Not In Best Interest Of Education | Kerala High Court Sets Aside Quo Warranto Plea And Expresses Concern Over 12 Universities Functioning Without Regular Vice Chancellor
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed a writ petition challenging the Chancellor's temporary assignment of Vice-Chancellor duties for the University of Kerala. The court held that the Chancellor's notification dated 24 October 2024, appointing the Vice-Chancellor of Kerala University of Health Sciences to temporarily discharge duties of the University of Kerala Vice-Chancellor, was within the bounds of Section 10(19) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. The petitioners had sought a writ of quo warranto, claiming lack of statutory qualifications and violation of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.
The court, however, concluded that no statutory bar or prohibition existed against such an arrangement and observed that "the arrangement is only to operate pending a regular appointment." Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to issue any of the reliefs sought by the petitioners. All pending interlocutory applications were also declared closed.
The petition arose from the Chancellor's decision under Section 10(19) of the Kerala University Act, 1974, to temporarily assign the responsibilities of Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kerala to Dr. Mohanan Kunnummal, who is currently the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The arrangement was made through Notification No. GS6-2410/2023 (1) dated 24 October 2024.
The petitioners, members of the Senate of the University of Kerala, filed the writ petition challenging this temporary arrangement. They sought a writ of quo warranto against Respondent No.4, Dr. Mohanan Kunnummal, arguing that he lacked the legal authority to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor at the University of Kerala. They further sought a writ of mandamus restraining him from exercising the powers and performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor.
The petitioners contended that Respondent No.4 did not meet the age and academic qualifications stipulated under the Kerala University Act, 1974, and the UGC Regulations, 2018. According to the petitioners, Section 10(5) of the Act prohibited the appointment of anyone over the age of 60 as Vice-Chancellor. They pointed out that Dr. Kunnummal was born on 29 November 1956 and was 68 years old at the time of appointment.
They further relied on UGC Regulation 7.3, which requires a Vice-Chancellor to have at least ten years of experience as a professor in a university or an equivalent institution. The petitioners argued that to be eligible, the candidate must possess a Ph.D. and belong to the same academic discipline as the university. They also cited Sections 10(8) and 10(9) of the Act to assert that the Vice-Chancellor serves as the principal academic and executive officer and must therefore have appropriate academic background in line with the university's faculties.
The petitioners supported their claims by citing past instances where temporary charge of Vice-Chancellor had been given to senior professors from affiliated colleges of the concerned universities. Several notifications regarding such appointments were submitted as exhibits.
In response, the Chancellor and other respondents argued that the appointment was an "arrangement" rather than a regular appointment and fell strictly within the scope of Section 10(19), which does not impose any stipulation on age or qualifications. They submitted that the provision permits the Chancellor to make necessary arrangements pending regular appointment.
It was also pointed out that due to administrative impasse and non-cooperation from the Senate, the Chancellor had no alternative but to act to prevent a governance vacuum. The respondents noted that only one university in Kerala had a functioning Vice-Chancellor, namely, Kerala University of Health Sciences, and in such circumstances, the Chancellor was compelled to assign the additional responsibility to Respondent No.4.
Regarding qualifications, the respondents argued that Respondent No.4 had served as a professor since 2006 and held an MD degree. They maintained that there was no requirement under the Act or UGC Regulations for the Vice-Chancellor to possess a Ph.D. or be from a particular academic stream. They also cited the 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor, Kannur University, which clarified that the age restriction in Section 10(5) applied only to regular appointments under Section 10(1) and not to reappointments or interim arrangements.
The Division Bench stated "The arrangement is only to operate pending a regular appointment." It noted that the legislative use of the term "arrangement" as distinct from "appointment" under Section 10(19) signified a deliberate intent to grant the Chancellor flexibility during temporary vacancies.
The court recorded, "An 'appointment' entails a process leading to the selection of a person to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor following the procedures laid down. An 'arrangement' is an interim or alternative administrative measure."
Regarding the issue of age, the court cited the Supreme Court decision in Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth, stating that, "the stipulation that a person should not have attained the age of 60 years applies to the first regular appointment". The court observed that Section 10(19) does not reference any age limit and thus does not impose the same restriction.
In examining the qualification-related contentions, the court noted that neither the Act nor the UGC Regulations explicitly required a Vice-Chancellor to hold a Ph.D. or be from a specific academic stream. The court stated, "There is no stipulation that a Vice-Chancellor has to be from the same stream or hold a Ph.D., nor is there a prohibition against a Vice-Chancellor of another university from performing these duties temporarily."
The Bench also rejected the petitioners’ claim that only the senior-most professor could be appointed for such interim roles. The judgment noted, "To insist that even interim arrangements must follow the full regular appointment process would defeat the very purpose of the flexibility intended by the statute."
The court acknowledged the Senate’s lack of cooperation in the appointment process and stated, "It is due to the disagreement between the Senate and the Chancellor that the arrangement...has continued."
The court further observed, "If the Chancellor, considering the importance of the post, had to call upon a functioning Vice-Chancellor, only Respondent No.4 was available."
The court remarked that Respondent No.4’s bio-data demonstrated ten years’ service as Professor, holding an MD degree and experience in administrative roles, including membership in the Indian Medical Council. The Bench found no evidence that the university’s administration had been adversely affected by the arrangement.
Finally, the Bench stated, "Unless there is a legal bar or statutory prohibition against this arrangement, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued." It also commented on the broader context, noting that twelve out of thirteen state universities in Kerala lacked regularly appointed Vice-Chancellors, and expressed concern over the impact of ongoing litigation on the higher education system.
The Division Bench concluded by dismissing the writ petition. It held that the Chancellor’s notification was within the scope of Section 10(19) and did not violate any statutory provision.
The court stated, "We find that no case is made out to issue a writ as sought by the Petitioners." It added, "The Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed."
While refraining from judgement on the alleged procedural irregularities surrounding the regular appointment process, the court urged all parties to act in the interest of educational institutions. It stated, "This approach is not in the best interest of higher education, which must remain the primary concern of all those involved in university administration."
The judgment ended with the court expressing hope for administrative resolution: "We sincerely hope that appropriate steps are taken without delay to resolve the issues."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Elvin Peter P.J. (Senior Advocate), Sri. K.R. Ganesh, Smt. Gouri Balagopal, Sri. Sreelekshmi A.S., Smt. Anamika M.J.
For the Respondents: Sri. N. Manoj Kumar (State Attorney); Sri. P. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate for Chancellor); Sri. Thomas Abraham (Standing Counsel, University of Kerala); Sri. Binny Thomas and Smt. Girija K. Gopal; Smt. K.N. Vigy and Smt. Soorya Mariya Kurian (Additional Counsel)
Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Priya Priyadarsanan v. State of Kerala and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:46149
Case Number: WP(C) No. 43059 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji
