TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

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