(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in recruitment notification advertised on 08.10.2023 in the official website of Kalakshetra Foundation viz., Kalakshetra.in (https.//Kalkbuckmedi21.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/2023/10Advt-Principal - RDFCA-Contract- 071023.pdf) for the post of Principal, Rukmini Devi College of Fine Arts and contract basis, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of principal based on his aggregate years of service and experience with the 2nd respondent Foundation as approved by the Governing Board in its 45th meeting held on 17.03.2015.)

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Notification dated 08.10.2023, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed in the second respondent Foundation on 01.10.1993 as a Tutor. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Lecturer on 01.08.2003, Assistant Professor on 19.04.2014 and, ultimately, to the post of Professor on 29.06.2022. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the post of Professor is the feeder category for the post of Principal. While the petitioner is serving in the institution, the issuance of a notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Principal by way of direct recruitment would affect his fundamental right to be considered for promotion.

                   2.1. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, though the Kalakshetra Foundation Recruitment Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”), prescribe seven years of approved service in the grade of Professor as the requisite qualification for the Principal, Since the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was normally not convened at regular intervals, the total experience in th foundation was prescribed as a qualification. The Governing Body, in its meeting held on 17.03.2015, took a decision to consider the aggregate years of service in the foundation as an eligibility criterion for promotion. Relying upon the said resolution, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience qualification to become a Principal, in view of the Governing Body resolution dated 17.03.2015 and the fact that he has been in service since 1993, he is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal. Hence, he prayed to allow the present Writ Petition.

3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, and would contend that, as per the Regulations, a person to be appointed to the post of Principal must be a Professor of the Rukmini Devi College of Fine Arts with seven years of approved service in the grade of Professor. Though the Governing Body passed a resolution to consider the aggregate years of service as a qualification for promotion, unless the said resolution is approved by the Ministry of Culture, and incorporated into the Regulations, the same would have no binding force. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the petitioner has crossed the prescribed age limit and, therefore, is not eligible to be considered for appointment to the said post. He would also contend that, when the employer has the option to fill up the post either by direct recruitment or by promotion, it is for the employer to decide the appropriate mode of appointment. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

5. On perusal of the impugned Notification dated 08.10.2023, it is seen that applications have been invited for appointment to the post of Principal. The primary contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, since the petitioner is in the feeder category, and is eligible to be considered for promotion, there was no necessity to issue the impugned Notification. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the Regulations. As per the Regulations, the post of Principal can be filled up by promotion, failing which, by transfer on deputation, sho0rt-term contract, or by appointment of officers holding similar posts in reputed and recognised Central or State autonomous institutions, having seven years of experience. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the first mode of appointment prescribed for the post of Principal is promotion.

6. In the case in hand, admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor only on 29.06.2022. As per the Regulations, a person to be considered for appointment to the post of Principal must possess seven years of approved service in the grade of Professor. Having regard to the date of the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Professor, it is evident that, as on the date of issuance of the impugned Notification, he did not possess the requisite experience qualification. Therefore, prima facie, when no eligible person is available for consideration for promotion to the post of Principal, it would be open to the employer to resort to the next prescribed mode of appointment, for an effective administration.

7. In the present case, since no eligible person was available for consideration by way of promotion, the respondents proceeded to issue the impugned Notification. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, as per the Governing Body’s resolution of the year 2015, what is essential is only the aggregate years of service in the foundation. Therefore, contended that having regard to the petitioner’s long aggregate service, he would be a more suitable person for appointment to the post of Principal.

8. This Court does not propose to adjudicate upon the suitability of the petitioner. What is relevant for consideration for the present is whether he possesses the requisite experience qualification. There may be a resolution passed by the Governing Body, however, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, under Rule 6 of the Regulations, the power to relax the provisions of the Regulations vests with the Central Government.

9. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the resolution of the year 2015 would, by itself, not advance his case, unless the said resolution is acted upon and approved by the Central Government by relaxing the relevant provision of the Regulations. As long as the existing Regulations remain in force and prescribe seven years of minimum experience in the post of Professor for consideration for appointment to the post of Principal, no valid ground has been made out to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for the said post.

10. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court finds neither any infirmity in the issuance of the impugned Notification, nor any ground to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner at once for appointment to the post of Principal. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm view that the present Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.