Kerala High Court Slams University Over Withheld Fellowship | No Vice Chancellor Salary Until Student Paid, Says Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh held that the non-payment of an approved research fellowship despite availability of funds and ongoing salary disbursal to university officers lacked legal justification. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent university to pay the sanctioned fellowship to the petitioner on a regular basis and to clear any arrears within one month, if not already paid. The Court further ordered that the salary of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar shall not be disbursed until the petitioner’s dues are cleared, should the payment remain pending after the stipulated time.
The petitioner, a 25-year-old research scholar enrolled in the Ph.D. program at Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, approached the High Court seeking disbursal of a sanctioned fellowship amount. The fellowship had been approved by a University order dated 07.08.2024, but the petitioner had not received any payments despite multiple representations.
The petitioner submitted that although the fellowship was granted under an official scheme administered by the university, no part of the sanctioned amount had been disbursed. Exhibit P2, placed on record, was the university order reflecting the selection of the petitioner for the fellowship. Additional documents including identity proof (Exhibit P1), a published article related to the issue (Exhibit P3), and the petitioner’s formal representation (Exhibit P4) substantiated the claim.
The petitioner contended that denial of fellowship amounted to an arbitrary and unjustified action on the part of the university, especially given the presence of a formal selection order and sanctioned funds. It was also argued that the inaction was not only violative of the principles of fairness but also had a chilling effect on academic pursuit.
The respondent university, represented through counsel, admitted the petitioner’s entitlement to the fellowship but submitted that due to financial constraints, the university was unable to release the amount. This position was restated through letters and internal communications annexed to the record. Specifically, Respondent Exhibits R1(a) to R1(e) detailed correspondence and Government Orders issued in connection with fund releases and administrative actions.
Exhibit R1(a), a government order dated 12.07.2024, and Exhibit R1(e), a subsequent order dated 07.01.2025, indicated that the State Government had allocated funds to the university. However, the university maintained that budgetary shortfalls persisted. Additional documents (Exhibits R1(b) to R1(d)) included internal letters dated between June and November 2024 which were cited to support the university’s claim of financial difficulty.
However, no document placed on record refuted the fact that the Vice Chancellor and Registrar continued to receive their regular salaries. The petitioner argued that such a position revealed a prioritization imbalance within the university administration.
The Court reviewed the documents submitted by both parties and heard the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel and the respondent’s legal representatives. The matter was admitted for final disposal and judgment was reserved and pronounced on 27 May 2025.
The Court recorded: “The petitioner has been sanctioned a research fellowship for pursuing a Ph.D. program, vide order dated 07.08.2024 in Ext.P2.”
It noted: “The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent University does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to the fellowship however, she submits that because of the financial crunch faced by the University, it is not in a position to disburse the fellowship to the petitioner.”
Addressing this claim, the Court stated: “This Court is least impressed by the brilliant argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent University.”
It further observed: “She has not disputed that the Vice Chancellor’s salary is being paid regularly. If the Vice Chancellor of the University is being paid salary regularly, there can be no justification for non-payment of the petitioner’s fellowship.”
The Court recorded: “Moreover, the Government has sanctioned Rs.2,62,56,000/- to the University which further indicates that the financial crisis does not appear to be justified.”
The Court thus rejected the argument regarding financial incapacity, considering the government’s funding and continued disbursal of high-level administrative salaries. It found that while financial constraints might exist, they could not selectively justify denial of a sanctioned benefit to a student-researcher, especially when senior officers were regularly remunerated.
In assessing proportionality and administrative fairness, the Court noted: “Such action reflects inequitable prioritisation and defeats the very purpose of granting academic fellowships meant to encourage scholarly pursuits.”
Finally, the Court concluded: “In view thereof, the present writ petition is allowed.”
The Court recorded that the petitioner had been sanctioned a research fellowship for pursuing a Ph.D. program, as reflected in the order dated 07.08.2024 marked as Ext.P2.
It was further noted that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent University did not dispute the entitlement of the petitioner to the fellowship.
However, the counsel submitted that because of the financial crunch faced by the University, it was not in a position to disburse the fellowship amount.
In response to this submission, the Court stated that it was least impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent University.
It observed that the counsel had not disputed the fact that the salary of the Vice Chancellor was being paid regularly.
The Court then stated that if the Vice Chancellor of the University was being paid salary regularly, there could be no justification for the non-payment of the petitioner’s fellowship.
The Court also took note of the fact that the Government had sanctioned ₹2,62,56,000 to the University. This, it recorded, further indicated that the financial crisis claimed by the respondent did not appear to be justified.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Adv. Dhanuja M.S
For the Respondents: Advs. Dinesh Mathew J Murikan, Vinod S. Pillai, Mohammed Thayib N.M., Nayana Varghese, Ria Varghese, Jerry Peter
Other Present: Government Pleader Sri. V. Venugopal
Case Title: Adarsh E. v. The Registrar, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:36570
Case Number: WP(C) No. 45444 of 2024
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
[Read/Download order]
