| |
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 1003
|
| Court : High Court of Kerala |
| Case No : WP(PIL) No. 128 OF 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.M. SYAM KUMAR |
| Parties : DR V. Madhu Versus The Chancellor Of Cochin University Of Science & TechnologyCochin Univerity, Ernakulam, Kochi & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: DR V. Madhu (Party-In-Person). For the Respondents: S. Prasanth, Sc, Chancellor Of Universities Of Kerala, O.A. Nuriya, Sr. Gp, S. Krishnamoorthy, SC, UGC, P. Sreekumar (Sr.), R5, George Poonthottam, R3, Kavya Varma, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 02-07-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 48183,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.
3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the 5th respondent was appointed as a Reader in Electronics on a reserved quota through misrepresentation, thereby questioning his eligibility for the Vice‑Chancellor position. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to produce any material evidence of misrepresentation or lack of qualification during the respondent’s 20‑year tenure. No dereliction of duty or illegality was established concerning the appointment. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor, could not demonstrate any reason to doubt the appointment’s regularity over two decades. The petition was deemed a speculative attempt to impede the respondent’s role as Vice‑Chancellor‑in‑charge. Consequently, the Court found no merit in entertaining the petition.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
Soumen Sen, C.J.
1. Heard Dr. V. Madhu, party-in-person, Mr. P. Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent, Mr. George Poonthottam, learned Senior Advocate, instructed by Ms. Nisha George, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, Ms. Kavya Varma, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, and Ms. O.A. Nuriya, learned Senior Government Pleader.
2. A speculative litigation has been initiated by the petitioner alleging that the 5th respondent was appointed on 29th September 2006 as a Reader in Electronics under the reserved quota by misrepresentation. The petitioner is unable to establish that there has been any misrepresentation on the part of the 5th respondent. Moreover, after 20 years, by which time the private respondent has served in various posts in the University, we cannot turn the clock back in the absence of any material to substantiate that he had manipulated the selection. The allegations are vague and clearly unsubstantiated. The basis of the writ petition is that, had the Selection Committee at that point of time taken into consideration that he was not qualified for the said post, he could not have been considered for the post of Vice Chancellor, as he would not have acquired the eligibility criteria to be considered for the post of Vice Chancellor.
3. We do not find any substance in the said argument, nor is it substantiated by any material on record. There is nothing on record to show that, during his tenure as a Reader in the University in question, there was any dereliction of duty or that he did not possess the required qualification for the post, which he held for over a period of 20 years.
4. The petitioner is also an Assistant Professor in the same University, and he claims to have been appointed at a point of time when the 5th respondent was also considered for appointment in the University. It is unbelievable that, during the period of twenty years, the petitioner could not find any reason to doubt that the appointment of the 5th respondent was irregular or illegal. Moreover, it cannot be said at this stage that there had been any illegality committed at the time of his appointment.
5. The petition appears to be a desperate attempt to prevent the 5th respondent from continuing as the Vice Chancellor in-charge of the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Moreover, it appears that the 5th respondent is only a Vice Chancellor-in-charge and has not been appointed as the full-time Vice Chancellor. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition.
6. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
|
| |
