JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. This writ appeal is filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Act , 1958 by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.45808 of 2024. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 order dated 12.12.2024, issued by the 2 nd respondent Registrar of the Central University of Kerala with the approval of the 3 rd respondent Vice Chancellor-in-Charge, appointing the 4 th respondent as the Head of the University Health Centre and relieving the appellant from the in charge-ship of the Head of the University Health Centre. The appellant also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to retain her, being the senior most Medical Officer, as the functional Head of the University. As per the impugned judgment dated 31.01.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the above appeal. 2. According to the appellant, she is the senior most Medical Officer of Aravalli Health Centre, Central University of Kerala, and the functional Head of the Centre. She was all of a sudden relieved by the 2 nd respondent Registrar with the approval of the 3 rd respondent Vice Chancellor-in-Charge and appointed the 4 th respondent who is a non-medical person, at her place. It is alleged in the writ petition that the 4 th respondent has no medical degree or clinical experience and he was appointed only because he was in the good books of the 3 rd respondent. In none of the Universities or Government departments a non-medical person could be appointed as the Head. The norm that is followed till date is that the senior most in the Department or Section or Centre in a non-teaching wing will be its administrative Head. In the case of appointment of the 4 th respondent nepotism overweighed the legal principles and public policies. 3. The respondents 1, 2 and 5 filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1 (g) documents. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus: “2. None of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition can be granted. The order Ext. P6 impugned in the writ petition does not adversely affect or impinge upon any of the legal rights of the petitioner entitling her to a Writ of Certiorari. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus: “2. None of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition can be granted. The order Ext. P6 impugned in the writ petition does not adversely affect or impinge upon any of the legal rights of the petitioner entitling her to a Writ of Certiorari. The said order grants a posting only to Professor Mathew George, currently Dean of School of Medicine & Public Health as head of the University Health Centre. This is only an administrative duty. The contention, therefore, that a non-medical personnel is appointed as the Head of the Health Centre is untenable. The aforesaid arrangement was made in view of the decision taken by the competent authority that in the administrative exigencies, a senior Professor in the Public Health Department shall be posted as Head of the Health Centre. There is nothing illegal in it as no teacher or doctor can claim as a matter of right that he/she shall be put in charge of the head of the health Centre, which is a purely administrative post and not a medical post. 3. Besides, posting the petitioner earlier in one of the health clinics was purely accidental. The petitioner joined as a Medical Officer on contract basis on 14.10.2016 and continued till 10.06.2019 with occasional breaks. She has already approached this Hon’ble Court for treating the contract appointment as regular services, which is pending as W.P.(C) No. 31937 of 2024 before this Hon’ble Court. The post of Medical Officer was sanctioned by the University “Grants Commission only by letter dated 07.06.2013. The petitioner was thereafter appointed as Medical Officer (Female) on 10 th June, 2019. A true copy of the order No CUK/NT/PF-88/ARN/2019 dated 25.07.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a). As a purely stopgap arrangement she was put in charge of the Health Clinic for a period of three years to be followed by appointment of Dr. Kannan for the next three years. A true copy of the order No CUK/ADM/MO/2016 dated 06 th August 2019 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b). The petitioner however, did not hand over the charge to Dr. Kannan which necessitated the issuance of another order No.CUK/ADM/MO/2016 dated 15 th October 2022. A true copy of the order No CUK/ADM/MO/2016 dated 15.10.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(c). The petitioner however, did not hand over the charge to Dr. Kannan which necessitated the issuance of another order No.CUK/ADM/MO/2016 dated 15 th October 2022. A true copy of the order No CUK/ADM/MO/2016 dated 15.10.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(c). Subsequently, by another Order No. CUK/ADM/MO/2016 dated 16 th January 2023 the petitioner again was put in charge of Medical Officer, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(d). There is no mention about the Head of the Medical Centre in any one of the orders rather it is just in-charge of the Health Centre. For the proper administration and discharge of the administrative duties it is within the powers of the Vice Chancellor to designate a competent personnel as Head of the Medical Centre. That is how Dr. Mathew George, Dean, School of Medicine and Public Health was appointed. The order posting 4 th respondent stipulated that it will have immediate effect and the petitioner is relieved from the in- charge ship of the Health Centre. It is submitted that the petitioner has admitted in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that she was relieved with immediate effect and the same is wholly without jurisdiction and illegal. She has admitted therein that she received the said order and was relieved from in charge of office and a contradictory averment is also made in Ground C of the writ petition. Subsequent to his appointment, an order No. CUK/ADM/MO/2016/Pt/1035/K 3684 dated 16.12.2024 was issued denoting his duties in the Medical Health Centre, which has not been produced by the petitioner and is suppressed from the notice of this Hon’ble Court, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(e). On a reading of that order it is clear that the 4 th respondent is only put on administrative charge, which cannot be claimed as a matter of right by anybody. That order is unchallenged in the writ petition as the same is not even produced. 4. It may also be pointed out here that there have been unsatisfactory performances by the petitioner in her conduct in administration. It was therefore, felt that in the best interest of the Health Centre, the administrative charge must be entrusted to a senior teacher, which is why the posting of the 4 th respondent was made. 4. It may also be pointed out here that there have been unsatisfactory performances by the petitioner in her conduct in administration. It was therefore, felt that in the best interest of the Health Centre, the administrative charge must be entrusted to a senior teacher, which is why the posting of the 4 th respondent was made. It is therefore, submitted that there is nothing illegal in putting charge of the Head of the University Health Centre to a senior teacher of the School of Medicine & Public Health in the best interests of administration of the Medical Health Centre. None of the legal rights of the petitioner is affected warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. All the contentions contra raised in the writ petition are denied. The various representations submitted by the petitioner all are irrelevant for deciding the issues involved in the writ petition. There is no appointment of the 4 th respondent as contended in the writ petition. He is only put in charge as stated earlier. The petitioner terms it as an order of appointment which it is submitted, is incorrect. Since the very basis of the contention of the petitioner lacks foundation, she is not entitled to any reliefs from this Hon’ble Court. 5. None of the grounds raised in the writ petition is tenable. There is no right in the senior most Medical Officer to claim to be in charge of the administration. There is no rule entitling the petitioner to put forward that contention. The allegation of implanting and of personal nature against the Vice Chancellor are not only totally baseless but extremely unfortunate. The action of the Vice Chancellor is in the best interest of the University to ensure smooth administration in the Health Centre and connected with treatment of patients etc. There is no rule prescribing that the Head incharge of the Health Centre should positively be a Medical Officer. It is true that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director, Legal Cell. That was in violation of the rule that no direct representation without routing it through proper channel, shall be entertained. In addition to that it was noticed that the petitioner during the short period when she was in charge of the Health Centre, was by-passing the Registrar for issuing sanction order in the matter of procuring medicines. That was in violation of the rule that no direct representation without routing it through proper channel, shall be entertained. In addition to that it was noticed that the petitioner during the short period when she was in charge of the Health Centre, was by-passing the Registrar for issuing sanction order in the matter of procuring medicines. Besides all these, there were serious audit objections in the appointment of the petitioner even as Medical Officer, a true copy of Audit Observation dated 12.12.2024 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1 (f). It was also noticed that after the 4 th respondent took charge, the petitioner was using threatening language against him and showing defiance and insubordination. Prof (Dr.) Mathew George through his mail dated 02.01.2025 has informed the Vice Chancellor that he was told by the petitioner that he is not supposed to be coming to the Health Centre. A Copy of the email dated 02.01.2025 produced and marked as Exhibit R1(g). All these created an unpleasantness in the functioning of the Health Centre entirely due to the contribution of the petitioner. Actually her conduct warranted disciplinary action but the University wanted to avoid it as much as possible, which the petitioner appears to take as a weakness on the part of the University”. 4. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order found that the appellant has not pointed out any statute, rules or prohibitions or executive instructions that would confine eligibility only to the medical professionals to take charge of the Head of the Health Centre. On the contrary, Ext.R1(e) order produced by the University would show that the duties of a Head of the Centre can be discharged by even a non-medical professional. The 4 th respondent though a non-medical professional, is Dean of the Faculty. The appellant therefore cannot claim that she should be permitted to continue as Head of the Centre. She has no such legal right. 5. Heard Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. 6. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the appellant was appointed as in-charge of the Health Centre with effect from 05.08.2019 up to 04.08.2022 by virtue of Annexure A1 order dated 06.08.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent Registrar. 5. Heard Sri. Elvin Peter, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. 6. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the appellant was appointed as in-charge of the Health Centre with effect from 05.08.2019 up to 04.08.2022 by virtue of Annexure A1 order dated 06.08.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent Registrar. As per the said order, Dr.Kannan A.S, a Medical Officer working in the Health Centre was appointed as in charge of the Health Centre from 05.08.2022 to 04.08.2025. Thereafter the 2 nd respondent issued Annexure A2 order dated 15.10.2022 supplementing Annexure A1 order giving charge of the Health Centre to Dr.Kannan A.S for a period of three years. But superseding Annexure A2 order the 2 nd respondent issued Annexure A3 order dated 16.01.2023 giving charge of the Health Centre to the appellant. The Department of Public Health and Community Medicine offers a Ph.D programme in Public Health, Master of Public Health and Master of Yoga Studies and also a Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga. The staff details in Annexure A would show that apart from the appellant as Senior Medical Officer and Dr. Kannan A.S as the Medical Officer, a Nursing Officer, one Medical Attendant, a Pharmacist, a Clinical Psychologist and two Ambulance drivers were appointed to Aravalli Centre for Health and Medical Services. Therefore, the duties of the Head of the Health Centre are connected with medicine. Either the appellant or Dr. Kannan A.S ought to have been appointed as the functional Head of the Centre instead of 4 th respondent who has no medical background. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University has submitted that the 4 th respondent is a Senior teacher of the School of Medicine and Public Health. As per Ext.R1(e) order dated 16.12.2024, the duty of the 4 th respondent is only on the administrative side and not of discharging any medical duties. The Aravalli Health Centre is only a clinic and it is not a Centre for inpatient treatment. Hence no interference is needed to the impugned judgment. 8. From Annexure A Structure Establishment and Functions of Aravalli Centre for Health and Medical Services it is clear that it is not a Centre for inpatient treatment. The facilities provided therein are only like a Clinic or Health Centre. Hence no interference is needed to the impugned judgment. 8. From Annexure A Structure Establishment and Functions of Aravalli Centre for Health and Medical Services it is clear that it is not a Centre for inpatient treatment. The facilities provided therein are only like a Clinic or Health Centre. In order to meet the medical duties apart from the appellant, another Medical Officer was also appointed therein as evident from Annexure A document. From the counter affidavit filed by the University and also from the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that the 4 th respondent was appointed to look after the administrative aspects of the Health Centre. Even after Ext.P6 order, another Medical Officer is there to look after the medical facilities. No statutory violation or mala fides could be pointed out by the appellant in Ext.P6 order of appointment whereby the 4 th respondent was appointed at her place. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.