JUDGMENT : Among the afore five writ petitions, WP(C) Nos.21145/20, 19535/20 and 19190/20 have been filed by persons who were appointed as Printer Grade-II, in the services of Calicut University, in the year 2012, pursuant to a notification issued in 2008. They however, have now been denied promotions by the University, citing the reason that certain complaints have been received to the effect that they were not qualified at the time when they were initially appointed; and that their recommendations had been made by an Enquiry Committee, subsequently constituted by them, to terminate their services. 2. The petitioners in the afore said three cases vehemently assert that the complaints against them are baseless and motivated, being the result of confutative interests coming into operation; and that, in any event, the allegation against them, that their qualifications were not equivalent to the prescribed ones as per the relevant Rules, Regulations and Notifications, is untenable and without any factual and legal basis. They assert that their qualifications were found to be either the prescribed ones or equivalent, by the Calicut University, in the year 2012-when they were appointed; and hence, that it is not now available to them to resile from it and deny them promotions. 3. In the meanwhile, WP(C)Nos.18671/2020 and 20345/2020 were filed by certain persons, who claim to have been candidates in the selection processes of the years 2008 to 2012, saying that, eventhough they were fully qualified, they were not granted appointments solely because the petitioners in the other three cases were favoured unfairly, though they did not have the necessary qualifications. They thus pray that University of Calicut be directed to terminate the appointments of the petitioners in the other cases – who have been arrayed as respondents in these matters; and consequently, that their claims for appointment be reconsidered and the posts granted to them, as per the position in the Rank List. 4. They thus pray that University of Calicut be directed to terminate the appointments of the petitioners in the other cases – who have been arrayed as respondents in these matters; and consequently, that their claims for appointment be reconsidered and the posts granted to them, as per the position in the Rank List. 4. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Navaneeth Krishnan – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.19190/2020 and 21145/2020; Sri.K.R.Ganesh – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.19535/2022; Sri.S.Prasanth – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.18671/2020; Sri.M.Promodh Kumar – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.20345/2020; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University; Smt.M.Isha – learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent in WP(C) No.21145/2020 and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 5. The afore narrative of the essential facts would render it luculent that, on one hand, the petitioners in WP(C) No.18671/2020 and WP(C)No.20345/2020 had made certain allegations against the petitioners in the other cases; and this appears to have spurred the Calicut University to act nearly eight years after they were appointed. It is on record that the University commissioned an enquiry and that certain recommendations were made by them; but it is expressly conceded that no action thereafter has been taken against any of the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.21145/2020, 19535/2022 or 19190/2020. 6. However, presumably, based on the enquiry report and such other inputs, the eligible promotions to the petitioners in these writ petitions have been held up, on the imputation that their qualifications, at the time of initial appointments, were not in order. 7. The question is whether this could be done. 8. Adscititiously, as I have said above, the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.18671/2020 and 20345/2020 assert and allege against the petitioners in the other cases, that they are not qualified to have been appointed to the post of Printer Grade – II; and that, therefore, their services should be terminated, thus paving way for their appointments in terms of the position in the Rank List of the year, 2012. 9. 9. Pertinently, Sri.George Poonthottam – learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) NO.21145/2020, submitted that his clients have obtained an order from the Government, bearing No.G.O(RT)No.632/2022/HDN dated 04.05.2022, wherein, their qualifications have been expressly declared to be equivalent to that mentioned in the notification of the Calicut University. He submitted that, therefore, the action of the said University to proceed against his clients, is not only untenable, but wholly malafide and without proper thought. 10. Sri.K.R.Ganesh – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.19535/2022, adopted the submissions of Sri.George Poonthottam and joined him in arguing that the petitioners in WP(C)No.18671/2020 and WP(C)No.20345/2020 had no locus to make a complaint; and that, in any event, his clients are fully protected because they have higher qualifications, thus being alternative to the one prescribed in the notification. 11. Turning to the case of the complainants -namely the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.18671/2020 and 20345/2020 -they admit that they kept quiet for nearly 8 years after the appointments were completed; but explained that they came to be aware of the afore only in the year 2019 or thereafter. 12. They do not, however, explain in their pleadings how they came to be aware that the petitioners in other three writ petitions were not properly qualified, but tried to explain their stand, based on certain information which they received under the Right to Information Act, in the years 2019 and 2020. 13. That being said, interestingly, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the Calicut University, admitted that his clients had appointed the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.21145/2020, 19535/2022 and 19190/2020 validly, after assessing their qualifications, in the year 2012. He submitted that, however, when complaints were thereafter raised, the University conducted an enquiry and a report has been now obtained, wherein, certain recommendations have been made. He, however, admitted, to a pointed question from this Court, that no action has been taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid cases, as of now, to terminate their services. 14. Noticing the afore rival submissions, I asked the learned Government Pleader – Smt.Resmi Thomas, as to what the Government has to say in this issue. He, however, admitted, to a pointed question from this Court, that no action has been taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid cases, as of now, to terminate their services. 14. Noticing the afore rival submissions, I asked the learned Government Pleader – Smt.Resmi Thomas, as to what the Government has to say in this issue. She submitted that Government is still in the process of evaluating whether the qualifications of the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.21145/2020, 19535/2022 and 19190/2020 are equivalent to the ones stated in the notification of the University; adding that every relevant input in this regard -including the aforementioned Government order produced along with WP(C)No.21145/2020, stated to be in favour of the petitioners therein will also be taken into account. She submitted that, unless the Government takes a view in this regard, it would not be possible for the petitioners in either of the two sets of cases to affirmatively assert their independent positions, as they have done. 15. Smt.M.Isha – learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent in WP(C)No.19190/2020, submitted that there are no allegations against her client qua his qualifications and therefore, that he is entitled to be promoted in the manner, as is now proposed by the Calicut University. She thus prayed that all allegations against her client, made by the petitioner in the said writ petition, be repelled. 16. In reply, Sri.George Poonthottam – learned Senior Counsel, as also Sri.K.R.Ganesh, submitted that this is a scenerio where, not merely were their clients initially appointed as Printer Grade – II, but their probation declared and then granted further promotion to Printer Grade – I, thereafter as Offset Printer Grade – II; with some of them being offered Grade – I also in the said post. They argued that, therefore, the action of the University is now unilaterally taking a decision to have an enquiry committee and then to proceed against their clients is only to obtain unfavourable benefit to certain other persons, including the client of Smt.M.Isha; and that they have now adopted a devious method of acting on the basis of complaints by the petitioners in WP(C)Nos.18671/2020 and 20345/2020, even though they have absolutely no locus to have made so. 17. 17. When I assess and evaluate the afore dialetical contentions, the fact remains that, as of now, the persons who have been appointed are still continuing in service and not even a notice has been issued by the University to them for termination of their services. However, there is an allegation made that, inspite of this, they have been denied their promotions and that this is to favour certain other persons, including the client of Smt.M.Isha. 18. In that context, it is indubitable that the appointments of the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.21145/2020, 19535/2022 and 19190/2022 cannot be set aside by the Calicut University, except in terms of law and after obtaining necessary orders from the Government regarding equivalency of their qualifications. However, until it is done, following due procedure under the Statutory Scheme, eligible promotions cannot be denied to them, merely on the unsubstantiated allegation that their original appointments were not based on valid qualifications. 19. To paraphrase, as long as the petitioners in the afore writ petitions are continuing in service and until their appointments are not set aside in terms of law, no detriment can be brought to them on the afore allegations, when it comes to the promotions alone; because, if the appointments were initially wrong, then, obviously, their continuation itself would become tenable, and not solely their promotions. 20. As far as the contentions of the complainants -namely the petitioners in WP(C)No.18671/2020 and 20345/2020 -are concerned, I do not propose to speak on the same conclusively at this stage because of the same reasons above and also since it is a matter which requires close scrutiny as to how they impelled allegations after nearly eight years, especially when it is stated that they came to be aware of the alleged irregularity only in the years 2019 and 2020. Their claim to be appointed in substitution of the petitioners in WP(C)NO.21145/2020, 19535/2022 and 19190/2020 cannot be spoken to by this Court at this time, since it is for the University to take a call on it, after obtaining orders from the Government on the aspect of equivalency of their qualifications. Their claim to be appointed in substitution of the petitioners in WP(C)NO.21145/2020, 19535/2022 and 19190/2020 cannot be spoken to by this Court at this time, since it is for the University to take a call on it, after obtaining orders from the Government on the aspect of equivalency of their qualifications. Resultantly; a) WP(C)Nos.21145/2020, 19190/2020 and 19535/2022 are ordered and the University is directed to grant eligible promotions to the petitioners, strictly adverting to seniority, subject to any action which they initiate and complete with respect to their initial appointments; however, which shall be done only in terms of law and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to them. b) WP(C)Nos.18671/2020 and 20345/2020 are disposed of, directing that the petitioners herein will also be heard at the time when the University intends to take any action in terms of the direction (a) above.