Kerala High Court Upholds College Principal’s Appointment | Public Information Officer Not Bound To Investigate Under Section 7 Of RTI Act | Isolated Negligence Cannot Defeat Valid Selection
Sanchayita lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh has directed the University of Kerala to confirm the provisional approval granted to the petitioner’s appointment as Principal of a government-aided college. Holding that an isolated allegation concerning the petitioner’s conduct as Public Information Officer could not invalidate a duly conducted selection process, the Court found no legal impediment to the petitioner’s continued appointment. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondents to complete confirmation formalities as per the interim approval already issued by the University.
The petitioner, an Associate Professor in the Arabic Department of a government-aided college, was appointed as Principal through a selection process initiated following a vacancy arising on 01.06.2022. A Selection Committee duly constituted in accordance with university regulations selected the petitioner for the position. The college management issued an appointment letter dated 07.11.2023, and the petitioner assumed charge on 08.11.2023. A formal proposal for approval of appointment was forwarded to the University of Kerala on 09.11.2023.
Earlier, the petitioner had been appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) effective 01.09.2023. The appointment was duly approved by the University, although approval from the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education remained pending.
A controversy emerged when it was discovered that a student, Nikhil M. Thomas, had submitted a forged degree certificate from Kalinga University to secure admission to the postgraduate programme at the college. RTI applications had been filed by multiple individuals seeking information about the authenticity of the documents submitted by the student. The petitioner, who was the designated Public Information Officer at the time, processed the RTI applications and responded to them by directing the applicants to the issuing university.
Nikhil M. Thomas had produced a degree certificate, migration certificate, recognition certificate, and eligibility certificate—none of which had initially aroused suspicion. Upon further inquiry by other individuals and the University, the documents were found to be forged. The incident led to the issuance of a show-cause notice to the petitioner by the University on 05.09.2023, even though the petitioner had not been involved in the student’s admission process.
The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice on 16.09.2023, denying any responsibility for the admission and asserting that he had acted within the legal bounds prescribed by the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further maintained that he was not the competent authority to investigate document authenticity and that his role was limited to disseminating public information.
On 05.01.2024, the University issued a communication to the college manager recommending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and withdrawing the provisional approval for the petitioner’s appointment as Principal-in-Charge. The petitioner challenged this decision on the grounds that he was never officially appointed as Principal-in-Charge, but rather as DDO, and that the appointment as Principal was the result of an independent and valid selection process.
The petitioner contended that the University’s actions were motivated by an ulterior intention to delay or deny his appointment. He claimed that he was being targeted unfairly for actions taken in his official capacity under statutory obligations, without any finding of willful negligence or misconduct.
The respondents, including the University and its syndicate members, submitted that the petitioner had acted negligently by failing to verify the forged certificate when RTI applications were received, thereby allowing the student to benefit from fraudulent documentation. They submitted that point No. 4 of the show-cause notice directly related to the petitioner’s conduct as Public Information Officer and justified the withdrawal of approval.
An interim order dated 12.04.2024 had been passed by the Court permitting the petitioner to continue in the role of Principal provisionally pending the outcome of the writ proceedings.
Justice N. Nagaresh stated: “The petitioner was appointed as Principal of the College after a due selection process conducted by a Selection Committee consisting of University nominees also.”
The Court recorded: “In Ext.P25, the allegation raised against the petitioner is that when RTI applications were received by the petitioner while he was the Public Information Officer, he should have taken care to verify the authenticity of Ext.P9 Degree Certificate.”
Assessing the scope of the petitioner’s duties, the Court observed: “As long as the petitioner is not the competent officer to deal with such complaint and as long as no specific complaint regarding any forged document is received, a Public Information Officer is not legally bound to start any investigation process.”
Referring to the statutory framework under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Court stated: “A Public Information Officer has no such power or obligation under Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”
Evaluating the nature of the allegation, the Court stated: “Assuming that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner to that extent, an isolated instance of negligence as alleged against the petitioner cannot be a reason to decline approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal which was made after a due selection process.”
The Court noted the subsequent steps taken by the University in light of the interim order, recording: “The statement filed by the University would show that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the University has issued order dated 03.06.2024 granting provisional approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal.”
The Court observed that, assuming there was negligence on the part of the petitioner to the extent alleged, an isolated instance of negligence could not be a reason to decline approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal, which was made after a due selection process.
The statement filed by the University indicated that, pursuant to the interim order of the Court, the University had issued an order dated 03.06.2024 granting provisional approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Principal.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to confirm the provisional approval of the appointment of the petitioner granted as per the University order dated 03.06.2024.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Nisha George, George Poonthottam (Senior Advocate), A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan
For the Respondents: Thomas Abraham (Standing Counsel for University of Kerala)
Case Title: Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:33517
Case Number: WP(C) No. 13319 of 2024
Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh
[Read/Download order]
