Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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