule is set aside, then the vacancies now earmarked to them by the "Technological University", would have to be distributed to other Universities; and that they may perhaps obtain an opportunity of exercising options against the same. 11. I have heard Sri.P.T.Dinesh – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.21320/2019; Sri.S.Easwaran – learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No. 4173/2021; Sri.Elvin Peter P.J. – learned Standing Counsel for the "Technological University"; Sri.P.C.Sadidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University; Sri.Dinesh Mathew Muricken – learned Standing Counsel for the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit; Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University; Sri.I.V.Pramod – learned Standing Counsel for the Kannur University; Sri.Vishnu S.Chempazhanthiyil appearing for Respondent No.8 in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019, as also respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.4173/2021 and Sri.Joshy Thanickamattam – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 12. As I have already noticed, the offer of option to the employees of other Universities can be made by the "Technological University" only under the provisions of Section 7 of the “Technological University Act”. This Section has five sub-sections, out of which, three and four thereof have particular interest in these cases. 13. As per Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the “Technological University Act”, the non-teaching staff of any of the Universities included in its Schedule and who are affected by the establishment of the "Technological University", may give option for being appointed in the latter, which will be considered by it as per the conditions and terms prescribed. 14. 13. As per Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the “Technological University Act”, the non-teaching staff of any of the Universities included in its Schedule and who are affected by the establishment of the "Technological University", may give option for being appointed in the latter, which will be considered by it as per the conditions and terms prescribed. 14. As far as Section 7(5) of the “Technological University Act” is concerned, it stipulates that the existing teaching and non-teaching staffs of any of the Universities specified in the Schedule and which may be affected by the establishment of the "Technological University", can be appointed in the services of the latter, by inviting options; and that the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, determine such appointments, transfer and the norms thereof. 15. Sri.Elvin Peter P.J. – learned Standing Counsel for the "Technological University", submitted that the notification issued by his client in this case - which is produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019 - was issued not under Section 7(3), but under Section 7(5) of the "Technological University Act”. He explained that there was absolutely nothing in the said Act prescribing the manner in which the "Technological University" is to deal with various applications of options preferred by the employees of other Universities, at the time of the genesis of the controversy in these cases – though admitting that, as at present, after the coming into force of the First Statutes of the University, there is such – and therefore, that his client had to adopt rational and reasonable criteria for consideration and appointment of the employees, who made their options. 16. Sri.Elvin Peter P.J. added that, for the afore purpose, the "Technological University" went by the Schedule and decided to treat every six posts as a block, and to allot it to each of the Universities in sequence. He explained that, since there were only two applicants from the Kerala University, after the first two blocks were so exhausted, the balance four out of the 16 posts available were distributed between the remaining Universities, with an additional one being given to the “M.G.University”, only because the number of applicants from them exceeded that from every other University. He explained that, since there were only two applicants from the Kerala University, after the first two blocks were so exhausted, the balance four out of the 16 posts available were distributed between the remaining Universities, with an additional one being given to the “M.G.University”, only because the number of applicants from them exceeded that from every other University. He added that the "Technological University" acted bona fide in doing so, since they thought it fit to distribute the vacancies in an equitable manner as per the Statutory Scheme; and thus prayed that contentions of the petitioners to the contrary be repelled. 17. Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., thereafter, submitted that the arguments of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019 are untenable, because the modus statutorily prescribed through Section 7 of the “Technological University Act” is not intended to offer succor to the various Universities who have been affected by delinking of the Colleges or courses from them, but it designs an opportunity to its employees to seek employment in the services of his client. He submitted that, therefore, the arguments of the petitioner in the aforementioned writ petition, that the "Technological University" ought to have distributed the posts in proportion to the loss suffered by each of the other Universities, is not only unacceptable, but without any tenable basis. He thus reiteratingly prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 18. Sri.P.T.Dinesh – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019, in reply, argued that the afore stand of the "Technological University" is contrary to the decisions of its own Executive Committee and he referred to Ext.P14 in substantiation. He pointed out that, as per the same, the Executive Committee limpidly decided that options shall be invited from the six Universities included in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” “in their order of getting affected”. 19. Sri. P.T. Dinesh asserted that the afore can only be interpreted to mean that each University will get that amount of seats proportionate to their loss on account of delinking of the Colleges and courses; and therefore, that since the Calicut University is equally affected as the Kerala University and the “M.G.University” - if not more, they ought to have been granted higher number of seats, going by such proportion. He then argued that, even assuming the present method of allotment by the "Technological University" is accepted, the grant of an additional post to the “M.G.University” was flawed because, going by the sequence in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act”, that vacancy - which ought to have gone to the Kerala University, but for the fact that there were no applicants from it - could have been granted only to the Calicut University and that his client would have then certainly been appointed. 20. Sri.S.Easwaran – learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4173/2021, adopted most of the afore submissions of Sri.P.T.Dinesh; supplementing it, asserting that inclusion of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” was, even at the inception, wrong and illegal. He submitted that this Schedule was introduced only for the purpose of Section 7 of the "Technological University Act”; and hence, when it is admitted that no College or course had been delinked from it when the "Technological University" had been brought into life, there was no requirement for it to have been included therein; and that, therefore, in any event, no one from the said Universities could have been offered options to be made for being absorbed by the "Technological University". He prayed that, therefore, this Court declare the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” - to the extent to which it includes 'Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit' - to be illegal and unconstitutional. 21. The various standing counsel for other Universities and the learned Government Pleader did not have any specific comments to make on the controversy projected, but they took the position that their clients will abide by any decision to be taken by this Court in these writ petitions. 22. Sri.Vishnu S.Chempazhanthiyil - learned counsel for the party respondents in these matters, submitted that his clients were appointed validly pursuant to a notification, which was competent to be issued by the "Technological University" and therefore, that their engagement cannot be now assailed. He added that, in any event, each of his clients were selected by the "Technological University" based on the seniority they enjoyed in their parent Universities; and that petitioners in these cases do not even whisperingly have a case that their seniority had been upset, in any manner whatsoever. 23. He added that, in any event, each of his clients were selected by the "Technological University" based on the seniority they enjoyed in their parent Universities; and that petitioners in these cases do not even whisperingly have a case that their seniority had been upset, in any manner whatsoever. 23. Sri.Vishnu S.Chempazhanthiyil concluded his submissions saying that, pertinently, at the time when his clients were appointed, the petitioners in these cases were much lower in rank in their parent Universities and thus being incapable of even making their options. He also thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 24. The afore narrative of the rival contentions render it perspicuous that there are broadly two issues impelled for my consideration: namely (a) whether the method adopted by the "Technological University" for distribution of 16 posts in favour of various Universities included in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” is proper or otherwise; (b) whether inclusion of 'Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit', Kalady, in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” is illegal; thus with a corollary query whether appointment of its erstwhile employees by the "Technological University”, under the notification in question, can be construed to be vitiated. 25. On the first of the afore issues, it is virtually without contest that the "Technological University Act” does not have any stipulation as to the manner in which said University must act, while making appointments under the provisions of Section 7 thereof. 26. As seen above, Sections 7(3) and 7(5) of the "Technological University Act” give discretion to the "Technological University" to call for options from the employees of other Universities and to appoint them; however, subject to the terms and conditions as may be prescribed, or in the manner the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, determine. 27. Obviously, therefore, it was incumbent upon the “Technological University” to have devised and adopted a reasonable modus for filling up the 16 vacancies; for which, a notification was issued, calling for options from the employees of other Universities. What they have done is to distribute these 16 vacancies among all the Universities included in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” equally, which alone they could have normally done, since there are no other intelligible criteria available statutorily, or otherwise, in doing so. 28. What they have done is to distribute these 16 vacancies among all the Universities included in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” equally, which alone they could have normally done, since there are no other intelligible criteria available statutorily, or otherwise, in doing so. 28. Of course, the Technological University's Executive Committee appears to have taken a decision that the posts shall be distributed to other six Universities in “their order of getting affected” and this is interpreted by Sri.P.T.Dinesh – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019, to mean that this postulates an assessment of the actual loss suffered by each of such Universities, thus being eligible to be granted the number of posts in proportion thereof. 29. I am afraid that the afore interpretation of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019 cannot find my favour, because the Executive Committee of the “Technological University” was only referring to the Universities who are affected, and when they used the word "in the order", they were obviously, referring to the manner in which these Universities were serialized in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act”. 30. That said, the further argument of the petitioners in these cases, that the "Technological University" ought to have adopted a better method adhering to a more apposite criteria, certainly may be possible, but cannot be imposed upon the said University, because it is now well established in law, that their wisdom cannot be substituted even by that of this Court, in matters where they have full freedom and discretion statutorily sanctioned. 31. That brings me to the next argument of Sri.P.T.Dinesh that, even if the method now adopted by the "Technological University" is found to be correct, the distribution presently made, namely, of granting one more seat to the “M.G.University” is illegal, also does not appeal to me for the same reason as afore, because the explanation given by the "Technological University" in doing so certainly, is rationale and reasonable. When the said University says that the one vacancy which became available - on account of insufficient applicants from the Kerala University - was offered to the employees of the “M.G.University” because the number of applicants from it were much higher, it surely appeals to reason and to commonsense and is not so perverse or shocking, so as to force this Court to step in and interdict the same. 32. 32. As far as the arguments of Sri.S.Easwaran, on the question of inclusion of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act” is concerned, I must say that it is certainly on terra firma, because when Sections 7(3) and 7(5) of the "Technological University Act” specify that only the employees of those universities who are affected by the creation of "Technological University" will have the opportunity of making options thereunder, the inclusion of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit makes no sense because, admittedly and without contest, they suffered no such prejudice, since none of their courses or colleges were delinked and transfered to the said University. 33. Normally, therefore, the appointment of employees of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit into the "Technological University" would come under a cloud; but I do not choose to speak about it in this judgment, because it would offer no benefit to the petitioners in either of these writ petitions. This is because, while the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019 belongs to the Calicut University, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.4173/2021 are serving the “M.G. University”. Going by the conceded facts on record, the “M.G. University” has been allotted four posts out of 16 and a further one becomes impossible even if the two vacancies now allotted to the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit are directed to be distributed to other Universities in their order in the Schedule to the "Technological University Act”. 34. I must, however, record the submissions of Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., at this juncture that, being aware of the situation as argued by Sri.S.Easwaran, the “Technological University” has decided not to offer options to the employees of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit in future. 35. Similarly, as far as the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21320/2019 is concerned, she would also get no benefit if this Court is to find against the appointments of the employees of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, because those two vacancies would also have to go to the other two Universities in the Schedule, and not to the Calicut University. That apart, the petitioner in this writ petition is admittedly placed Rank No.20 in the Seniority List in her parent University and hence, it is unlikely that she will obtain any benefit, even if her contentions are accepted. That apart, the petitioner in this writ petition is admittedly placed Rank No.20 in the Seniority List in her parent University and hence, it is unlikely that she will obtain any benefit, even if her contentions are accepted. The argument of Sri.P.T.Dinesh in this regard that all the persons above his client have already been promoted in the parent University also would not be of any avail to the petitioner, because Ext.P14 renders it absolutely clear that an applicant who had been promoted, after he/she had made an option, would nevertheless be obliged to join the "Technological University"; and the notification makes it unreservedly clear that such options are final. In summation, I find no reason to interfere with the actions of the "Technological University" and therefore, dismiss these writ petitions without any further orders.