JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1 st respondent- University by which the 6 th respondent was appointed as the Registrar. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition are as follows: “i. To declare that the appointment of the 6 th respondent as Registrar of the Central University, Kerala is illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of the Central University Act, 2009, Rule 22 (q) (ii) of the Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non- teaching staff; ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Registrar of the Central University, Kerala; iii. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling upon the 6th respondent to show under what authority he is holding the post of Registrar of the Central University of Kerala; iv. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing Exhibit. P.5 order appointing the 6th respondent as the Registrar of the Central University of Kerala; v. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the decision taken in Ext. P.4 minutes to abandon Rule 22 q(ii) as well as Clause 15 of Ext. P. 1 notification to appoint the 6th respondent as Registrar of the Central University of Kerala; vi) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P.7 representation in the light of Clause 22 q (ii) of the Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non teaching staff of the Central University after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; vii. To issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts in brief are as follows: The 1 st respondent-University published Ext.P1 Notification on 16.02.2021, inviting applications from the qualified candidates for being appointed as the Registrar. As part of the selection process, the University constituted a Scrutiny Committee to shortlist the eligible candidates. Accordingly, a list of 24 candidates were shortlisted by the Committee and in the interview followed, 21 candidates appeared. Exhibit P2 is the short list prepared by the University in this regard. As part of the selection process, the University constituted a Scrutiny Committee to shortlist the eligible candidates. Accordingly, a list of 24 candidates were shortlisted by the Committee and in the interview followed, 21 candidates appeared. Exhibit P2 is the short list prepared by the University in this regard. After completing the selection process, the 3 rd respondent Executive Committee resolved to appoint one Dr. Santhosh Kumar N. as the Registrar, as per Ext.P3 order. Accordingly, he was appointed as the Registrar with effect from 08.10.2021 for a term of 5 years or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. 3. Later, Dr.Santhosh Kumar N. issued a 90-day prior notice to the University, intimating his intention to resign from the post of Registrar. The said notice was issued on 01.04.2022. Acting upon the same, the Executive Council, the 3 rd respondent herein, accepted the resignation of Dr. Santhosh Kumar N. Later, the Executive Council resolved to appoint the 6 th respondent herein, who was the next person in the select list, for the residual period of the outgoing Registrar or till he attains the age of 62 years, whichever is earlier. Exhibit P4 is the minutes of the meeting of the Executive Council of the 1 st respondent-University dated 30.06.2022, wherein the aforesaid decision was taken. Exhibit P5 is the appointment letter issued to the 6 th respondent herein. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P4 and P5, mainly on the reason that, according to him, Clause 15 of the General Instructions of Ext.P1 Notification itself contemplates that, if a candidate joins the post and subsequently resigns or relinquishes the office due to whatever reasons, the post shall be re-advertised and under such circumstances, the panel shall stand invalid. The petitioner also places reliance upon Clause 22(q)(ii) of the Central University Cadre Recruitment Rule For Non-teaching Staff, which contains a similar clause to that of Clause 15 of Exhibit P1. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that, by virtue of the aforesaid stipulations, it was not open to the 1 st and 3 rd respondents to appoint the 6 th respondent, even though he was ranked as serial No.2 in the select list, as the requirement was to re-advertise the post for filling up the vacancy and not to appoint a person who is already included in the select list. 4. 4. On behalf of the 1 st respondent, a preliminary objection was raised by way of a counter affidavit, wherein the locus standi of the petitioner was seriously objected. It was contended that, this writ petition is in the form of a Public Interest Litigation which is not permissible in a service matter. As regards the reliefs sought by way of writ of quo-warranto, it was contended that the same is not maintainable in this case in view of the fact that, the 6 th respondent was appointed by way of selection procedure based on Ext.P1 and the petitioner does not challenge Ext.P1 notification or the preparation of select list based on Ext.P1. Besides, it was contended that, all the parties in the select list were not impleaded as the respondents in this writ petition and therefore writ petition has to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. That apart, the delay in approaching the court was also highlighted. While highlighting the lack of locus standi of the petitioner, it was also averred in the preliminary objection that, absolutely no description has been mentioned in the writ petition as to the qualification of the petitioner which makes him eligible to claim the post of Registrar. 5. The 6 th respondent, the person who was appointed as the Registrar, has also filed a detailed counter affidavit adopting the preliminary objection raised by the 1 st respondent and also disputing the averments contained in the writ petition. It was contended that, reliance placed on Ext.P6 cannot be accepted in view of the fact that, Ext.P6 Recruitment Rules cannot be made applicable to the post of Registrar, as according to the 6 th respondent, as far as the post of Registrar is concerned, it is the post of an Officer of the University as contemplated under Section 9 of the Central Universities Act , 2009. Section 14 (i) of the Act contemplates that the Registrar shall be appointed in such manner, on such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by the statute. As far as Ext.P6 Cadre Recruitment Rule of Central University of Kerala is concerned, the same is applicable only in respect of the employees of the University and not to the officers of the University including the post of the Registrar. As far as Ext.P6 Cadre Recruitment Rule of Central University of Kerala is concerned, the same is applicable only in respect of the employees of the University and not to the officers of the University including the post of the Registrar. Besides, the 6 th respondent highlighted the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court and it was pointed out that the 6 th respondent took charge as the Registrar based on Exts.P4 and P5 on 6.7.2022. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation before the various authorities against the appointment of 6 th respondent only on 10.05.2023 and the present Writ Petition was filed only on 3.7.2023. Thus, it was pointed out that there was a long delay in filing the writ petition, which was not properly explained in the writ petition. It was pointed out that, even though it was averred in the writ petition that, the delay occurred due to the time taken for collecting the details of the appointment by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act, nothing is mentioned in the writ petition about the details of the applications submitted by him under the Right to Information Act, including the date on which such applications were filed and the date on which the details were furnished to him. Therefore, the 6 th respondent sought the dismissal of the Writ petition. The 7 th respondent, the UGC, filed counter affidavit stating that, they are not necessary parties to the writ petition as the dispute in the writ petition pertains to the internal affairs of the University for which UGC does not have any role to play. 6. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the preliminary objections raised by the 1 st respondent and also to the counter affidavit filed by the 6 th respondent reiterating the contentions raised by him in the writ petition. The details of the qualifications of the petitioner were also highlighted in the reply affidavit. 7. Heard Sri. T. Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri. V. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent and Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent. 8. 7. Heard Sri. T. Sanjay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri. V. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent and Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent. 8. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the relief for issuance of a writ of quo warranto is to be considered or not. The respondents seriously disputed the maintainability of the said prayer. On the other hand, the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as the appointment of the 6 th respondent is against the statutory stipulations contained in the Cadre Recruitment Rule for the Central University of Kerala, the 6 th respondent is holding the post without any legal authority. Therefore, this is a fit case in which the writ of quo warranto can be issued. To substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das and Others [2022(5) KLT OnLine 1159) 9. On the other hand, the specific contention raised by the respective counsels appearing for the respondents is that, no valid grounds for considering the issuance of a writ of quo warranto exist in this case. It was pointed out that, as far as the appointment of the 6 th respondent is concerned, admittedly, he was subjected to a selection process on the basis of public notification as evidenced by Ext.P1 and in the writ petition, there is no challenge against the said notification and the selection process conducted based on the same. It was also pointed out that, the petitioner also does not have a case that, the 6 th respondent does not have the necessary qualifications fixed for the post of Registrar even though, he claims that, the petitioner has superior qualifications. 10. When coming to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anindya Sundar Das ’s case (supra), it is clearly observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, when the appointment was not made in accordance with law, the writ of quo warranto can be issued. 10. When coming to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anindya Sundar Das ’s case (supra), it is clearly observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, when the appointment was not made in accordance with law, the writ of quo warranto can be issued. Therefore, the question that arises here is as to whether there exists the circumstances that are required to invoke the power of this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of quo warranto as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In order to issue a writ of quo warranto, the basic requirement is to conduct an enquiry as to whether the person concerned, is holding a public office without any right or authority by usurping the said office. Here, in this case, there is no doubt that the post which is the subject matter of the dispute is a public office and therefore the limited question is whether the 6 th respondent usurped the office without any authority or any legal claim to it. In this regard, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, admittedly, the 6 th respondent had undergone a selection process recognized by law as evidenced by Ext.P1. The petitioner does not have any grievance with respect to the issuance of Ext.P1 and he does not have a case that, Ext.P1 suffers from any legal infirmity. Similarly, the petitioner also does not have a case that, the selection based on Ext.P1 by which the 6 th respondent was included as serial No.2 suffers from any illegality. Moreover, the petitioner does not have a case that the 6 th respondent lacks the essential qualifications to be appointed as Registrar of the 1 st respondent- University. Therefore, it is evident that the 6 th respondent is a person duly qualified to be appointed as the Registrar of the 1 st respondent-University subject to the relative merits of the candidates who participated in the selection process. Since the selection process itself is indisputably conducted in a proper manner, the inclusion of the 6 th respondent in the selection list also cannot be treated as illegal. Therefore, to that extent, the 6 th respondent cannot be treated as an usurper of a public office so as to warrant the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. 11. Since the selection process itself is indisputably conducted in a proper manner, the inclusion of the 6 th respondent in the selection list also cannot be treated as illegal. Therefore, to that extent, the 6 th respondent cannot be treated as an usurper of a public office so as to warrant the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. 11. Therefore, the scope of consideration of the contentions of the petitioner is confined to the procedure adopted by the respondents 1 to 3, while making the said appointment. As I have already found that, the 6 th respondent cannot be treated as an usurper to a public office, there is no scope for issuance of quo warranto, the scope of consideration of the illegality in making the appointment, is confined to the scope of writ of Certiorari or other incidental reliefs. 12. When coming to the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, the objection raised by the respondents with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner and also the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court become relevant. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the University, in the writ petition, there is no averment regarding the qualifications of the petitioner and no documents were produced to show the same. 13. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was not a party to the selection process conducted on the basis of Ext.P1. The only averment in the writ petition is that, had a proper selection been conducted after advertising the post consequent to the resignation of the original appointee, the petitioner could have submitted an application for being appointed. While considering this question, the delay in approaching this court by submitting this writ petition is very crucial. As pointed out by the 6 th respondent, even though the appointment of the said respondent was on 4.7.2022, the first response from the petitioner in the form of a representation, which is Ext.P7, was submitted only on 10.05.2023. The writ petition was filed only on 3.7.2023. As pointed out by the 6 th respondent, even though the appointment of the said respondent was on 4.7.2022, the first response from the petitioner in the form of a representation, which is Ext.P7, was submitted only on 10.05.2023. The writ petition was filed only on 3.7.2023. Even though, it was averred in the writ petition that, the delay occurred in view of the fact that, the petitioner took some time to collect the details regarding the appointment of the 6 th respondent by invoking the provisions under the Right to Information Act, absolutely no details of such applications are furnished, either in the writ petition or in the reply affidavits filed. The decisive factor in condonation of delay is not the length of delay, but the sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation, as observed by the Supreme Court in Perumon Bhagavathy Devaswom Vs. Bhargavi Amma , 2008 (8) SCC 321. In the absence of any such details, i.e., the dates on which such applications were filed, the date on which the necessary information were furnished to the petitioner, it can only be concluded that the petitioner failed to explain the delay in filing the writ petition. In Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and Others , [ (2011) 10 SCC 608 ], the Apex Court has categorically held (para.26) that: “Although the Framers of the Constitution have not prescribed any period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the power conferred upon the High Court to issue to any person or authority including any Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari is not hedged with any condition or constraint, in the last 61 years the superior courts have evolved several rules of self-imposed restraint including the one that the High Court may not enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to the petitioner if he is found guilty of laches. The principle underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The principle underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right is not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Another reason for the High Court's refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallised and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. We may hasten to add that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its own facts.” 14. In Narayani Debi Khaitan v. State of Bihar and Others , [1964 SCC OnLine SC 1], wherein the Supreme Court held (para 8 ) that: “ It is well-settled under Art. 226, the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. There can be no doubt that if a citizen moves the High Court under Art. 226 and contends that his fundamental rights have been contravened by any executive action, the High Court would naturally like to give relief to him; but even in such a case, if the petitioner has been guilty of laches, and there are other relevant circumstances which indicate that it would be inappropriate for the High Court to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, ends of justice may require that the High Court should refuse to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that if it is shown that a party moving the High Court under Art. 226 for a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which under the law of limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition was filed, the High Court would refuse to grant any relief in its writ jurisdiction. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the High Court and, like all matters left to the discretion of the Court, in this matter too discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably.”. 15. Thus, when the facts of this case is considered in the light of the above principles, this court finds that the delay is very crucial. This is in view of the fact that, if the petitioner was interested in getting an appointment as Registrar, he would have taken necessary steps for challenging the appointment of the 6 th respondent immediately after the same. Now the 6 th respondent had already taken charge on the basis of Exts.P4 and P5 and he is still holding the said post. 16. Yet another aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, once it is found that this is not a fit case in which a writ of quo warranto can be issued, it is to be considered whether the petitioner has any private interest in it or not. As observed above, since the petitioner did not give any description of his qualifications to hold the post of Registrar in the writ petition, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has any private interest in it. Therefore, it can only be treated as Public Interest Litigation which cannot be invoked in a dispute relating to service matters, as consistently held by the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar , (1998) 7 SCC 273 ; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590 ; Neetu Vs. State of Punjab , (2007) 10 SCC 614; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 ; Madan Lal Vs. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar , (1998) 7 SCC 273 ; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 590 ; Neetu Vs. State of Punjab , (2007) 10 SCC 614; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 ; Madan Lal Vs. High Court of J&K , 2014 (15) SCC 308 and Vishal Ashok Thorat and others vs. Rajesh Shripambapu and others , (2020) 18 SCC 675 Evidently, the matter involves appointment of the 1 st respondent, which is a matter relating to service of a Government servant and therefore unless the petitioner is able to establish that the petitioner was denied his right to be appointed as Registrar, despite being part of the selection process or being eligible to be appointed, the same can only be treated as a Public Interest Litigation which is not entertainable in a dispute in a service matter. Therefore, on that reason also, the challenge raised by the petitioner has to fail, since the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the same. In other words, the contentions of the petitioner are to be rejected for lack of locus standi and also on account of the delay or lapses on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his rights. 17. Even though, this Court finds that, the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, it is only proper that, the issue raised by the petitioner be answered on merits as well, for completeness. The main contention of the petitioner is that, the appointment of the 6 th respondent is against the stipulations contained in the Cadre Recruitment Rule for Non Teaching Staff for the Central University of Kerala, the copy of which is produced as Ext.P6 (incomplete copy). The learned counsel for the University has made available the full set of the recruitment rules referred to above. The specific contention raised by the respondent is that the recruitment rules referred to above are not applicable to the post of Registrar, as according to them, the same is applicable only to non-teaching staff, which cannot be applicable in the post of Registrar. The said contention is based on the provisions contained under section 9 of the Central Universities Act , 2009. The said contention is based on the provisions contained under section 9 of the Central Universities Act , 2009. The said provision provides the details of the “Officer of the University and the post of Registrar is serial No.5 therein”. Section 14 (i) specifically contemplates that the Registrar shall be appointed in such a manner and on such terms and conditions of service, as may be prescribed by the statutes. When going through Ext.P6 Recruitment Rules, it can be seen that, the same was formulated by invoking the powers under Section 26(d) of the Central University Act, 2020. As far as Section 26(d) of the Act is concerned, it provides for appointment of teachers, academic staff and other employees of the University and their emoluments and conditions of service. As far as the officers of the University are concerned, what is relevant is Section 26(c), which deals with the appointment, powers and duties of the office staff of the University and their emoluments. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, Ext.P6 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. 18. Of course, it is true that, Ext.P1 notification specifically contemplated that a select list shall be prepared after a selection process and if the original appointee resigned from the post after accepting the same, it has to be readvertised, to fill up of the post and in that event, the panel will become invalid. However, it is evident from Ext.P5 that, this clause was specifically taken into account by the 3 rd respondent-Committee while taking a decision as to whether the 6 th respondent who was the serial No.2 in the select list has to be appointed or not. After consciously considering the same, they have taken a decision to appoint the 6 th respondent by following an O.M. issued by the Government of India on 13.06.2000, a copy of which is on record as Ext.R6(i). 19. In Exhibit P6(i), the Government of India, taking into account the recommendations made by the 5 th Central Pay Commission, stipulated that, with a view to reduce the delay in filling up of the post resulting from resignation of the incumbent within one year of his appointment, it can be filled up immediately by the candidates from the reserved panel. It was also stipulated that such a vacancy should not be treated as a fresh vacancy. It was also stipulated that such a vacancy should not be treated as a fresh vacancy. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent, while taking a decision to appoint the 6 th respondent, simply followed the Office Memorandum referred to above, which itself is based on the recommendations of the 5 th Central Pay Commission. In such circumstances, the appointment of the 6 th respondent cannot be treated as illegal in view of the fact that, the same was made by following the guidelines issued by the Government of India in this regard. Even though the same was not strictly applicable to the University, in the matter of appointment under the same, nothing would preclude the University from following the guidelines therein and merely because the University followed the same, it cannot be termed as illegal. This is particularly because, as far as the filling up of the post of Registrar is concerned, this Court has already held that, Ext.P6 Rules cannot be made applicable. Therefore, it was open to the University to adopt the guidelines formulated by the Government in this regard which was intended to avoid any delay in making the appointments. 20. As far as the post of Registrar is concerned, it is very crucial for the University and any delay in making the appointment could be very fatal to the University and the affairs relating to the same. Therefore, in the absence of any specific prohibition in adopting the said Guidelines referred to above, the act of the University in issuing Exhibits P4 and P5 by appointing the 6 th respondent cannot be termed as illegal. 21. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent, the clauses in Ext.P1, by itself will not grant any right to the petitioner herein to challenge the appointment of the 6 th respondent for various reasons. First of all, the petitioner did not participate in the selection process as per Ext.P1. Secondly, this Court has already held that the petitioner does not have any legal right to challenge the same. Thirdly, Ext.R6(i) guidelines formulated by the Government authorise the authority concerned to fill up the post if it becomes vacant within one year from the date of filling up of the vacancy due to death or other reasons. Secondly, this Court has already held that the petitioner does not have any legal right to challenge the same. Thirdly, Ext.R6(i) guidelines formulated by the Government authorise the authority concerned to fill up the post if it becomes vacant within one year from the date of filling up of the vacancy due to death or other reasons. In this case, the original appointee took charge on 8.10.2021 and he submitted 90 days prior notice on 1.4.2022 conveying his intention to resign from the said post with effect from 01.07.2022. Thus, the resignation was before completion of one year, and therefore nothing precluded the University from filling up the post by appointing the 6 th respondent, who was serial No.2 in the selection list prepared based on Ext.P1 notification. In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with Exts.P4 and P5 orders and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.