[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

State Of Kerala vs Dr. Achamma Alex on 8 April, 2026

Author: Anil K. Narendran

Bench: Anil K. Narendran

W.A.No.1831 of 2025              1                 2026:KER:30186


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

                                  &

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

    WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1948

                         WA NO. 1831 OF 2025

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.06.2024 IN WP(C) NO.9523 OF

2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

     2      THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
            DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, 6TH FLOOR,
            VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

     3      THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
            KOTTAYAM, MOOLAVATTOM, NATTAKOM POST,
            KERALA, PIN - 686013

            SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 IN WP(C):

     1      DR. ACHAMMA ALEX
            AGED 60 YEARS
            W/O. MATHEW T. THOMAS, THOOMPUMPATTU HOUSE,
            KUTTUPUZHA P.O. THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689103

     2      THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEAD OFFICE,
            BAHADURSHAH SAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002

     3      UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
            PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
 W.A.No.1831 of 2025              2                 2026:KER:30186


     4      THE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE
            CHENGANNOOR, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER,
            CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, ANGADICAL,
            CHENGANNOOR, PIN - 689122

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
            SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE
            SHRI.P.A.REJIMON
            SMT.NIKITA NAIR C.S.
            SHRI.VIVEKJOS PUTHUKULANGARA
            SMT.MAHIMA MERINE REJI

OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. BENNY GERVACIS, SR. FOR R1
            SRI. S. KRISHNAMOORTHY, SC, UGC
            SRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY

      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2026,
THE COURT ON 08.04.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1831 of 2025                3                 2026:KER:30186



                             JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The point that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is

whether there is any illegality in the finding of the learned Single

Judge that Regulation 4.1.V.B.(ii) of the UGC Regulations on

Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other

Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the

Maintenance of Standard in Higher Education, 2018, ('UGC

Regulations 2018' for short) will prevail over the conflicting

provisions in Exts.P4 and P6 Government Orders dated

29.06.2019 and 29.09.2019, bearing G.O.(P) No.18/2019/HEdn

and G.O.(P) No.28/2019/HEdn, respectively?

2. This writ appeal has been filed by respondents 1 to 3

in W.P.(C)No.9523 of 2024, under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High

Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 21.06.2024

passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. For

convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this

judgment in their status as they are in the writ petition.

3. Going by the pleadings in the writ petition, the

petitioner entered service as Junior Lecturer in English at

Marthoma College for Women, Perumbavoor, on 16.01.1987 and W.A.No.1831 of 2025 4 2026:KER:30186

continued therein till 29.08.1987. She was further appointed as

Junior Lecturer in the 6th respondent College ('the College' for

short) with effect from 01.01.1988. She was promoted to the post

of Lecturer with effect from 01.06.1989. The petitioner was

granted further promotion as Lecturer (Senior Grade) on

15.02.1995 and as Lecturer (Selection Grade) on 01.06.1999.

She became an Associate Professor with aggregate grade pay

(AGP) of Rs.9,000/- with effect from 01.07.2009. She was

appointed as a Principal of the 6th respondent College initially for

a period of two years with effect from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2016,

and the said appointment was approved by the 5th respondent

University as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.01.2015. On expiry of the

tenure of two years, the appointment was extended for a further

period of three years from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2019, which was

approved by Ext.P2 order dated 15.05.2019 issued by the 5th

respondent University.

3.1. While the petitioner was continuing as Principal at the

6th respondent College, the UGC Regulations 2018 were published

as per the Gazette Notification dated 18.07.2018, in supersession

to the UGC Regulations 2010. As per Regulation 4.V.B.(i) of the

Regulations 2018, a College Principal shall be appointed for a W.A.No.1831 of 2025 5 2026:KER:30186

period of five years, extendable for another term of five years on

the basis of performance assessment by a committee appointed

by the University constituted as per the Regulations. Regulation

4.V.B.(ii) of the UGC Regulations 2018 stipulates that on

completion of the term as Principal, the incumbent shall join back

his/her parent organisation with the designation as Professor and

in the grade of Professor.

3.2. According to the petitioner, on completion of her tenure

as Principal for five years from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019, she

rejoined the English Department in the 6th respondent College as

Professor and in the grade of Professor. The Scheme of pay and

fitness table of fixation of pay was laid down by the UGC in

Appendix I to the Regulations 2018. The posts of Professor and

Principal were to be in the AGP of Rs.10,000/- and were to be at

the academic level 14. The rationalisation entry pay was fixed at

Rs.1,44,200/- with a special allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month.

The petitioner states that on completion of tenure as per

Regulation 4.V, the petitioner was to join the department with the

designation as Professor and in the grade of Professor. In other

words, she contends that she would continue to receive the pay

of the post of Principal, less the Rs.3,000/- special allowance.

W.A.No.1831 of 2025 6 2026:KER:30186

Orders were accordingly issued, and by Ext.P3 communication

dated 02.11.2017, it was directed to be implemented with effect

from 01.01.2016. Thereafter, an error in notifying the revised pay

scales as per Ext.P3 was rectified by Ext.P5 corrigendum dated

08.11.2017.

3.3. Thereafter, the State Government issued Ext.P4 order

dated 29.06.2019, adopting the revision of pay scales as per the

7th Central Pay Commission Scheme adopted by the Ministry of

Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education,

Government of India.

3.4. The petitioner further states that the 7th UGC

Regulations, 2018, were approved and adopted by the 1 st

respondent State as per Ext.P6 Government Order dated

29.09.2019 with effect from 18.07.2018. On rejoining the College,

the pay of the petitioner was sought to be fixed by the 6 th

respondent, and the pay fixation statement was duly forwarded to

the 3rd respondent, Deputy Director, Collegiate Education. The

proposal was returned by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P7

communication dated 14.02.2020 addressed to the Principal of the

6th respondent College with objections and directing

retransmission after clearing the objections. In Ext.P7, it was W.A.No.1831 of 2025 7 2026:KER:30186

stated that the fixation of the petitioner's pay in the basic pay of

the Principal was against the Rules and on reversion from the post

of Principal on 01.04.2019, the petitioner was only eligible for the

pay in the post of Associate Professor.

3.5. On receipt of Ext.P7 communication from the 3rd

respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext.P8 appeal dated

18.05.2020 before the 2nd respondent through proper channel.

The petitioner, meanwhile, retired from service on 31.03.2020.

Her pension papers were duly filled up to the 3 rd respondent

through the 6th respondent College. The petitioner also submitted

before the 3rd respondent that the acceptance of pension in the

Associate Professor grade and reckoning the last ten months'

salary in the above post was conditional and subject to the orders

to be issued in the appeal to be preferred before the 2 nd

respondent. The pensionary benefits of the petitioner were

accordingly sanctioned and disbursed by the 3rd respondent, fixing

the pay in the post of Associate Professor and reckoning the

pension based on the last ten months' pay in the above post. On

receipt of Ext.P8 appeal, the 2nd respondent forwarded the same

to the 1st respondent Government for clarification. Though the

Government, on receipt of the said communication, opened a file, W.A.No.1831 of 2025 8 2026:KER:30186

no further communication or orders were issued by the 1 st

respondent. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court with

the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking the following reliefs:

"i) A declaration that the 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, 2018 will prevail over the conflicting provisions in the Government Order G.O. (P) No. 18/2019/ HEdn dated 29.06.2019 on the adoption/implementation of the UGC 7th Regulations by the 1st respondent as per G.O. (P) No. 28/19/HEdn dated 29.09.2019.

ii) a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, direction, or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to grant the petitioner designation as Professor with effect from 01.04.2019 on completion of the tenure as Principal in the 6th respondent College.

iii) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to refix the pay of the petitioner in the grade of Professor in academic level 14 with aggregate grade pay of Rs.10,000/- and in the pay band of Rs.37400-67000 with effect from 01.04.2019.

iv) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on retirement from service of the 6th respondent College on 31.03.2020 as per the re-fixed pay in the grade of Professor."

W.A.No.1831 of 2025 9 2026:KER:30186

4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit dated

09.04.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought therein.

The 3rd respondent contended that the 1st respondent, vide Ext.P4

order dated 29.06.2019, decided to accept the revised UGC

Scheme for revision of pay scales. Clause 6.1.6.2 of Ext.P4 states

that Principals would continue to have a lien in their main

academic post where they would continue to get notional

promotions while they are functioning as Principals. After

completion of their tenure as Principals, they would go back to

their academic post and draw a salary due in such respective

academic posts and would not continue to have the Principals' pay.

The petitioner got appointment as Principal from the post of

Associate Professor. Hence, when the petitioner's tenure as

Principal is completed, she would get only the pay of an Associate

Professor and not that of a Professor. If the petitioner is eligible

for promotion to the post of Professor as per the UGC Regulations,

2018, the Kerala University is the competent authority to approve

the petitioner's promotion.

5. On behalf of the 4th respondent, a counter affidavit

dated 24.04.2024 was filed in the writ petition supporting the

stand of the petitioner. According to the 4th respondent, as per W.A.No.1831 of 2025 10 2026:KER:30186

Regulation 4.1.V.B.(ii) of the UGC Regulations 2018, the petitioner

has to be designated as Professor after her term as Principal is

completed. According to the 4th respondent, the UGC Regulations

and their amendments issued by the UGC from time to time are

framed after detailed deliberations by the expert committee and

are mandatory in nature.

6. To the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, the

petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 14.05.2024.

7. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated

22.05.2024, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) and R5(b)

documents. In the counter affidavit, the 5th respondent stated that

the Government has not so far given any clarification or

concurrence for considering the CAS promotion as Professor in

respect of Teachers retired between 18.07.2018 and 21.02.2021

if they were otherwise eligible for the same as per UGC

Regulations, 2018. The University, on request from several of the

aided Colleges who retired before 20.02.2021, has sought

clarification from the Government by Ext.R5(b) letter dated

07.06.2022.

8. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of

materials on record, the learned Single Judge found merits in the W.A.No.1831 of 2025 11 2026:KER:30186

claim of the petitioner and accordingly disposed of the writ petition

declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the designation of

Professor with the grade of Professor, with effect from

01.04.2019, with all the monetary benefits arising therefrom. The

3rd respondent is therefore directed to fix the pay of the petitioner

as applicable to the Professor, disburse the arrears of salary and

refix the pensionary benefits and other allowances on the basis of

the same. The orders in this regard were directed to be passed

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of the judgment, and the benefits on account of the same were

ordered to be disbursed within a further period of two months

thereafter. Being aggrieved, the State and its Officials are now

before this court with this writ appeal.

9. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, the

learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, the

learned Standing Counsel for the University of Kerala, learned

counsel for the College and the learned Standing Counsel for the

UGC.

10. According to the appellants-respondents 1 to 3, by

virtue of stipulations contained in Exts.P4 and P6 Government

Orders dated 29.06.2019 and 29.09.2019 respectively, on W.A.No.1831 of 2025 12 2026:KER:30186

completion of tenure of the Principal, the petitioner has to return

to the original post, i.e., the post of Associate Professor, and she

is entitled to pay in the said post only. It is the contention of the

appellants that the reversion or de-promotion is a service

condition. As per Rules 28, 33 and 37 of Part I of the Kerala

Service Rules, which deal with the said situations, the pay of the

Government servants will be fixed in such a way that whenever a

person is reverted back, his/her pay will be fixed in the scale of

pay of the post from where he/she was selected to the higher post.

It is in tune with the aforesaid service conditions that the

Government issued Ext.P4 order dated 29.06.2019. As per Note 2

under Clause 6.1.6 of Ext.P4, in the event of a reversion from the

post of Principal, the incumbent has to return to the former post

from where he/she was selected to the post of Principal. The State

Government is empowered to frame its own service conditions

that are applicable to all Teachers, including Aided College

Teachers. Without considering these aspects in a proper manner,

the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment.

11. The stand of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner is that

the UGC Regulations will prevail over the State Legislation and the

Regulations framed thereunder. Since Clause 4.1.V.B.(ii) of the W.A.No.1831 of 2025 13 2026:KER:30186

UGC Regulation 2018 stipulates that after the completion of

his/her terms as Principal, the incumbent shall join back his/her

parent organization with the designation as Professor and in the

grade of Professor, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the

designation as Professor with effect from 01.04.2019 and the

fixation of pay accordingly.

12. There is no dispute pertaining to the eligibility of the

petitioner to the post of Principal and also of the fact that she

continued for a period of five years in that post in terms of the

UGC Regulations. After the completion of her term as Principal,

she rejoined the parent College. Meanwhile, the UGC Regulations,

2018, came into effect. After the rejoining of the petitioner in the

parent College, Exts.P4 and P6, Government Orders were issued.

In Note 2 of Clause 6.1.6 of Ext.P4 it is stated that Principals would

continue to have a lien in their main academic post, where they

would continue to get notational promotions while they are

functioning as Principals. After completion of their tenure as

Principals, they would go back to their academic post and draw a

salary due in such respective academic post and would not

continue to have the Principals' pay.

13. Clause 5 of Ext.P6 Government Order dated W.A.No.1831 of 2025 14 2026:KER:30186

29.09.2019 says that the Government is pleased to order that

where there are any provisions in the Regulations inconsistent

with the provisions in the Government Order read as first paper in

Ext.P6 order, ie, Ext.P4, those provisions in the Government Order

would override the provisions in the Regulations to the extent of

such inconsistency. Clause 6 of Ext.P6 reads that notwithstanding

anything contained in the Regulations, only those benefits, both

monetary and others specified in the Government Order read as

the first paper in that order, ie, Ext.P4 would be receivable. It is

based on these Clauses in Exts.P4 and P6, the appellants contend

that the petitioner is not entitled to the post of Professor and the

pay accordingly after repatriation to the original post.

14. The learned Single Judge considered the issue in the

light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Gambhirdan K

Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat [(2022) 5 SCC 179],

Premachandran Keezhoth (Dr.) v. Chancellor Kannur

University [2023 KHC 1010] and the judgment of Full Bench of

this Court in Radhakrishnan Pillai D (Dr.) v. Travancore

Devaswom Board [2016 (2) KLT 245] and reached to a

conclusion that the UGC Act and Regulations framed thereunder,

would prevail over the State Legislation and the Regulations W.A.No.1831 of 2025 15 2026:KER:30186

framed under such legislation. Therefore, the learned Single Judge

found that the Government cannot take a stand that the statutory

stipulations contained in the UGC Regulations, 2018, are not

applicable to the petitioner and such a stand would go against the

constitutional Scheme and the law declared by the Apex Court and

this Court in the decisions referred to above.

15. Apart from the judgment relied on by the learned

Single Judge, during the course of arguments, the learned Senior

Counsel relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court

in Aleyamma Kuruvila v. Mahatma Gandhi University [2023

(2) KHC 11], wherein a Division Bench of this Court while

considering the question whether the Principal of an affiliated

private College in the State could be appointed otherwise than in

accordance with the Regulations issued by the University Grants

Commission for maintenance of the standards in institution for

higher education held thus:

"11. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956, (the UGC Act), as evident from its preamble, is a Statute enacted to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in universities. It is a Statute that falls under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 66 reads thus:

"66. Co-ordination and determination of standards W.A.No.1831 of 2025 16 2026:KER:30186

institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions".

The Act, on the other hand, as evident from its preamble, is one enacted to establish a new teaching and affiliating University in the State to provide for the urgent development of higher education in the areas comprised in the Kottayam, Ernakulam and Idukki revenue districts, the Kuttanad taluk of the Alleppey revenue district and the Kozhencherry, Mallappally, Thiruvalla and Ranni taluks of the Pathanamthitta revenue district of the State. It is a Statute that falls under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 25 reads thus;

"25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."

In light of the expression "subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I" in Entry 25, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that the power of the State Government to legislate in the field of education under that Entry is subject to the power of the Union Government to legislate on co - ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education under Entry 66 of List I. This aspect has been clarified by the Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute, 1995 (4) SCC 104. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment reads thus:

"12. The subject "coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions" has always remained the special preserve of Parliament. This was so W.A.No.1831 of 2025 17 2026:KER:30186

even before the Forty - second Amendment, since Entry 11 of List II even then was subject, among others, to Entry 66 of List I. After the said Amendment, the constitutional position on that score has not undergone any change. All that has happened is that Entry 11 was taken out from List II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of List III. However, even the new Entry 25 of List III is also subject to the provisions, among others, of Entry 66 of List I. It cannot, therefore, be doubted nor is it contended before us, that the legislation with regard to coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions has always been the preserve of Parliament. What was contended before us on behalf of the State was that Entry 66 enables Parliament to lay down the minimum standards but does not deprive the State legislature from laying down standards above the said minimum standards. We will deal with this argument at its proper place." (Underline Supplied) There cannot be any doubt to the fact that prescriptions as regards minimum qualifications and method of appointment of teachers and Principals of institutions of higher education, are prescriptions that could be made only in a legislation under Entry 66 of List I. The argument that the method of appointment to teaching posts in institutions of higher education has nothing to do with the determination of standards of such institutions cannot be accepted, for otherwise, the UGC Regulations would not have prescribed the method of appointment to various teaching posts, including the post of Principal. The pointed question is whether, in a situation of this nature, S.59(2) of the Act W.A.No.1831 of 2025 18 2026:KER:30186

which enables appointment to the post of Principal of affiliated colleges by promotion could be said to be valid and enforcible.

12. It is settled that if a law is made by a State Legislature in respect of matters in its allotted sphere under any of the Entries in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule, the same cannot overlap or conflict with the laws made by the Parliament, and if the same overlaps or conflicts with the laws made by the Parliament, the laws made by the Parliament will prevail over the State laws. This is the principle of federal supremacy which Art.246 of the Constitution embodies. However, the principle of federal supremacy can be resorted to only when there exists an irreconcilable conflict so that the coexistence of the two laws is not feasible (See Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority, 2011 (3) SCC 139). It is now trite that inconsistencies in the competing Statutes should be of such nature so as to bring the two enactments into direct collision with each other and a situation should be reached where it is impossible to obey one without disobeying the other. Insofar as the UGC Regulations prescribe direct recruitment as the only method of appointment to the post of Principal of affiliated colleges, if a candidate is appointed as Principal by promotion, the said appointment can be construed to be only as one made disobeying the UGC Regulations."

16. Though the learned Senior Government Pleader placed

reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad

Sharma v. State of Bihar [(2013) 8 SCC 633] and that of a W.A.No.1831 of 2025 19 2026:KER:30186

Division Bench of this Court in Council of Principals of Colleges

in Kerala v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 113], in support

of the argument that the State is entitled to enacts its own laws

with regard to the service conditions of the Teachers and other

staff of the Universities and Colleges within the State and the

same will have effect unless they are repugnant to any central

legislation, those judgments are not applicable to the facts of the

instant case since they pertains to age of superannuation, which

is a different service condition.