JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24652 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. 2. W.P.(C) No.24652 of 2024 is filed by the appellant-petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P2, Ext.P4 and Ext.P12 and quashing the same. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 1 st and 2 nd respondent to modify Ext.P7 order by giving placement to the petitioner as Professor w.e.f. 01.06.2009. iii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to be placed as Professor w.e.f. 01.06.2009. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P13 representation of the petitioner.” 3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the appellant is now serving as Professor and Head of the Department at the 4 th Respondent Central University of Kerala, Periya, Kasargod, after availing voluntary retirement from the 1 st Respondent Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, on 31.10.2022. The appellant served as a lecturer at Mahatma Gandhi Government Arts College, Mahe, for ten years and 6 months as a lecturer and thereafter joined the 1 st Respondent University as a lecturer on 14.07.1999. The appellant requested that his past service at Government Arts College, Mahe, be counted as per Government Order G.O.(P)171/99/H.Edn. dated 21.12.1999 which stipulates the implementation of revised U.G.C. Scheme, 1998, with effect from 01.01.1996. The modified provision regarding minimum length of service for career advancement is to be implemented from 27.07.1998, the date of notification. The 1 st respondent considered his application only on 30.09.2010, and thereafter, on 20.10.2011, his application was allowed, and fixation of salary was ordered on 02.01.2012, in the Grade of Selection Grade Lecturer. Ext.P2 is the Minutes of the screening committee of the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent vide, Ext.P4 communication dated 26.11.2012, informed the appellant that he cannot be placed as a professor as he has not secured the score category. The Government of Kerala Passed G.O.(P)No.58/2010/HEdn. dated 27.03.2010 ordering Revision of Scale of teachers in Universities and colleges, etc. Ext.P2 is the Minutes of the screening committee of the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent vide, Ext.P4 communication dated 26.11.2012, informed the appellant that he cannot be placed as a professor as he has not secured the score category. The Government of Kerala Passed G.O.(P)No.58/2010/HEdn. dated 27.03.2010 ordering Revision of Scale of teachers in Universities and colleges, etc. By the said order, the Government declared that there shall be only three designations of teachers, i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. By the application of Clause 6.1.11 of the said order, the appellant was placed as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. Though the said order prescribes the appointment of an Associate Professor with three years of experience as Professor, the appellant's application for placement as Professor was not considered in time, and he was placed as Professor only with effect from 12.11.2017, after the lapse of nearly eight years, vide Ext.P7 order dated 25.09.2018. The appellant filed a representation on 12.04.2019 before the 1 st respondent, which was rejected by the University, vide Ext.P12 order dated 10.10.2019, without considering or complying with the orders of the Supreme Court. The Government of Kerala adopted UGC REGULATIONS in the year 2010, which was upheld by the Full Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 23.02.2016, which, on challenge before the Supreme Court, ordered the date of effect of U.G.C Regulation with effect from 23.02.2016, the date of the Full Bench judgment of this Court. Hence, the delay in placing the appellant as Professor, relying on the UGC Regulation, 2010, is prima facie void. The appellant sought voluntary retirement from the 1 st respondent University, and the same was granted with effect from 31.10.2022 and thereafter joined the 4 th respondent University on 01.11.2022. Since the disbursement of pension, retirement benefits and qualifying service were not granted, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12576 of 2024, and the same is pending. The appellant again filed Ext.P13 representation on 20.06.2024 to the 2 nd respondent for reconsideration of the Professorship date from 23.12.2007 or 01.01.2009, and it was not considered. With these pleadings, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.24652 of 2024 with the aforementioned prayers. 4. The 1 st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 19.09.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(d) documents. With these pleadings, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.24652 of 2024 with the aforementioned prayers. 4. The 1 st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 19.09.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(d) documents. Paragraphs 6 to 11 of that counter affidavit read thus: “6. As per the UGC 6 th Regulation and on the basis of the option form submitted by the petitioner, the salary was revised in the scale 15,600/- 39,100/-with AGP 7,000/-to 22,230/-+ AGP 7,000/- with effect from 01.01.2006. As per the G.O(P)No.58/2010/HEdn dated 27.03.2010 revising the scales of pay of the teachers in the University and colleges, etc., the Government had declared that there shall be only three designations of teachers, i.e. Assistant Professor, Associate professor and Professor. By the application of clause 6.1.1 1 of the said order, those who completed 3 years in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer has to be re- designated as Associate Professor, and thus the Petitioner was re-designated as Associate Professor in the pay scale 37,400/- - 67,000/- with AGP 9,000/- with effect from 01.01.2006. 7. As per the UGC 5 th Regulation, for the placement to the post of Professor, the candidate should submit SAR for a period of 5 years and five research publications prior to the date of eligibility for placement to the post of Professor. Out of these five research publications, two of them should be books. The placement to the post of Professor under the UGC 5 th Regulation is made after a detailed examination of the five publications. The contention of the petitioner that placement will be given to the post of professor for a candidate on the due date, even though the qualification was completed later, is not correct and hence denied. The placement under the UGC 5 th Regulation is given to those who are eligible in all respects but delay in submitting their SAR due to any other reasons. For placements under the Career Advancement Scheme, SAR has to be submitted as per UGC 5 th Regulation and PBAS has to be submitted as per the 6 th UGC Regulation. Hence, a request to consider placement under UGC 5 th Regulation cannot be entertained based on the PBAS submitted. The said claim can be considered only as per UGC 6 th Regulation. Hence, a request to consider placement under UGC 5 th Regulation cannot be entertained based on the PBAS submitted. The said claim can be considered only as per UGC 6 th Regulation. This University had implemented the UGC 6 th Regulation 2010, with effect from 18.09.2010, as per order no.15021/Ad.A2/SSUS/2010 date 11.11.2011. 8. The petitioner did not submit the SAR to the post of professor either on 23.12.2007 or on 01.01.2009, and did not submit all the records of achievement for the professor placement on the above dates. Mere claim for the said prescribed periods in the application will not entitle the petitioner to the post of Professor under the UGC 5 th Regulation without fulfilling other requirements/ qualifications. Clause 6.4.8 of UGC REGULATIONS 2010, the norms for allotment of CAS to the post of professor given below; "Associate Professor completing three years of service in stage 4 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor and be placed in the next higher grade (stage 5), subject to (a) satisfying the required credit points as per API based PRAS methodology provided in Table I-Ill of Appendix IV stipulated in these Regulations, and (b) an assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor” Even though the petitioner had completed the required period of service in the post of Associate Professor to become Professor as on 01.01.2009 (3 years as Associate Professor as per UGC VI regulation), the petitioner failed to submit the PBAS and all the records of achievement according to the UGC 6 th Regulation before the statutory screening committee to consider his claim on merits. The PBAS submitted by the Petitioner in 2012 was scrutinised by the Statutory Screening Committee on 10.10.2012 and found that the petitioner is not having sufficient API scores in the Category III Research and Publication) and hence did not recommend the petitioner for promotion to the post of professor and the 1 st respondent University issued Exhibit P4 memo. True copy of the relevant page of the minutes of the meeting of the screening committee held on l0.10.2012 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b). The 1 st respondent University is bound to adhere to UGC REGULATIONS , time to time. 9. True copy of the relevant page of the minutes of the meeting of the screening committee held on l0.10.2012 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b). The 1 st respondent University is bound to adhere to UGC REGULATIONS , time to time. 9. Thereafter, after fulfilling all the requirements as per UGC Regulation 2010, the petitioner submitted the PBAS on 11.11.2017 on the basis of the PBAS and considering the recommendations of the selection committee and screening committee the petitioner was placed to the post of Professor and Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with effect from 12.11.2017 as evident from Exhibit P6 and P7. True copy of minutes of the selection committee constituted for placement of Associate Professor to the post of Professor and Assistant Professor to Associate Professor in the department of Hindi under Career Advancement Scheme is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(c). As per UGC Regulation 2010 clause 6.3.12 date of eligibility is given as below: (a) If a candidate applies for promotion on completion of the minimum eligibility period and is successful, the date of promotion will be from that of minimum period of eligibility. (b) If however the candidates find that he/she fulfills the eligibility conditions at a later date and applies on that date and is successful, his/her promotion will be effected from that date of application fulfilling the criteria. (c) “If the candidate does not succeed in the first assessment, but succeeds in the eventual assessment, his/her promotion will be deemed to be from the later date of successful assessment". 10. The dictum laid down in University of Kerala v. Dr.D.Radhakrishanan Pillai & Ors [SLP.No.18938-18942 of 2017] does not have any application to this present case. As per the judgment dated 23.02.2016 in W.A.No.1676 of 2013 in WP(C) No.3682 of 2012 and WP(C)No.29253 of 2012 will be applicable from the date of judgment, i.e., 23.02.2016, every case after the said date is to be decided as per the law laid down in the said judgment and not by the dictum laid on S N College V N Raveendran [(2001 (3) KLT 98)]. The case of the Petitioner was taken up after 23.02.2016 and hence the law as laid down in the judgment dated 23.02.2016 is only applicable and not as per the judgment in S N College V N Raveendran [(2001 (3) KLT 98)]. The case of the Petitioner was taken up after 23.02.2016 and hence the law as laid down in the judgment dated 23.02.2016 is only applicable and not as per the judgment in S N College V N Raveendran [(2001 (3) KLT 98)]. The Petitioner submitted the PBAS as per UGC Regulation, No.6 only on 11.11.2017. The PBAS submitted by the Petitioner was scrutinised by the Screening Committee on 25.11.2017 and recommended for the promotion to the post of Professor with effect from 11.11.2017. The selection committee constituted as per the UGC Regulation held on 27.11.2017 considered the recommendations of screening committee and recommended the Petitioner to the post of Professor with effect from 11.11.2017. 11. The 1 st respondent university implemented UGC 6 th Regulation as per order no. 15021/Ad.A2/S5US/2010 dated 11.11.2011. All the applications received for promotion in CAS was disposed by the University as per the said order. As per the order of the Honourable Supreme Court and the order of the High Court of Kerala dated 23.02.2016 and the UGC 6 th Regulation, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 12.11.2017. There were no pending cases in 1 st respondent University on or before 23.02.2016 regarding the promotion under CAS. The PBAS submitted by the Petitioner in 2012 was scrutinised by the Statutory Screening Committee on 10.10.2012 and found that the petitioner does not have sufficient API scores in the Category III (research and Publication) and hence did not recommend for promotion to the post of Professor. The same was informed to the Petitioner vide memo No. Ad. A2/2525/SSUS/2012(3) dated 26.11.2012. True copy of memo NO.Ad.A2/2525/SSUS/2012(3) dated 26.11.2012 issued by the 1 st respondent to the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(d). If the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, he ought to have challenged the Exhibit P2 and P4 without delay, but he did not. Now, after a lapse of 12 years, the petitioner challenges the decision of the 1 st respondent University and thereby the same is hit inordinate delay and therefore not maintainable. Moreover, the action of the petitioner in submitting a fresh request in 2017 after rectifying the defects raised, shows that he had no grievance against the Exhibit P2 and P4 decision of the Screening Committee held on 30.09.2010 and 10.10.2012, respectively. Moreover, the action of the petitioner in submitting a fresh request in 2017 after rectifying the defects raised, shows that he had no grievance against the Exhibit P2 and P4 decision of the Screening Committee held on 30.09.2010 and 10.10.2012, respectively. In the Career Advancement Scheme, academic excellence of the teachers cannot be compromised. Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to accept the counter affidavit and dismiss the writ petition with cost”. 5. The 6 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 09.12.2024 producing therewith Ext.R6(a) document. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of that counter affidavit read thus: “6. In this regard, it is submitted that the UGC prescribes for point no 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of Schedule for Clause 6.8.0 under UGC (Minimum Qualifications of Appointment of Teacher & Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010, which is self-explanatory and mandatory in nature and is reproduced herein below: “3.1 Incumbent readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed three years in the current pay scale of Rs.12,000-Rs.18,300 on 1 January, 2006 shall be placed in Pay Band IV of Rs.37,400-Rs.67,000 with AGP of Rs.9,000 and shall be re-designated as Associate Professor. 3.2 Incumbent Readers and Lecturers (Selection Grade) who had not completed three years in the pay scale of Rs.12,000- Rs.18,300 on or after 1 January 2006 shall be placed at the appropriate stage in the Pay Band of Rs.15,600-Rs.39,100 with AGP of Rs.8,000 till they complete three years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader and thereafter shad be placed in the higher pay band IV of Rs.37,400-Rs.67,000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor. 3.4 Assistant Professor completing three years of teaching in the AGP of Rs.8,000 shall be eligible, subject to the qualifying conditions prescribed by these regulations, to move to the Pay Band IV of Rs.37,400-Rs.67,000 with AGP of Rs.9,000 and to he designated as Associate Professor. 3.5 Associate Professor completing three years of service in the AGP of Rs.9,000 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, subject to satisfying the required credit points as per API based on PBAS methodology provided in Appendix IV. 3.5 Associate Professor completing three years of service in the AGP of Rs.9,000 and possessing a Ph.D. Degree in the relevant discipline shall be eligible to be appointed and designated as Professor, subject to satisfying the required credit points as per API based on PBAS methodology provided in Appendix IV. Table I-III stipulated in these regulations and assessment by a duly constituted selection committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Professor. No teacher other than those with a Ph.D shall be promoted or appointed as Professor. The Pay Band IV for the post of Professors shall be Rs.37,400-Rs.67,000 with AGP of Rs.10,000.” A true copy of the relevant extracts of point No.3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of Schedule for Clause 6.8.0 of UGC REGULATIONS on Minimum Qualifications For Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(a). 7. That, UGC REGULATIONS and its amendments issued by the UGC from time to time are framed after detailed deliberations by the Expert Committee and are mandatory and self-explanatory in nature and cannot be overlooked at any stage and all the Universities/Institutions/Colleges have been advised to strictly comply with them.” 6. To the counter affidavit of the 1 st respondent, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dated 16.01.2025. 7. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2025, dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 9 to 13 and the last paragraph of that judgment read thus: “9. The petitioner was appointed in the 1 st respondent university as Lecturer on 14.07.1999. Taking note of his prior service of 10 years and six months under the Mahatma Gandhi University, the petitioner was placed as Senior Grade Lecturer with effect from 22.12.1999. As the petitioner's publications were not in the approved journals, the petitioner was not eligible to be placed in the cadre of Reader. Therefore, the petitioner was placed as Selection Grade Lecturer as per the existing 5 th UGC Scheme. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time, there was no list of journals, which are considered as approved. Therefore, his publications will have to be accepted. Therefore, the petitioner was placed as Selection Grade Lecturer as per the existing 5 th UGC Scheme. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that at the relevant point of time, there was no list of journals, which are considered as approved. Therefore, his publications will have to be accepted. The fact that there was no list of journals will not entitle the petitioner for CAS promotion on the basis of his publications. 11. By Government Order dated 27.03.2010, the Government had declared that there shall be only three designations of Teachers, namely, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. As per Clause 6.1.11 of the said Government Order, those who completed three years in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer has to be designated as Associate Professor. Therefore, the petitioner was redesignated as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. For placement as Professor, a candidate should submit SAR for a period of five years and five research publications prior to the date of eligibility for placement. The publications of the petitioner were not recognised or published in credible journals. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the action of respondents 1 to 3. 12. The petitioner did not submit the SAR to the post of Professor either on 23.12.2007 or on 01.01.2009. Even though the petitioner had completed the required period of service in the post of Associate Professor to become Professor as on 01.01.2009, the petitioner failed to submit the PBS and records of achievements as required by UGC 5 th Regulation. On scrutiny of PBAS submitted by the petitioner in 2012, it was found that the petitioner is not having sufficient API score in the category III (Research and Publication). Therefore, he was not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor. Later, the petitioner submitted PBAS on 11.11.2017. Thereafter, considering the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the Screening Committee, the petitioner was placed in the post of Professor. 13. Thus, non-promotion of the petitioner as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009 was for the reason that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for placement as Professor as per the UGC REGULATIONS . Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.” 8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal. 9. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.” 8. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent University and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the adoption of UGC REGULATIONS , 2010, by the 5 th respondent State of Kerala was upheld by the Full Bench of this Court on 23.02.2016. The Apex Court, vide order dated 17.07.2018 in S.L.P.(C)Nos.18938-42 of 2017, ordered the date of effect of the Full Bench judgment with effect from 23.02.2016. Hence appellant’s placement as Professor was not to be considered as per UGC REGULATIONS , 2010. The learned counsel further pointed out that the appellant is not a party to the SLP and hence the said judgment is not applicable to him. 11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent University as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader, addressed the arguments supporting the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned single Judge has considered the contentions of the appellant on merits and no interference is needed to that judgment. 12. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, which warrants interference by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. 13. The appellant herein was appointed in the 1 st respondent University as a lecturer on 14.07.1999. He was placed as Senior Grade lecturer with effect from 22.12.1999, taking note of his prior service in Mahatma Gandhi University for a period of ten years and six months. He was placed as a Selection Grade Lecturer and not as reader as per the 5 th UGC Scheme, since his publications were not in the approved journals. As per Clause 6.1.11 of the Government Order dated 27.03.2010, those who have completed three years in the post of Selection Grade Lecturer have to be designated as Associate Professor. The appellant was re-designated as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. For placement as a Professor, a candidate should submit SAR for a period of five years and five research publications before the date of eligibility for placement. The appellant was re-designated as Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006. For placement as a Professor, a candidate should submit SAR for a period of five years and five research publications before the date of eligibility for placement. The publications of the appellant were not recognised or published in credible journals. He was not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor since, on scrutiny of the PBAS submitted by him in the year 2012, it was found that the appellant does not have sufficient API score in the category III (Research and Publications). After submission of PBAS on 11.11.2017, considering the recommendations of the selection committee and the screening committee, the appellant was placed in the post of Professor. As contended by the 1 st respondent Ext.P2 decision of the screening committee in the year 2010 and the consequent Ext.P4 communication are not challenged in time by the appellant. He submitted a fresh application in the year 2019. The learned Single Judge considered all these aspects and passed the impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 14. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the learned single Judge. In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed.