Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. Heard Dr. V. Madhu, the Party-in-Person and Ms. Kavya Varma M.M., learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin University of Science and Technology.

2. This petition is filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a writ of quo warranto and quashing the appointment of respondent No. 6. In our interim order dated 1st April 2026, relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., Thru. Secretary, Medical Health and Others (2019 SCC Online AII 5871) , it was held that the post of Professor at KGMU cannot be held to be a public office merely because the University is imparting education and is a statutory body enacted under the Act of 2002. The office of Professor does not seem to involve an obligation of any of the sovereign functions of the Government, either executive or legislative or judicial, for public benefit, and it cannot be said that the public in general is interested and non-observance of the obligations of employment of the Professor, in any event, affects the interest of the public at large and even if it would affect, the same shall be too remote so as to make the office of the Professor a public office.

3. We have also, in our judgment in G. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala and Others 2026 KHC 312 discussed the criteria to be considered for issuing a writ of quo warranto, which inter alia include that the office must have a public nature; the office must have been created by charter, statute or constitution; the office must be of a substantive character; and the holder must have been in actual occupation of the office.

4. The dispute is essentially a private dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. The petitioner has been teaching in the same institution since 2006, while the 6th respondent was appointed as Professor on 7th August 2019, with effect from 24th July 2019. The petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the appointment of the said respondent if it was in violation of any statutory provision or regulation. However, the writ petition was filed only in the year 2026, after the 6th respondent had been selected as a member of the Senate. At the time of filing of the petition, the 6th respondent had also become a member of the Syndicate of CUSAT.

5. Public interest litigations in service matters are, as a rule, not maintainable, except in the limited circumstance of seeking a writ of quo warranto. The position being so, as rightly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of West Bengal (2004) 3 SCC 349 , every court must exercise circumspection and decline to entertain such petitions when they are found to be motivated, frivolous, or filed under the guise of public interest. The term “public office” is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It implies a delegation of a portion of sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose, embracing the idea of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties. Respondent No.6 does not conform to any of these criteria. Moreover, it appears that the writ petition was filed to settle the score with the 6th respondent.

On such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. The reply affidavit filed by the respondent is taken on record.