Kerala High Court
Arunima Ashok vs The Chancellor on 21 May, 2024
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 41785 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 ARUNIMA ASHOK, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. K.N. ASHOK
KUMAR, RESIDING AT A1, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS,
HARIHAR NAGAR, NALANDA, KOWDIAR.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 003.
2 KAVYA T.S., AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. THAMPI T.,
RESIDING AT 'KAVYA SREE', KANJAVELY.P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 602.
BY ADV. SRI. ELVIN PETER P.J. (SENIOR) ALONG
WITH ADVS. M/S. K.R.GANESH, GOURI BALAGOPAL &
SREELEKSHMI A.S
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTAPURAM, PIN - 695 034.
2 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 034.
3 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 034.
4 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY
BUILDINGS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695 034.
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
..2..
5 ABHISHEK D. NAIR, B.A. HISTORY 3RD SEMESTER
STUDENT, B.T.M. N.S.S. COLLEGE,
DHANUVACHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695
503.
6 DHRUVIN S.L., 5TH SEMESTER STUDENT, BACHELOR OF
COMPUTER APPLICATION, CHRIST NAGAR COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 512.
ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR) ALONG WITH
ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH, SC FOR R-1
ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC FOR R-2 TO R-4
ADV.SRI.R.V.SREEJITH FOR R-5
ADV. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA FOR R-6
SRI.T.B.HOOD, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO A.G.
ADVS.M/S.G.MAHESWARY,T.RINI,HARIGOVIND S.NAIR,
NIDHIN KRISHNA & ANAKHA BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 9.4.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).NOS.41766/2023 AND
1275/2024, THE COURT ON 21.5.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
..3..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 41766 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 MR.NANDA KISHORE, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. SANIL
KUMAR.G, RESIDING AT "NANDA KISHORAM", NRAE 52,
NEDUMBRAM LANE, PEROORKADA P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENTLY UNDERGOING III
SEMESTER B.A. (ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE),
MAR IVANIOS COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695005
2 MR.AVANTH SEN P.S, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. K.R.
PRAVEEN SEN, RESIDING AT "PALAZHI", PAYIKUZHI,
OCHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. PRESENTLY UNDERGOING V
SEMESTER B.A. (ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE),
M.S.M. COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM, PIN - 690526
BY ADVS.M/S. M.A.ASIF & ANWIN JOHN ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA
RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695099
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695034
3 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN
- 695001
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
..4..
4 MS.MALAVIKA UDAYAN, B.SC. BIO-CHEMISTRY, 5TH
SEMESTER NSS COLLEGE, PANDALAM, RESIDING AT
SREENANDANAM, VETTIYAR B.O., PIN - 690558
5 SHRI. SUDHI SADAN, B.A. ECONOMICS, NSS COLLEGE
PANDALAM, RESIDING AT KURUMPOLETHU PUTHEN
VEEDU, NEDUKULANJIMURI, PADANILAM S.O., PIN -
690529
ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR) ALONG WITH ADV.
SRI.S.PRASANTH, SC FOR R-1
ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,SC FOR R-2
SRI.T.B.HOOD, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO A.G
FOR R-3
ADV.SRI.C.DINESH FOR R-4
ADV. SRI.SUVIN R.MENON FOR R-5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
9.4.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).NOS.41785/2023 AND 1275/2024 THE
COURT ON 21.5.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
..5..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1275 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DR. K. N MADHUSUDANAN PILLAI, AGED 71 YEARS,
S/O. G NEELAKANDAN NAIR, MADHUSREE, TC 47/88
TNRA-5A, MUDAVANMUGAL, ARMADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695032
BY ADVS.M/S.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA), JAISHANKAR
V.NAIR, PARSHATHY S.R. , JOHN GOMEZ & ACHUTH
KRISHNAN R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, KERALA RAJ
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695099
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
3 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
4 MURALIDHARAN PILLAI G, KIZHAKUMBHAGATHU VEEDU,
KOIVILA P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691590
5 DR. SHIJU KHAN J. S, SHIJU MANSIL, PATHAMKALLU,
MANJA P.O, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695541
6 R. RAJESH, NALOOR KULATHIL, KOLLAKADAVU P.O,
CHENGANNUR, PIN - 690509.
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
..6..
ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SENIOR) ALONG WITH ADV.
SRI.S.PRASANTH, SC FOR R-1
ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,SC FOR R-2
SRI.T.B.HOOD, SPL.G.P. TO A.G. FOR R-3
ADV. SRI. ELVIN PETER P.J. (SENIOR) ALONG WITH
ADVS. M/S. K.R.GANESH, GOURI BALAGOPAL &
SREELEKSHMI A.S FOR R-4 TO R-6
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
9.4.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).NOS.41785/2023 AND 41766/2023, THE
COURT ON 21.5.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
..7..
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.
===============================
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023
and
W. P. (C) No. 1275 of 2024
===============================
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
Writ Petitions, WP(C) Nos. 41785 and 41766 of 2023, challenge
the nominations made by the Chancellor to the Senate of the Kerala
University under Section 17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short) . The Senate comprises the
following class of members:
1. Ex-officio Members
2. Elected Members
3. Life Members
4. Other Members
2. Under the category 'Other Members' constituting the Senate,
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..8..
Sub Section (3) of Section 17, which is the issue in two Writ Petitions,
reads as follows:
"(3) Four students nominated by the Chancellor, one having
outstanding academic ability in humanities, one having outstanding
ability in science, one having outstanding ability in sports and one
having outstanding ability in fine arts." (emphasis supplied)
3. The 1st respondent Chancellor of the University is the authority
vested with the power to nominate four students to the Senate.
The 1st petitioner in WP(C). No.41785/2023 is presently undergoing
M.A. Music in Government College for Women, Vazhuthacaud,
Thiruvananthapuram, and the 2nd petitioner is undergoing the course for
M.Sc. Statistics with specialization in Data Analysis at the University
College, Palayam. The 1st petitioner submits that she passed her B.A.
(Music) course from the Government College for Women,
Thiruvananthapuram, securing First Rank. The course B.A. Music falls
under the category of Humanities. The 2 nd petitioner submits that she
completed her B.Sc. Mathematics course from S.N. College, Kollam,
securing First Rank.
4. The petitioners rely on the judgment of this Court in Thanga
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..9..
Dorai v. Chancellor, Kerala University [1995 (2) KLT 663] wherein
construing the expression 'outstanding ability' it was held that the
University had to prepare a list of rank holders and place the same before
the Chancellor. It was held that the student having the highest marks in
Science was not included in the list that was placed before the Chancellor
and as such the nominations were held to be legally unacceptable.
The petitioners submit that the Chancellor has no unbridled power to
nominate students disregarding rank holders or their credentials. The
normal procedure adopted by the University was to identify the students
who had undergone courses in Humanities, Science, Sports and Fine Arts
with outstanding ability, and along with a communication and proforma,
the same would be forwarded to the student to find out the willingness to
be nominated as a Member of the Senate. The petitioners submit that
none of these steps were followed by the Chancellor and nominated
respondents 5 and 6 with no merit compared to the petitioners. They
allege that the 5th respondent is only a third-semester student who has yet
to prove his outstanding abilities. Likewise, the 6 th respondent is only a
sixth-semester student doing his Bachelor of Computer Applications and
has no track record to show his abilities. Thus contending that the
nominations of respondents 5 and 6 are whimsical, illegal, arbitrary and
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..10..
unfair, and against the statutory provisions incorporated under Section 17,
the petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari challenging Ext.P-5 as regards the
nominations of respondents 5 and 6 and also, seeks a direction to
nominate the petitioners as members of the Senate.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents
5 and 6. They contend that they were included in Ext.P-4 note prepared
by the University of Kerala as eligible for nomination to the Senate. No
procedure is prescribed under Section 17(3) of the Act as the only
requirement is that, the four students nominated by the Chancellor should
possess outstanding ability in Humanities, Science, Sports and Fine Arts.
The said power is to be exercised by the Chancellor and it is not
delegated to any other authority of the University. They also contend that,
after the insertion of the last proviso to Section 18, the members of the
Senate nominated by the Chancellor or the Government under the
heading of 'Other Members' shall hold their office during the pleasure of
the Chancellor or the Government, as the case may be and this
amendment came in the year 2012 and therefore, the judgment relied on
by the writ petitioners rendered in the year 1995 has no application.
The respondents contend that, after the 2012 amendment, no student can
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..11..
challenge the inclusion of others on the ground that they are more
meritorious. That apart, it cannot be the law that only the highest rank
holder in a subject can be treated as a person with outstanding ability as
academic brilliance alone cannot be treated as a benchmark for deciding
the outstanding ability of a student. It has to take a lot of other factors as
well.
6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Chancellor justifying
the nominations and states as follows:
"3. The office of the Chancellor addressed the Vice Chancellor to
forward a list having at least three times the number of eligible persons
to be considered for nomination. Though no such procedure is
provided in the Act or the Statutes, the details were sought for as a part
of collecting the data to make nominations. It is to be noted in this
context that the input regarding the eligible persons to the Chancellor
can be from different sources. No provisions in the Act or the Statute
prescribe the source for nominating the persons to the Senate.
**** ****
6. It is submitted that the Chancellor exercised his authority in
nominating the members on ensuring that the nominees' eligibilities
are assessed. The provisions in the University Act says that there shall
be four student nominees, one having outstanding academic ability in
humanities, one each having outstanding ability in science, sports and
fine arts. The word academic is lacking in the case of nominees for
science, sports and fine arts.
7. The contention that the rank holders are persons with outstanding
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..12..
academic abilities cannot be accepted. The provisions in the act do not
ask for outstanding performance, which may reflect through higher
ranks in the examinations. The yardstick for assessing the ability of the
person will be different. The social and economic backgrounds also
need to be considered while considering the ability of the person. A
person getting proper guidance and training, which necessarily
depends on his economic and social status can perform better that
another person who fights against his social and economic
circumstances. The performance of the former can better but that
performance is not sufficient to say that his ability is better that that of
the later. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition
are based on a notion that the word "ability" used in the provision is
equal to "performance", which is not so. While making the
nominations the Chancellor took into consideration not only the record
and reputation but also gave due weight to the ability, promise and
potential of the persons."
7. The writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 41766/2023 question the
nominations of respondents 4 and 5 in the category of Fine Arts and
Sports. The 1st petitioner in WP(C). No.41766/2023 claims to have won
4 First Prizes in Kathakali, Bharathanatyam, Ottamthullal and Kerala
Nadanam and 3 Second Prizes in Kuchipudi, Folk Dance and Fancy
Dress in the Kerala University Youth Festival 2022-23. Having secured
the highest individual points (33 points), the 1st petitioner was awarded
the "KALAPRATHIBA" title in the Kerala University Youth Festival
2022-23. The 2nd petitioner has outstanding abilities in Sports and has
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..13..
secured prizes at the University Level and in the All India Inter
University Championships. In 2022-23 he secured a Bronze medal in the
Tug of War (Mixed) competition in the All India Inter University
Championship and he was placed first in the Kerala University Inter
Collegiate Best Physique (men) (Inter-Zone) Championship 2021-22. It is
alleged that despite the superior claims of the petitioners, the 4 th and 5th
respondents were not even included in Ext.P-7 list which was the list of
valid studentship nominations received by the 2nd respondent and
submitted to the Vice Chancellor for onward transmission to the
Chancellor. The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent has no claims
except for a mere participation in the Kerala Youth Festival 2022-2023.
Likewise, the 5th respondent had nothing but participation and had no
valid sports credentials in preference to the 2 nd petitioner. In the
background of the said pleadings, the writ petitioners seek quashing of
Ext.P-9 to the extent it nominates the 4th and the 5th respondents to the
Senate of the University and also, pray for nominating the 1 st and 2nd
petitioners to the Senate.
8. WP(C) No. 1275/2024 is filed challenging the nominations of
respondents 4 to 6 as the government representatives to the Senate of
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..14..
Kerala University. The petitioner in the said case, claiming to be an
educationist and academician with over 25 years of Post-Doctoral
Research and teaching experience along with accreditation by more than
500 educational institutions across the country, alleges that respondents
4 to 6 do not have any experience in the field of higher education
enabling them to be nominated as per Section 17(4) of the Kerala
University Act. It is also alleged that respondents 4, 5 and 6 had several
crimes registered against them, thus making them ineligible to hold the
post of government representatives. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the 3rd respondent Government to support the nominations of
respondents 4 to 6 and the relevant portion of the same reads as follows:
"8. The Government has nominated respondents 4 to 6 in terms of item
(4) of Other Members under Section 17 of the Act, taking note of their
credentials in the field of Higher Education. The fourth respondent is
a BA LLB degree holder. He has more than two decades long
experience in the field of Higher Education, in so far as he was a
Member of the Academic Council of Kerala University during 1999-
2000; was a member of the Senate and the Syndicate of Kerala
University during 1999-2000, and was a member of various
committees like Examination Committee, Academic and Research
Committee, Affiliation Committee and various committees constituted
for NAAC and NIRF accreditation of Kerala University. Further, he
was the Executive Member of Kerala University Union, 1992-93 and
Vice Chairman of Kerala University Union, 1996-97.
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..15..
Moreover, he was also the Convenor of the Affiliation Committee to
monitor various issues pertaining the affiliation of colleges and
courses offered under the jurisdiction of University of Kerala.
9. The fifth respondent is a Ph.D. holder. He was a member of Senate
of Kerala University during 2009. He was a member of Syndicate of
Kerala University during 2009 and 2018. He has been the Convenor
of Standing Committee on Student Services, 2009 and a Member of
Standing Committee on Finance, University of Kerala, 2018, a
Member of Standing Committee on Affiliation of Private Colleges,
University of Kerala, 2018, a Member of Standing Committee on
Planning and Development, University of Kerala, 2018 and a Member
of Sub-committee on Online Admission, University of Kerala, 2018.
He is a Member of College Development Committee, Government
College, Nedumangadu, from 2021 onwards. Thus, the fifth
respondent has also ample experience in the field of Higher
Education. Further, he was a Member of State School Curriculum
Committee, Department of General Education, Government of Kerala
and also has been the General Secretary, Kerala State Council for
Child Welfare, Department of Women and Child Development,
Government of Kerala.
10. The sixth respondent is a B.Sc. Physics degree holder. He was a
Member of Legislative Assembly during 2011-21. He also has
sufficient experience in the field of Higher Education, in so far as he
was a Member of Advisory Board of Kerala State Higher Education
Council during 2016-18; a Member of Senate of Kerala University of
Health Sciences during 2017-21, of Cochin University of Science and
Technology during 2019-21 and of Kerala University during 2014-21;
and was a Member of Syndicate of Kerala University during 2019-21.
Further, he was also a member of various Legislative Assembly
Committees, a Member of District Sports Council, Alappuzha during
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..16..
2017-20; and a Member of State and District SC/ST Vigilance and
Monitoring Committee.
11. It can be seen from the aforementioned credentials of the
respondents 4 to 6 that they have been associated with the field of
Higher Education in the State since years and have sufficient
experience in the said field. In the said circumstances, the nomination
of respondents 4 to 6, by way of Exhibit PI letter, as "persons from the
field of higher education" under Section 17 of the Act, is perfectly
sustainable in law and the contentions to the contrary are
unsustainable in law it appears that the petitioner has not cared to
make any enquiry about the credentials of the respondents 4 to 6 in
the field of higher education, before approaching this Honourable
Court challenging their nomination."
9. The 4th respondent had also filed a counter affidavit opposing the
prayers in the said Writ Petition.
10. Heard Sri. Elvin Peter P.J. learned senior counsel, instructed by
Sri. K.R. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C).
No.41785/2023, Sri. M.A.Asif learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in WP(C). No.41766/2023, Sri. S.Biju, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in WP(C). No.1275/2024, Sri. P.Sreekumar
learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri. S.Prasanth learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the Chancellor, Sri. Thomas Abraham, learned
Standing Counsel for the Kerala University, Sri. R.V. Sreejith and
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..17..
Sri. T.C.Krishna learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
in WP(C). No. 41785/2023, Sri. C.Dinesh and Sri. Suvin R.Menon,
learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents in WP(C). No.
41766/2023, Sri. Elvin Peter P.J. learned senior counsel, instructed by
Sri. K.R.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents in WP(C). No.1275/2024 and Sri. T.B.Hood, learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the State.
11. The relevant provisions as far as the nominations of the student
representative speak of outstanding academic ability in Humanities, and
outstanding abilities in Science, Sports, and Fine Arts going by section
17(3) of the Act. The 1st respondent Chancellor is right in stating that
there is no procedure provided in the Act or statutes for making
nominations or even the source for nominating the persons to the Senate.
His claim that the input regarding the eligible persons can be had from
different sources also cannot be disputed. It is the further contention that
the word academic is lacking in the case of nominations for Science,
Sports and Fine Arts. It can even be accepted that rank holders alone
cannot be considered as persons with outstanding abilities as the
provisions in the Act do not speak of outstanding performance reflected
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..18..
through the ranks in the examinations as the only yardstick for assessing
the ability of a person. It can be on other factors as well. The words
"ability", "performance", etc., at times can be relative. However, it has to
be noted that the petitioners in WP(C). No. 41785/2023 are rank holders
and their claim is not seen considered at all. It is not a case where the
names of rank holders, as well as the respondents, were considered and
the Chancellor for some valid reason chose the contesting respondents in
preference to the petitioners. Rank holders are certainly persons who
should be treated as students with outstanding academic ability. Even in
the statement filed by the Chancellor, there is no case that the credentials
of the petitioners in WP(C).Nos. 41785 and 41766 of 2023 were also
considered. Their credentials do not look inferior to those of the students
nominated. Even though no procedure as such is stated in the statute, the
section compels the persons nominated to be of outstanding academic
ability when it comes to Humanities and outstanding ability when it
comes to the other three nominations. The term outstanding ability
certainly denotes a superior ability/ performance. No credentials of the
respondents are shown which makes them superior to the writ petitioners
in the two cases. No single factor of the nominated students is shown
superior to be abilities of the writ petitioners. True, it is only a
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..19..
nomination and there is an element of discretion involved while making
choices. Even for that, eligibility criteria fixed in the statute cannot be
forgotten even though it is only a nomination and not a selection. There is
no comparative assessment of the writ petitioners and respondents 5 and
6 in the above writ petitions. As stated above, no credentials of the
nominated students are seen to be superior to the writ petitioners.
12. It is trite that there is no unbridled power vested with the
Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory
provisions. As stated above, there is an infraction of statutory provisions
rendering the nomination bad. Though it is a case of nomination, in the
exercise of the statutory power, if the nomination made is contrary to the
requirement of the statute or if relevant factors were not considered or if
irrelevant factors were considered in making the decisions, which no
reasonable person would have done, the nominations will have to be
interfered with by the Constitutional Courts. The insertion of the last
proviso to Section 18, that the members of the Senate nominated by the
Chancellor or the Government under the heading of 'Other Members'
shall hold their office during the pleasure of the Chancellor or the
Government, as the case may be, cannot be an answer for making a
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..20..
nomination or for withdrawing a nomination contrary to the requirements
of the statute. True, there is no procedure set out for making nominations.
However, as stated above, nominations at the very least should conform
to the statutory requirements. Any arbitrary use of power violates not
only the rule of 'Equality' enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India but also the rule of 'Discrimination' inbuilt in Article 16.
An unguided, unfettered and unbridled power is foreign to the exercise of
any power, constitutional or statutory. It is trite that even in the exercise
of discretionary power, the requirements of reasonableness, rationality,
impartiality, fairness and equity are inherent to such exercise and can
never be according to any private opinion.
13. Under such circumstances, the nominations made as per Exts.
P-5 & P-9 in W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 are to be interfered
and accordingly, they are quashed. There will be a direction to the
Chancellor to make fresh nominations considering the claims of the writ
petitioners as well in the light of the observations made above and in tune
with Section 17(3) of the Act. This shall be done within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
14. As regards W. P. (C) No. 1275/2024, the contention is that the
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..21..
nominations made by the government are against Section 17(4), the
relevant portion of which is extracted as under:
"not more than five members nominated by the government from the field
of higher education of which one shall be a woman and one shall be from
the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes."
15. On a perusal of the credentials of respondents 4 to 6 as stated in
the counter affidavits filed by the government and the party respondents,
it is difficult to hold that they are not from the field of higher education.
No dispute is raised by the writ petitioner over the credentials claimed by
the said respondents. The essential contention of the said writ petitioner is
the number of criminal cases registered against them, a perusal of which
would show that they are all registered, as part of their activities in public
life. That apart, they are all cases pending investigation and no court of
law has found respondents 4 to 6 guilty of the offences alleged and
therefore, mere pendency of cases cannot be treated as a disqualification
making respondents 4 to 6 ineligible for nomination under Section 17(4)
of the Act. Given my findings that they cannot be said to be persons not
connected with the field of higher education, I do not find any merit in
WP(C). No.1275/2024 to interfere with the nomination and accordingly,
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..22..
the said writ petition is dismissed.
WP(C).Nos. 41785 and 41766 of 2023 are allowed as above.
WP(C). No.1275/2024 is dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. ,
JUDGE
MMG
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..23..
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.41785/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN
1995 (2) KLRT 663 DATED 28.09.1995 IN
O.P. NO.10799/1995 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 23.08.2023
AND THE PRESCRIBED PROFORMA SENT BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PREPARED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE PREPARED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA WHICH AGAIN WAS
OBTAINED BY SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY
SRI. PRAVEEN P.S. AND THAT WAS SERVED
TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
04.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..24..
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.41766/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS WITH
OUTSTANDING ABILITIES IN HUMANITIES,
SCIENCE, FINE ARTS AND SPORTS
RECOMMENDED BY THE UNIVERSITY
AUTHORITIES CONCERNED AND OBTAINED
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 23-08-2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 07-09-2023
SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED MEMO DATED 19-
09-2023 AND THE REVISED LIST OF 10
STUDENTS AS PER THE NEW CRITERIA
OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED MEMO THE
REVISED LIST OF 10 STUDENTS AS PER THE
NEW CRITERIA OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA DATED 21-09-
2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
WHICH IS OBTAINED FROM THE 2ND
RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..25..
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF VALID
STUDENTSHIP NOMINATIONS RECEIVED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT AND SUBMITTED TO THE
VICE-CHANCELLOR FOR ONWARD TRANSMISSION
TO THE CHANCELLOR WHICH IS OBTAINED
FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P8 THE CHANCELLOR FOR NOMINATING 4
STUDENTS TO THE SENATE WHICH IS
OBTAINED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
ELECTION/N/OM/2023 DATED 04-12-2023
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS
OBTAINED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS
RECEIVED FROM DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL
EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
EXHIBIT R2(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
RECEIVED FROM DIRECTOR OF STUDENT
SERVICE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
EXHIBIT R2(C) THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM
PRINCIPAL, N.S.S COLLEGE, PANDALAM ON
20-01 OF PHYSICAL ECONOMICS COLLEGE,
KEP IN NSS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGISTRAR
FIRST THREE POSITIONS. 2024 THROUGH
EMAIL
W. P. (C) Nos. 41785 & 41766 of 2023 and
..26..
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.1275/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
B2/82/2023-HEDN DATED 30-06-2023
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION
FURNISHED BY THE ADDL. SP, DISTRICT
POLICE OFFICE DATED 10-08-2023 BEARING
NO. G3-54534/2023/T
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION
FURNISHED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE (CRIMES & ADMINISTRATION),
BEARING NO. G1(A)-51267/2023/TC DATED
22-08-2023
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY
ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CITY POLICE OFFICE, KOLLAM DATED 24-
08-2023 BEARING NO. G3(B)-
38681/2023/QC
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO.
1324/RTI-45/2023/CSD DATED 21.08.2023
ISSUED BY DEPUTY POLICE
SUPERINTENDENT, CHENGANNOOR
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 8/1/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE
