/2022 INSC 0122/
                                               NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).   1072     OF 2022
     (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 6392 of 2021)
DR. JAGATHY RAJ V.P. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DR. RAJITHA KUMAR S. & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred assailing  the judgment
dated 8 th
 April 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
of   Kerala   at   Ernakulam   setting   aside   the   judgment   of   the   learned
Single   Judge   dated   1 st
  March,   2021   and   directing   the   Cochin
University of Science and Technology to nominate respondent no. 1
as   Head   of   the   Department   (in   short   “HOD”)/Director   of   School   of
Management Studies of Cochin University.
1

3. The relevant facts in brief culled out  from  the record are that
both   the   appellant   and   respondent   no.   1   are   members   of   the
teaching faculty and the appellant is senior to respondent no. 1 as
the   appellant   became   Professor   in   April  2009,  whereas   respondent
no.   1   on   1 st
  October,   2013.     Even   otherwise,   the   seniority   of   the
appellant qua respondent no. 1 is not in dispute.
4. In terms of Section 39(1) of the University Act, the Government
of   Kerala   framed   its   Statute.     That   Statute   18   envisages   the
appointment   of   a   Director/HOD.     For   appointment   of   the
Director/HOD,   the   Syndicate   shall   nominate   a   teacher   not   below
the rank of an Associate Professor with Ph.D or an equivalent post,
as prescribed by UGC Regulations or Regulations based on seniority
on   a   rotational   basis   for   a   period   of   three   years.     One   Dr.   Moli   P.
Koshy,   the   senior   Professor   in   the   School   of   Management   was
nominated   by   order   dated   15 th
  July,   2015   as   HOD/Director   of   the
School   of   Management   Studies.     He   was   relieved   from   the   post   of
Director on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 6 th
December,   2017.     The   appellant,   who   was   the   next   senior   most
Professor   in   queue,   was   eligible   to   be   nominated   by   rotation   as
2

HOD.     However,   vide   communication   dated   18 th
  July   2017,   the
appellant   expressed   his   unwillingness   because   of   his   pre­
occupation in teaching and research.  Taking into consideration the
unwillingness expressed by the appellant at the given point of time,
the   next   eligible   Professor         Dr.   Mavoothu   D.   was   nominated   as
Director/HOD   by   an   Order   dated   23 rd
  November  2017   for   a   period
of three years with effect from    7 th
 December, 2017.
5. Before the term of Dr.   Mavoothu D. of three years was going
to   expire,   the   appellant   showed   his   willingness   at   that   stage   to
consider him for appointment as Director/HOD and communicated
the   same   to   the   Registrar   of   the   University   vide   letter   dated   26 th
June,   2020.     At  the   same  time,   respondent   no.   1  who   was  next   to
the   appellant   in   seniority   equally   protested   the   claim   of   the
appellant by a letter dated 3 rd
 November, 2020.  
6. The   Syndicate   of   the   University   in   its   meeting   held   on   20 th
November,   2020,   after   taking   note   of   Statute   18   (Agenda   Item   No.
681.18)   observed   that   the   relinquishment   made   by   the   appellant
was specific to  the nomination  after  the term  of  Dr. Moly  P. Koshy
and   that   was   the   reason   Dr.   Mavoothu   D.   was   nominated   for   the
3

post   of   HOD/Director.     Taking   note   of   Statute   18,   the   rotation
begins   according   to   seniority   and   not   at   the   point   at   which   earlier
nomination   was   made.     Hence,   it   is   the   appellant   who   has   to   be
considered   first   and   also   noticed   the   number   of   precedents   in   the
University   where   seniority   was   given   preference   and   senior
professors   were   nominated   as   HOD   after   they   relinquished   their
actual   chance.     The   reason   behind   is   that   the   University   gives
paramount importance to academic and research work and doesn’t
want   to   disrupt   the   academic   and   research   work   of   a   senior
Professor   when  his  turn  arises  but intend to  nominate  the teacher
after   those   activities   are   over,   and   accordingly   recommended   the
name of the appellant to be appointed as HOD.
7. Pursuant   to   the   recommendations   made   by   the   Syndicate   in
its   meeting   held   on   20 th
  November,   2020,   the   appellant   was
nominated  as   HOD  for   a   period   of  three  years   by  Order   dated   27 th
November, 2020 and that became the subject matter of challenge by
filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before
the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   at   the   instance   of
respondent no. 1.
4

8. It  reveals  from  the  record  that  by  an   interim  order  dated  18 th
December,   2020   of   the   High   Court,   the   University   was   directed   to
revisit their rival claims that were placed before the Syndicate in its
meeting held on 21 st
  December, 2020 (Agenda item no.682.20) and
the earlier recommendation was strongly reiterated. 
9. The   learned   Single   Judge   thereafter   taking   note   of   the
submissions and Statute 18 in particular, repelled the contentions
advanced   by   respondent   no.1   under   order   dated   1 st
  March,   2021
and observed that the senior most person has to be considered for
appointment   as   HOD/Director   of   the   Department   on   rotational
basis   for   a   period   of   three   years   and   the   appellant   who   was
admittedly   senior   has   relinquished   his   claim   on   rotation   of   three
years   in   the   year   2017   and   his   unwillingness   was   for   the   period
when the name of the appellant came for consideration in 2017 and
in his   place Dr. Mavoothu D. was appointed. But the time when a
fresh   consideration   has   taken   place,   the   appellant   could   not   be
denied his right of fair  consideration as the relinquishment cannot
be   for   an   infinite   period   and   further   observed   that   no   error   was
5

committed   by   the   Syndicate   in   nominating   the   appellant   for   the
post of Director/HOD.
10. The   judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   1 st
  March
2021   was   challenged   in   writ   appeal   at   the   instance   of   respondent
no. 1 and the Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned
judgment   overturned   the   finding   returned   by   the   learned   Single
Judge   on   the   premise   that   Statute   18   conspicuously   takes   note   of
seniority  on  a rotational basis for  a period  of  three years and once
the   relinquishment   was   made   by   the   appellant   in   terms   of   the
Statute 18, the appellant has foregone his right of consideration for
all times to come and respondent no. 1, who was the next in queue,
was to be considered for nomination as the HOD/Director of School
of   Management   Studies   of   Cochin   University,   taking   note   of   the
admitted seniority and rotational turn, which is a subject matter of
challenge in appeal before us.
11. Mr.   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellant,
submits that the nominations were made in terms of Statute 18 by
the Syndicate according to seniority on rotational basis for a period
of   three   years   and   seniority   has   always   to   be   given   its   due
6

precedence   and   the   teacher   who   is   qualified   and   senior   in   the
teaching   faculty  is  to  be  considered  for   nomination  as  HOD,  but  if
for   any   personal   reasons,   or   for   academic   teaching   and   research
work which is undertaken by him/her for relinquishment, foregoes
claim at the given point of time, that cannot be considered to be the
relinquishment   of   right   in   perpetuity,   the   way   it   has   been
interpreted by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment.
12. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   there   are   precedents
where the University has considered the claim based on seniority of
such   of   the   teachers   who   had   once   relinquished   their   claim   but
because of their seniority, due weightage was attached to them and
they were considered for nomination as HOD in the second rotation.
To be more specific, two incidents have been referred to of Dr. M.K.
Jayaraj   and   Mrs.   Mariamma   Chacko,   who   had   first   expressed
unwillingness   to   take   over   as   HOD   but   later   on,   both   were
nominated   as   HOD   in   the   second   rotational   term.     In   the   given
circumstances,   no   error   has   been   committed   by   the   Syndicate   in
nominating   the   appellant   as   HOD   by   Order   dated   27 th
  November.
2020.
7

13. Learned counsel further submits that under Statute 18, there
is   no   express   bar   that   teacher   who   has   once   shown   his
unwillingness   for  being   considered   for   appointment/nomination   as
HOD,   would   be   eliminated   in   perpetuity   and,   in   the   given
circumstances, constructive interpretation which has been made by
the   Syndicate   of   Statute   18   in   giving   due   weightage   to   seniority
keeping   in   view   paramount   importance   to   academic   and   research
work and not to disrupt the academic and research work of a senior
Professor when his/her turn arises and if the unwillingness is once
shown at the given point of time, that will not take away the right of
fair consideration in the next rotation and still if two interpretations
of Statute 18 are possible and University has interpreted Statute 18
in a way which sub­serve the purpose and has been followed in the
past, of which a reference has been made, there appears no reason
to deviate from the practice followed by the University for a number
of   years   and   placed   reliance   on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   N.
Suresh   Nathan   and   Another   Vs.   Union   of   India   and   Others
1992 Supp.(1) SCC 584.
8

14. Per   contra,   Ms.   Bina   Madhavan,   learned   counsel   for
respondent   no.   1,   submits   that   once   the   right   has   been
relinquished   by   the   appellant   in   the   year   2017   and   teacher   in
queue,   Dr.   Mavoothu   D.   was   nominated   as   Director/HOD   on
rotational basis for a period of three years, the appellant loses right
of   consideration   for   becoming   HOD   for   all   times   to   come   and   the
next in queue is to be considered to avail the opportunity to become
HOD   and   this   is   what   the   Division   Bench   has   observed   under   the
impugned   judgment   and   is   being   envisaged   by   Statute   18   and
needs no further indulgence of this Court.
15. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   if   the   appellant   would
have  joined in the year  2017 when he was indisputedly  eligible for
becoming   the   HOD,   the   next   incumbent   to   whom   the   charge   was
handed over for becoming the HOD Dr. Mavoothu D., by this time,
would   have   retired   and   respondent   no.   1   would   have   been
considered   eligible   for   nomination   as   HOD   in   the   year   2020.     But
because   the   appellant   relinquished   his   claim   at   the   given   point   of
time in 2017, it is respondent no. 1 whose right of fair consideration
has   been   jeopardized   and   since   the   retirement   of   the   present
9

appellant and respondent no. 1 are at the same point of time, she is
deprived   from   being   considered   for   appointment   as   HOD   for   all
times to come and because of the unwillingness of the appellant at
one stage, no one has suffered a loss except respondent no. 1.
16. Learned   counsel   for   the   University   has   supported   the
submissions   made   by   the   appellant   and   submits   that   Statute   18
has   been   considered   in   the   right   perspective   keeping   in   view   the
paramount importance to academic and research and the teachers
who are undergoing the academic and research work, the intention
is   not   to   disrupt   the   same.     At   the   same   time,   right   of   fair
consideration   based   on   seniority   in   the   next   rotation   whenever
comes   during   his/her   term   cannot   be   ignored   and   that   being   the
object   of   Statute   18   has   been   considered   by   the   University   and
precedents referred by the appellant have been consistently followed
and no deviation has ever been made.  Statute 18 mandates for the
appointment to the post of Director as per seniority and the senior
most Professor has to be appointed for  a period of three years and
claim   of   the   appellant   was   considered   after   taking   note   of   his
seniority   and   all   other   factors   into   consideration   while   nominating
10

him   as   Director/HOD   and   further   submits   that   the   interference
made  by   the   Division  Bench   in   setting   aside  the   recommendations
made by the University is not sustainable in law and deserves to be
interfered with by this Court.
17. We  have  heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and  with   their
assistance perused the material available on record.
18. So far as the seniority of the appellant qua respondent no. 1 is
concerned, it is not in dispute. In the year 2017, the appellant was
a senior most Professor but because of undergoing research work at
that   time,   he   had   shown   his   unwillingness   to   become   the
Director/HOD, by communication dated 18 th
  July 2017 and taking
note of his unwillingness, the Professor in queue, Dr.  Mavoothu D.
was   nominated   as   Director/HOD   with   effect   from   7 th
  December,
2017 for a period of three years.   Before the term  of Dr. Mavoothu
D. was  going  to  complete, the  appellant has  shown  his willingness
at   that   time   for   being   considered   for   appointment   as   a   Director   of
School   of   Management   Studies   by   his   communication   dated   26 th
June, 2020.
11

19.  Statute 18 which is relevant for the purpose is reproduced as
under:­
" 18.   Head   of   the   Department ­   The   Syndicate   shall   nominate   a
teacher not below the rank of an Associate Professor with Ph.D or
an   equivalent   post   as   prescribed   by   the   UGC   regulations   or
regulations   of   any   Apex   Authority   specified   for   the   purpose   as
Head of the Department according to seniority on a rotational basis
for   a   period   of   3   years.   It   shall,   however,   be   open   to   the   teacher
who has been nominated as the Head of the Department to make a
request   that   he/   she   shall   be   relieved   of   such   a   responsibility   for
academic   reason.   In   such   a   case   the   next   eligible   teacher   will   be
nominated as the Head of the Department. All the members of the
teaching   staff   shall   work   under   the   directions   of   the   Head   of   the
Department.   In   the   case   of   Departments   which   have   no   Professor
or   Associate   Professor   or   equivalent   post   prescribed   by   the   UGC
Regulations   or   regulations   issued   by   any   other   competent
authority,   the   Syndicate   shall   nominate   an   Assistant   Professor   or
equivalent   post   prescribed   by   the   UGC   Regulations   or   by   the
regulations   issued   by   any   other   competent   authority   specified   for
the purpose according to seniority on a rotational basis as Head of
the Department in charge till another Professor assumes charge or
an   Associate   Professor   is   promoted   under   Career   Advancement
Scheme   of   UGC/AICTE   and   the   other   teachers   shall   work   under
the directions of the Head of the Department.”
20.   The Syndicate of the University in its review meeting held on
21 st
  December,   2020   pursuant   to   interim   order   of   the   High   Court
dated   12 th
  December,   2020   in   Agenda   Item   682.20   took   the
following decision:­
“It   is   true   that   Dr.Jagathy   Raj   V.P.   was   next   in   line   to   be
considered for the post of Director, School of Management Studies
after   the   tenure   of   Prof(Dr.)   Moly   P.   Koshy.   However,   Dr.Jagathy
Raj,  before  the  actual nomination  was made  as per  letter   dtd.  18.
7.2017 informed the University as follows: 
12

"It   is  learnt   that   I  am  next   in line  to be  nominated as
the   Director,   School   of   Management   Studies   after   the
tenure   of   present   Director,   Prof   (Dr.)   Moly   P.   Koshy.
Since I am interested in Teaching and Research only, I
request you not to consider me for the Directorship of
School of Management Studies". 
Thus   the   relinquishment   made   by   Dr.Jagathy   Raj   V.P.   was
specific   to   the   nomination   after   the   term   of   Dr.   Moly   P.   Koshy.
Hence   Dr.Mavoothu   D   was   nominated   for   the   post   of   Director.
Before   the  term  of  Dr.Mavoothu   expired   both   Dr.Rajitha   Kumar   S
as   well   as   Dr.Jagathy   Raj   V.P.   expressed   willingness   to   be
nominated to the post of Director, SMS. While Dr.Jagathy Raj V.P.
was senior   to  Dr.Mavoothu,  Dr.Rajitha  Kumar   is  junior   to  both  of
them.   Going   by   the   provisions   of   Statute   18,   the   rotation   begins
according   to   seniority   and   not   at   the   point   at   which   earlier
nomination   was   made.   Hence   it   is   Dr.Jagathy   Raj   who   has   to   be
considered   first.   Thus   the   claim   of   Dr.Rajitha   Kumar   that   all
eligible   candidates   below   the   present   incumbent   has   to   be
exhausted   before   considering   the   senior   doesn't   merit   any
consideration.   There   have   been   a   number   of   precedents   in   the
University   where   seniority   was   given   preference   and   senior
professors   were   nominated   as   the   Head   of   the   Department   after
they   relinquished   their   actual   chance.   This   is   because   the
University   gives   paramount   importance   to   academic   and   research
work and doesn't want to disrupt the academic and research work
of   a   senior   Professor   when   his   tum   arises   but   want   to   nominate
him after those activities are over, that such a provision has been
introduced. 
Moreover, any nomination to be made is the discretion of the
nominating   authority   and   therefore   there   is   nothing   wrong   in
nominating   any   senior   as   the   Head   of   the   Department.   Also   the
rights  of   Dr.Rajitha   Kumar   are  not   affected  as  he   can  function  as
the Head of the Department after the tenure of Dr.Jagathy Raj. 
Nothwithstanding   the   letter   dtd.   18.7.2017   of   Dr.Jagathy
Raj, the Syndicate can nominate him though it may not be perhaps
open to Dr.Jagathy Raj to enforce a claim for nomination as Head
of the Department against the University. 
Considering  all the  aspects  and  reconsidering  the  matter  as
directed   by   the   Honourable   High   Court,   the   Syndicate
unanimously   resolved   to   nominate   Dr.Jagathy   Raj   as   Director,
School of Management Studies.”  
13

21.  It is not in dispute that earlier on two different occasions, the
Professors who had shown their unwillingness at one point of time
were considered by the University when the second rotational term
became   due   because   of   his/her   seniority   and   eligibility   to   be
nominated   for   the   post   of   Director/HOD   and   this   fact   has   been
admitted   by   the   University   in   its   counter   affidavit   filed   before   the
High Court, the extract of which is reproduced hereunder:­
6.   The   appellant   herein   in   the   writ   petition   has   claimed   that   the
present appointment of Dr. Jagathy Raj is against all the rules and
practices in the University, as nobody can reclaim a position which
he   himself   has   declined   earlier   is   wrong   and   contrary   to   the
present practice and precedents in the University. There are many
precedents in the university which points out that the persons who
had   declined   the   post   of   Directorship   for   a   particular   tenure   were
later   nominated   to   the   post   when   the   next   tenure   arose.   One   Mr.
Dr.   M.K   Jayaraj   had   expressed   his   inability   to   take   over   as   the
head of the Department of Physics in the year 2016, consequently
Dr. M. Junaid Bushiri was nominated in his place and later when
the  tenure  of  Dr.  Junaid  Bushiri was expiring   on 31.10.2019,  Dr.
MK Jayaraj had expressed his willingness to be nominated as Head
of   the   Physics   Department   02.11.2019.   True   copies   of   the   order
nominating   Dr.   Junaid   Bushiri   and   Dr.   MK   Jayaraj   dated
01.11.2016   and   31.10.2019   respectively.   True   copies   of   the   order
dated   01.11.2016   and   31.10.2019   are   produced   herewith   and
marked as  Annexure R3(c )    .  
7. One Mrs. Mariamma Chacko had expressed her unwillingness to
take over as the head of the Department of Ship Technology in the
year   2016,   consequently   Dr.   C.G   Nandakumar   was   nominated   in
his  place  and  later  when  the  tenure  of  Dr.C.G  Nandakumar   came
to an end by the virtue of voluntary retirement on 30.04.2017, Dr.
Mariamma  Chacko,  next   senior  most  eligible  teacher   for   headship
expressed her willingness to take up the headship and thereby she
was   nominated   for   a   period   of   three   years   vide   order   dated
31.03.2017.   True   copies   of   the   order   nominating   Dr.   C.G
14

Nandakumar   and   Dr.   Mariamma   Chacko   dated   10.02.2016   and
31.03.2017   respectively   are   produced   herewith   and   marked   as
Annexure R3(d) .  
22. Statute   18   of   the   University   authorizes   the   Syndicate   to
nominate the  teacher  not below the rank of an  Associate  Professor
with   Ph.D   or   an   equivalent   post   as   prescribed   by   the   UGC
regulations   for   the   purpose,   as   HOD   according   to   seniority   on   a
rotational   basis   for   a   period   of   three   years.     However,   it   would   be
open   for   the   teacher   who   has   been   nominated   as   HOD   to   make   a
request   that   he/she   shall   be   relieved   of   such   a   responsibility   for
academic reasons.  What is being envisaged from Statute 18 is that
teachers who are eligible according to seniority are being considered
for   HOD   on  a  rotational   basis   for   a   period   of  three   years,   if  shows
unwillingness   or   makes   a   request   to   be   relieved   from   such   a
responsibility for academic reason, can certainly be relieved for that
rotation but there is no prohibition which deprives the teacher from
being   considered   for   appointment   as   HOD   when   the   second
rotational term becomes due.  That being the reason, the University
in   two   earlier   precedents   considered   such   teachers   again   who,   at
the   first   instance,   had   shown   their   unwillingness   to   join   and   later
15

became   HOD,   keeping   in   view   the   paramount   consideration   not   to
disrupt the academic and research work of a senior Professor when
his turn arises and if he has shown unwillingness, his seniority has
to be given its pre­dominance and opportunity is available to him to
serve   when   the   next   rotation   becomes   due   and   that   is   the   reason
the   appellant   was   also   considered   and   recommended   by   the
Syndicate to be nominated as HOD/Director School of Management
Studies keeping in view the mandate of the Statute.
23. Although  there is no prohibition  under  Statute 18, still  if  two
views   are   possible   and   the   University   has   interpreted   in   the   way
which   serves   the   purpose   keeping   in   view   the   paramount
consideration to the academic and research work and the seniority
of the teachers while considering for appointment as HOD/Director,
School   of   Management   Studies   which   was   judicially   examined   and
upheld by learned Single Judge of the High Court.
24. This   Court   in   N.   Suresh   Nathan   and   Another(supra)   has
held   that   past   practice   which   is   being   followed   for   long   time   if   not
contrary   to   law,   be   given   its   true   precedence   and   ordinarily   not   to
be   interfered   by   the   Courts   in   exercise   of   power   of   judicial   review
16

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  The extract of para 4
is reproduced as under:­
“……………..   The   real   question,   therefore,   is   whether   the
construction made of this provision in the rules on which the past
practice   extending   over   a   long   period   is   based   is   untenable   to
require   upsetting   it.     If   the   past   practice   is   based   on   one   of   the
possible   constructions   which   can   be   made   of   the   rules   then
upsetting   the   same   now   would   not   be   appropriate.     It   is   in   this
perspective that the question raised has to be determined.” 
25. In our considered view, the interference made by  the Division
Bench of the High Court in interpreting Statute 18 of the University
is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.  
26. Consequently,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The   judgment   of   the
Division Bench of the High Court impugned dated 8 th
 April, 2021 is
quashed and set aside.  No order as to costs.
27. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
      ……………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
       ……………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 07, 2022
17