JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.38005 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. 2. The appellant was appointed as Library Assistant in the 2 nd respondent University on 05.08.1998. She was later promoted as Reference Assistant with effect from 01.12.2008. She holds Masters Degree and Ph.D in Library and Information Science. By Ext.P1 order dated 26.03.2019, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Librarian Grade II with effect from 19.03.2019. She joined the post on 26.03.2019. 2.1. According to the appellant, on the date of Ext.P1 order, the VI th Central Pay Commission scale of pay was made applicable as the UGC scale of pay. The appellant, by Ext.P2 submission dated 29.03.2019, requested her induction into the UGC scheme and also for the grant of 5 non-compounded increments, being a Ph.D holder in the cadre of Assistant Librarian. Consequent to Ext.P2 submission, the pay of the appellant was fixed under the UGC scale of Pay Band-3 + Academic Grade Pay of Rs.6,000/- with 5 non-compounded advance increments as per Ext.P3 order dated 04.11.2019 issued from the office of the 3 rd respondent. By Ext.P4 submission dated 12.11.2019, the appellant requested the fixation of pay in the UGC scale of pay + 5 non-compounded advance increments in force. But by an order dated 26.06.2020 issued from the office of the 2 nd respondent, Ext.P3 order dated 04.11.2019 was cancelled and it was ordered that the appellant would be brought over to VII th CPC scale of pay (Level-10 of the Pay Matrix), presumably based on the recommendations of the UGC accepted by the Government of Kerala in the year 2020 with retrospective effect from 01.01.2016. This has resulted in a substantial reduction in the pay of the appellant, lower than the pay the appellant was drawing on the date of promotion to the lower post, and moreover, this was not the scale of pay/UGC scheme for which the appellant had opted in terms of Ext.P2. This has resulted in a substantial reduction in the pay of the appellant, lower than the pay the appellant was drawing on the date of promotion to the lower post, and moreover, this was not the scale of pay/UGC scheme for which the appellant had opted in terms of Ext.P2. Therefore, the appellant submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 14.07.2020 inter alia stating that Ext.P4 will have a cascading effect upon the monthly pay of the appellant and her future career, and therefore, she be exempted from the UGC scale of pay, which was ordered to be granted in Ext.P3, but not granted. Ext.P5 representation was not responded and hence the appellant continued to draw the scale of pay of a Reference Assistant. Subsequently, the appellant received Ext.P6 communication dated 17.09.2021 issued on behalf of the 3 rd respondent, wherein it was stated that the appellant's pay as Assistant Librarian would be fixed in the State scale of pay. Though Ext.P6 was directed to be given effect only from 02.09.2021, the same also did not materialise. The appellant then received Ext.P7 letter dated 19.11.2021 issued on behalf of the 3 rd respondent modifying Ext.P6 and directing the grant of the State scale of pay with effect from 26.03.2019. 2.2. The appellant submitted Ext.P8 representation dated20.11.2021 inter alia praying to declare the probation with effect from 26.09.2019. She submitted Ext.P9 request dated 20.11.2021 once again seeking fixation of her pay in the post of Assistant Librarian, as she continued to draw the scale of pay attached to the post of Reference Assistant. In the meanwhile, a vacancy of Assistant Librarian Grade-I in the State scale of pay arose on 01.05.2021. The appellant, therefore, submitted Ext.P10 request dated 31.01.2022 to promote her as Assistant Librarian Grade-I with effect from 01.05.2021. Since no action was taken on Ext.P10, the appellant submitted Ext.P11 representation dated13.06.2022 with the same request. 2.3. While so, three of the appellant's juniors were promoted as Assistant Librarian Grade-I. The last among them, Sri.Biju Philip submitted a representation seeking to protect his service seniority, and it has been directed to study the representation and submit a report. The appellant was called for a hearing on 27.08.2022 as per the Ext.P12 communication dated 26.08.2022, and by Ext.P13 order dated 19.11.2022, the appellant was informed that it has been decided to accept the report and revert the appellant to the UGC scale from 26.03.2019. The appellant was called for a hearing on 27.08.2022 as per the Ext.P12 communication dated 26.08.2022, and by Ext.P13 order dated 19.11.2022, the appellant was informed that it has been decided to accept the report and revert the appellant to the UGC scale from 26.03.2019. Ext.P13 was followed by Ext.P14 order dated 13.12.2022 issued on behalf of the 3 rd respondent. 2.4. Challenging Exts.P13 and P14, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by Ext.P15 judgment dated 04.07.2023, directing the competent authority of the University to hear the appellant and the 5 th respondent therein, and take a decision on the request of the appellant for rectification of the alleged anomaly caused to her on account of the modification of Exts.P4 to P6 produced in that writ petition; but without acceding to the request of the appellant for a switchover to the UGC scheme. It was further directed in that judgment that the aforesaid direction shall be complied by the University, resulting in appropriate proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment. It was further directed in that judgment that all actions, if any, taken by the University pursuant to Exts.P16 and P17 therein will be subject to the aforesaid decision to be taken; and if, through the exercise as above ordered, the appellant is found eligible to any benefit, same shall be granted to her, notwithstanding the implementation of the said orders. It was clarified in that judgment that the learned Single Judge did not speak affirmatively on any of the claims of the appellant and that they will be considered appositely by the University as per the aforementioned directions. 2.5. Consequent to the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, the appellant was informed by Ext.P16 memo dated 05.09.2023 stating that one Dr.Shajeela Beevi. S has been authorised to hear the parties. This memo was modified with Ext.P17 memo dated 15.09.2023, whereby Dr.Biju Pushpan was authorised to conduct a hearing. The appellant then filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No.2131 of 2023 before this Court, contending that the orders issued by the respondents are not consistent with Ext.P15 judgment. Consequent to the filing of the said contempt case, the 3 rd respondent issued another order, resulting in the filing of another contempt case by the appellant as Con.Case(C)No.461 of 2024. The appellant then filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No.2131 of 2023 before this Court, contending that the orders issued by the respondents are not consistent with Ext.P15 judgment. Consequent to the filing of the said contempt case, the 3 rd respondent issued another order, resulting in the filing of another contempt case by the appellant as Con.Case(C)No.461 of 2024. The said contempt cases were disposed of by this Court by Exts.P18 judgment dated 12.10.2023 and Ext.P19 judgment dated 21.02.2024, respectively. In terms of the directions in Ext.P19 judgment, the respondents conducted a hearing, and the appellant was served with Ext.P22 enquiry report dated 08.02.2024 submitted by the Sub-Committee. Subsequently, the appellant was served with Ext.P23 order dated 23.03.2024 stating that the appellant, who is included in the UGC scheme, is not entitled to promotion under the State scheme. The appellant, therefore, filed Ext.P24 appeal before the Chancellor of the University on 18.04.2024. 2.6. The appellant states that immediately after Ext.P15 judgment dated 04.07.2023 was uploaded in the website, the appellant noticed that Ext.P15 originally uploaded was found substituted by another copy of the judgment in which the sentence in the operative portion of the judgment “but without acceding to her request for a switchover to the UGC scheme” was substituted with “but without acceding to her request for coming back to the State scheme”. When the matter was brought to the notice of this Court, Ext.P26 the subsequently uploaded judgment was again replaced with Ext.P15 judgment. From various records such as Ext.P27 true copy of the file note relating to the issue and Ext.P28 communication dated 17.07.2024 sent by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor would indicate that the entire action on the part of the respondents was in the light of Ext.P26 judgment and not Ext.P15 judgment which governs the situation. Therefore, the appellant filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 for a clarification as to which one of the judgments should prevail over the other. That interlocutory application filed in Con.Case(C)No. 461 of 2024 was disposed of by an order dated 09.10.2024, noticing the statement of the counsel for the University that the University appears to have issued the order based on the original judgment, i.e., Ext.P15. 2.7. That interlocutory application filed in Con.Case(C)No. 461 of 2024 was disposed of by an order dated 09.10.2024, noticing the statement of the counsel for the University that the University appears to have issued the order based on the original judgment, i.e., Ext.P15. 2.7. Contending that the stand of the respondents that once opted to UGC scheme one cannot go back to the State scheme is without substance, the appellant approached this Court with the instant writ petition viz., W.P.(C)No.38005 of 2024 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P23 order dated 23.03.2024 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the appellant's pay in the State scale of pay as Assistant Librarian with effect from 19.03.2019, as if Ext.P23 had not been issued at all, with consequential benefits emanating therefrom. In the writ petition, the appellant further contended that Exts.P30 and P31 orders dated 21.06.2024 and 20.07.2024, respectively, issued by the University of Calicut would show that one can go back to the State scheme from the UGC scheme. The appellant contended that, in fact, she was never switched over to the UGC Scheme, though an option was given to her. The option given by the appellant was withdrawn by her even before it was acted upon. 2.8. By producing Ext.P32 order dated 06.06.2019 issued by the 1 st respondent, the appellant contended that the appointments to the UGC scale of pay of Assistant Librarian cannot be made by promotion from the State scheme, but only by direct recruitment. Despite the clear direction that persons like the appellant cannot be promoted to the UGC scale, the respondents are contending that the appellant cannot be reverted to the State scheme. 3. The additional 5 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 03.12.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought therein and producing therewith Ext. R5(a) document. 4. To that counter affidavit, the appellant submitted a reply affidavit dated 10.12.2024, producing therewith Exts.P33 to P36 documents. 5. After considering the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the judgment dated 17.12.2024, holding that the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Hence, the appellant is now before this Court with this writ appeal. 6. 5. After considering the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the judgment dated 17.12.2024, holding that the appellant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Hence, the appellant is now before this Court with this writ appeal. 6. The writ appeal was filed by the appellant with a delay of 103 days. By the order dated 09.06.2025 in C.M.Application No.1 of 2025, the delay was condoned by this Court. On 20.06.2025, when this writ appeal came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for the 1 st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned counsel for the additional 5 th respondent entered appearance. 7. On 29.07.2025, having heard the preliminary submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Standing Counsel for the University, we directed the registry to incorporate the Judges’ papers in W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 and Con.Case(C)No.461 of 2024 in the writ appeal. Pursuant to the said direction, the Judges’ papers in W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 and Con.Case(C)No.461 of 2024 were incorporated with the Judges' papers of this writ appeal by the Registry. 8. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the additional 5 th respondent. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that Ext.P15 is the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42566 of 2022 filed by the appellant seeking necessary reliefs. Though a copy of the judgment was immediately seen uploaded on the website of this Court, a few hours later, it was substituted with Ext.P26 judgment, wherein a sentence in the operative portion was seen changed. When this fact was brought to the notice of this Court, Ext.P26 judgment was substituted with the original judgment. By virtue of Ext.P15 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to hear the appellant and the additional 5 th respondent and to make a decision on the request of the appellant, ‘without acceding to her request for a switchover to the UGC scheme’. But Ext.P23 order passed by the 3 rd respondent is in consonance with Ext.P26, which was disowned by all the parties. Therefore, Ext.P23 has no legs to stand. But Ext.P23 order passed by the 3 rd respondent is in consonance with Ext.P26, which was disowned by all the parties. Therefore, Ext.P23 has no legs to stand. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that though the respondents contended that there is no provision to return back, after switching over to the UGC scheme from the State scheme, there is no statute that prevents the same. Moreover, Exts.P30 and P31 orders issued by the University of Calicut in a similar situation show that such a switching back to the State scheme is permissible. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the Ext.P3 order passed consequent to the request of the appellant to switchover to the UGC scheme from the State Scheme was cancelled by the 2 nd respondent before implementation of the same by the order dated 26.06.2020. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the respondents are also relying on Ext.P15 judgment and not Ext.P26 judgment. Ext.P23 order was passed by the 3 rd respondent, complying with the directions in Ext.P15 judgment. The learned Standing Counsel fairly conceded that since the stand taken in Ext.P23 was not in consonance with the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, the matter has to be decided afresh by the 3 rd respondent. However, the learned counsel for the additional 5 th respondent supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and argued that once a switchover was granted to the UGC scheme, it is not possible to revert back to the State scheme. 11. The appellant, while working as Assistant Librarian Grade-II, submitted Ext.P2 submission dated 29.03.2019 for her induction to the UGC scheme from the State Scheme, since the pay matrix was beneficial by the implementation of VI th Central Pay Commission in the UGC scale of pay. Though the appellant's pay was fixed by Ext.P3 order dated 04.11.2019 issued from the office of the 3 rd respondent in par with the UGC scale of pay, it was not implemented. Though the appellant's pay was fixed by Ext.P3 order dated 04.11.2019 issued from the office of the 3 rd respondent in par with the UGC scale of pay, it was not implemented. When Ext.P4 submission dated 12.11.2019 made by the appellant was pending for fixation of pay in the UGC scale with 5 non-compounded advance increments for additional qualification of Ph.D, the 2 nd respondent cancelled Ext.P3 order on 26.06.2020 by the order bearing No.2859/ADA5/2020/M.G.U. The subsequent developments led to the filing of W.P.(C) No.42566 of 2022 by the appellant, which led to the passing of Ext.P15 judgment dated 04.07.2023. Though the appellant has made certain averments in her pleadings, to the effect that Ext.P15 judgment was replaced with Ext.P26 in the website of this Court and it was again resubstituted with Ext.P15, which cannot be said as futile in view of Ext.P26 judgment produced along with the writ petition, now all the parties are sticking on the stand that the original judgment is Ext.P15 and none of them are relying on Ext.P26. In view of the said stand taken by the parties to the appeal, we are not entering into the aspects of substitution of Ext.P15 with Ext.P26, etc., in this judgment, as it is unwarranted for the decision of this appeal. 12. The operative portion of Ext.P15 judgment reads thus: “In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the University to hear the petitioner and the 5 th respondent, and take a decision on her request for rectification of the alleged anomaly caused to her on account of the modification of Ext.P4 to Ext.P6; but without acceding to her request for a switchover to the UGC Scheme. This shall be done by the MG University, resulting in appropriate proceedings, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, all action, if any, taken by the University pursuant to Exts.P16 and P17 will be subject to the afore decision to be taken; and if, through the exercise as above ordered, she is found eligible to any benefit, same shall be granted to her, notwithstanding the implementation of the said orders. Needless to say, all action, if any, taken by the University pursuant to Exts.P16 and P17 will be subject to the afore decision to be taken; and if, through the exercise as above ordered, she is found eligible to any benefit, same shall be granted to her, notwithstanding the implementation of the said orders. I further clarify that I have not spoken affirmatively on any of the claims of the petitioner and that they will be considered appositely by the University as per the afore directions.” (Underline supplied) 13. From Ext.P23 order impugned in the writ petition passed by the 3 rd respondent, we notice that though the respondents are saying that they are relying on Ext.P15 judgment, Ext.P23 order was passed as if in the judgment it was held that a switch back from the UGC scheme to the State scheme was not permitted. Therefore, it is clear that Ext.P23 order was passed not in consonance with the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, wherein it is clearly held that “but without acceding to her request for a switchover to the UGC scheme”. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 could not point out any provision or Regulation that prevents reverting back from the UGC scheme to the State scheme, once the option is exercised to switch over to the UGC Scheme from the State scheme. It is also pertinent to note that as per the contention of the appellant, before taking into effect of Ext.P3 order permitting her to switch over to the UGC scheme from the State scheme, the same was cancelled by the 2 nd respondent as per the order dated 26.06.2020, the passing of which is not disputed by the respondents. Similarly, Exts. P30 and P31 orders passed by the University of Calicut in a similar situation permitted a revert back to the State scheme from the UGC scheme. 14. The upshot of the above discussion is that the learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in their proper perspective, and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, with a direction to the 3 rd respondent to consider the issue afresh. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 17.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.38005 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 17.12.2024 in W.P.(C)No.38005 of 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P23 order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the 3 rd respondent and directing the 3 rd respondent to hear the appellant and the additional 5 th respondent afresh and take an appropriate decision in consonance with the direction in Ext.P15 judgment, bearing in mind the observations made above. The entire exercise as directed shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.