District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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