Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Any Appointment to a Public Office in Violation of Statutory Regulations Can Be Considered in a Writ of Quo Warranto: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., addressed the intricacies surrounding the appointments of Vice Chancellors to the University of Calicut and Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit. The core legal issue involved the alleged violation of UGC Regulations 2018.

The judgment focused on the maintainability of writ petitions filed under quo warranto, challenging the appointments of Vice Chancellors on the grounds of non-compliance with UGC Regulations 2018. The Court noted, “Any appointment to a public office made even in contravention of the statutory regulations can be considered in a writ of quo warranto.”

The petitioners, Dr. T. Muhammedali and Prof. Dr. N. Prasantha Kumar, challenged the appointments of Dr. M.K. Jayaraj and Dr. M.V. Narayanan as Vice Chancellors, alleging non-compliance with the UGC Regulations 2018. The Chancellor, after issuing show cause notices, declared these appointments void ab initio. However, Dr. Jayaraj (Vice Chancellor, Calicut University) obtained an interim stay against this decision, whereas Dr. Narayanan (Vice Chancellor, Sree Sankaracharya University) did not, rendering his petition infructuous.

Maintainability of Writ Petition: The Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition for quo warranto, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal [(2013) 1 SCC 501].

Consideration of Quo Warranto: Despite affirming the maintainability, the Court decided not to consider the writ of quo warranto in light of the subsequent decisions made by the Chancellor.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The issue of whether the petition should be treated as a PIL and the applicability of High Court Rule 146A were left open, with the Court terming these as academic in nature.

Ultimately, the Court closed both writ petitions, WP(C) No. 335 of 2023 and WP(C) No. 703 of 2023, given the subsequent developments and the Chancellor’s decision.

 Date of Decision: April 5, 2024.

Dr. T. Muhammedali & Prof. Dr. N. Prasantha Kumar vs Dr. M.K. Jayaraj, Dr. M.V. Narayanan, et al.

 

 

Latest Legal News