Kerala High Court
Prof. (Dr) N.K. Babu vs The Central University Of Kerala, ... on 22 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21649 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
PROF. (DR) N.K. BABU
AGED 57 YEARS
DEVANANDANAM, P.O: MELEPATTAMBI, DIST: PALAKKAD, PIN -
679306
BY ADVS.
T.SANJAY
SANIL KUMAR G.
MIDHUN R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR
TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE (PO), KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN -
671316
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE (PO), KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN -
671316
3 3. THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE
(PO), KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671316
4 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN
- 110001
5 STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY)
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPT, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT
2025:KER:34715
WP(C)No.21649 of 2023 2
ANNEX BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 DR. MURALIDHARAN NAMBIAR
REGISTRAR, THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, ,
TEJASWINI HILLS, PERIYE (PO), KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN -
671316
7 UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, (REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN). (UGC)
BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110002
BY ADVS.
S M PRASANTH
S. P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
S. KRISHNAMOORTHY S
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)(R-245)
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI(K/962/1992)
N.SANTHA(S-176)
V.VARGHESE(K/514/1996)
PETER JOSE CHRISTO(K/1216/2004)
S.A.ANAND(K/1216/2006)
K.N.REMYA(K/712/2010)
L.ANNAPOORNA(K/952/2013)
VISHNU V.K.(K/001396/2018)
ABHIRAMI K. UDAY(K/001426/2018)
HEMANTH HARI(K/1165/2019)
JACOB SHALU K.S.(K/2808/2023)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.05.2025,THE COURT ON 22.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:34715
WP(C)No.21649 of 2023 3
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner
challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1 st respondent-
University by which the 6th respondent was appointed as the
Registrar. The reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ
petition are as follows:
"i. To declare that the appointment of the 6 th respondent as
Registrar of the Central University, Kerala is illegal, arbitrary and
in contravention of the Central University Act, 2009, Rule 22 (q)
(ii) of the Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non- teaching staff;
ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for
selection to the post of Registrar of the Central University, Kerala;
iii. To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate Writ,
Order or Direction calling upon the 6th respondent to show under
what authority he is holding the post of Registrar of the Central
University of Kerala;
iv. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
direction quashing Exhibit. P.5 order appointing the 6th respondent
as the Registrar of the Central University of Kerala;
v. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
direction quashing the decision taken in Ext. P.4 minutes to
abandon Rule 22 q(ii) as well as Clause 15 of Ext. P. 1 notification
to appoint the 6th respondent as Registrar of the Central
University of Kerala;
vi) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass
appropriate orders on Ext. P.7 representation in the light of Clause
22 q (ii) of the Cadre Recruitment Rules for Non teaching staff of
the Central University after affording an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner;
vii. To issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The 1st respondent-University published Ext.P1 Notification on
2025:KER:34715
16.02.2021, inviting applications from the qualified candidates for
being appointed as the Registrar. As part of the selection process,
the University constituted a Scrutiny Committee to shortlist the
eligible candidates. Accordingly, a list of 24 candidates were
shortlisted by the Committee and in the interview followed, 21
candidates appeared. Exhibit P2 is the short list prepared by the
University in this regard. After completing the selection process,
the 3rd respondent Executive Committee resolved to appoint one Dr.
Santhosh Kumar N. as the Registrar, as per Ext.P3 order.
Accordingly, he was appointed as the Registrar with effect from
08.10.2021 for a term of 5 years or till he attains the age of 62
years, whichever is earlier.
3. Later, Dr.Santhosh Kumar N. issued a 90-day prior
notice to the University, intimating his intention to resign from the
post of Registrar. The said notice was issued on 01.04.2022. Acting
upon the same, the Executive Council, the 3rd respondent herein,
accepted the resignation of Dr. Santhosh Kumar N. Later, the
Executive Council resolved to appoint the 6 th respondent herein,
who was the next person in the select list, for the residual period of
the outgoing Registrar or till he attains the age of 62 years,
whichever is earlier. Exhibit P4 is the minutes of the meeting of the
2025:KER:34715
Executive Council of the 1st respondent-University dated
30.06.2022, wherein the aforesaid decision was taken. Exhibit P5 is
the appointment letter issued to the 6th respondent herein. The
petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P4 and P5, mainly on the reason
that, according to him, Clause 15 of the General Instructions of
Ext.P1 Notification itself contemplates that, if a candidate joins the
post and subsequently resigns or relinquishes the office due to
whatever reasons, the post shall be re-advertised and under such
circumstances, the panel shall stand invalid. The petitioner also
places reliance upon Clause 22(q)(ii) of the Central University Cadre
Recruitment Rule For Non-teaching Staff, which contains a similar
clause to that of Clause 15 of Exhibit P1. Thus, it is the case of the
petitioner that, by virtue of the aforesaid stipulations, it was not
open to the 1st and 3rd respondents to appoint the 6th respondent,
even though he was ranked as serial No.2 in the select list, as the
requirement was to re-advertise the post for filling up the vacancy
and not to appoint a person who is already included in the select
list.
4. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a preliminary
objection was raised by way of a counter affidavit, wherein the
locus standi of the petitioner was seriously objected. It was
2025:KER:34715
contended that, this writ petition is in the form of a Public Interest
Litigation which is not permissible in a service matter. As regards
the reliefs sought by way of writ of quo-warranto, it was contended
that the same is not maintainable in this case in view of the fact
that, the 6th respondent was appointed by way of selection
procedure based on Ext.P1 and the petitioner does not challenge
Ext.P1 notification or the preparation of select list based on Ext.P1.
Besides, it was contended that, all the parties in the select list were
not impleaded as the respondents in this writ petition and therefore
writ petition has to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary
parties. That apart, the delay in approaching the court was also
highlighted. While highlighting the lack of locus standi of the
petitioner, it was also averred in the preliminary objection that,
absolutely no description has been mentioned in the writ petition as
to the qualification of the petitioner which makes him eligible to
claim the post of Registrar.
5. The 6th respondent, the person who was appointed
as the Registrar, has also filed a detailed counter affidavit adopting
the preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent and also
disputing the averments contained in the writ petition. It was
contended that, reliance placed on Ext.P6 cannot be accepted in
2025:KER:34715
view of the fact that, Ext.P6 Recruitment Rules cannot be made
applicable to the post of Registrar, as according to the 6 th
respondent, as far as the post of Registrar is concerned, it is the
post of an Officer of the University as contemplated under Section 9
of the Central Universities Act, 2009. Section 14(i) of the Act
contemplates that the Registrar shall be appointed in such manner,
on such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed by the statute.
As far as Ext.P6 Cadre Recruitment Rule of Central University of
Kerala is concerned, the same is applicable only in respect of the
employees of the University and not to the officers of the University
including the post of the Registrar. Besides, the 6 th respondent
highlighted the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in
approaching this Court and it was pointed out that the 6th
respondent took charge as the Registrar based on Exts.P4 and P5
on 6.7.2022. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 representation before the
various authorities against the appointment of 6th respondent only
on 10.05.2023 and the present Writ Petition was filed only on
3.7.2023. Thus, it was pointed out that there was a long delay in
filing the writ petition, which was not properly explained in the writ
petition. It was pointed out that, even though it was averred in the
writ petition that, the delay occurred due to the time taken for
2025:KER:34715
collecting the details of the appointment by invoking the provisions
of Right to Information Act, nothing is mentioned in the writ petition
about the details of the applications submitted by him under the
Right to Information Act, including the date on which such
applications were filed and the date on which the details were
furnished to him. Therefore, the 6th respondent sought the
dismissal of the Writ petition. The 7 th respondent, the UGC, filed
counter affidavit stating that, they are not necessary parties to the
writ petition as the dispute in the writ petition pertains to the
internal affairs of the University for which UGC does not have any
role to play.
6. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the preliminary
objections raised by the 1st respondent and also to the counter
affidavit filed by the 6th respondent reiterating the contentions
raised by him in the writ petition. The details of the qualifications
of the petitioner were also highlighted in the reply affidavit.
7. Heard Sri. T. Sanjay, the learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents 1 to 3, Sri. V. Varghese, the learned counsel appearing
for the 6th respondent and Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned
counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.
2025:KER:34715
8. The first question that arises for consideration is
whether the relief for issuance of a writ of quo warranto is to be
considered or not. The respondents seriously disputed the
maintainability of the said prayer. On the other hand, the specific
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that,
as the appointment of the 6 th respondent is against the statutory
stipulations contained in the Cadre Recruitment Rule for the Central
University of Kerala, the 6th respondent is holding the post without
any legal authority. Therefore, this is a fit case in which the writ of
quo warranto can be issued. To substantiate his contentions, the
learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal
v. Anindya Sundar Das and Others [2022(5) KLT OnLine
1159).
9. On the other hand, the specific contention raised
by the respective counsels appearing for the respondents is that,
no valid grounds for considering the issuance of a writ of quo
warranto exist in this case. It was pointed out that, as far as the
appointment of the 6th respondent is concerned, admittedly, he was
subjected to a selection process on the basis of public notification
as evidenced by Ext.P1 and in the writ petition, there is no
2025:KER:34715
challenge against the said notification and the selection process
conducted based on the same. It was also pointed out that, the
petitioner also does not have a case that, the 6 th respondent does
not have the necessary qualifications fixed for the post of Registrar
even though, he claims that, the petitioner has superior
qualifications.
10. When coming to the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anindya Sundar Das's case (supra), it
is clearly observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, when the
appointment was not made in accordance with law, the writ of quo
warranto can be issued. Therefore, the question that arises here is
as to whether there exists the circumstances that are required to
invoke the power of this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a writ of quo warranto as observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In order to issue a writ of quo warranto, the basic
requirement is to conduct an enquiry as to whether the person
concerned, is holding a public office without any right or authority
by usurping the said office. Here, in this case, there is no doubt
that the post which is the subject matter of the dispute is a public
office and therefore the limited question is whether the 6th
respondent usurped the office without any authority or any legal
2025:KER:34715
claim to it. In this regard, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that,
admittedly, the 6th respondent had undergone a selection process
recognized by law as evidenced by Ext.P1. The petitioner does not
have any grievance with respect to the issuance of Ext.P1 and he
does not have a case that, Ext.P1 suffers from any legal infirmity.
Similarly, the petitioner also does not have a case that, the
selection based on Ext.P1 by which the 6 th respondent was included
as serial No.2 suffers from any illegality. Moreover, the petitioner
does not have a case that the 6th respondent lacks the essential
qualifications to be appointed as Registrar of the 1st respondent-
University. Therefore, it is evident that the 6 th respondent is a
person duly qualified to be appointed as the Registrar of the 1st
respondent-University subject to the relative merits of the
candidates who participated in the selection process. Since the
selection process itself is indisputably conducted in a proper
manner, the inclusion of the 6th respondent in the selection list also
cannot be treated as illegal. Therefore, to that extent, the 6th
respondent cannot be treated as an usurper of a public office so
as to warrant the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
11. Therefore, the scope of consideration of the
contentions of the petitioner is confined to the procedure adopted
2025:KER:34715
by the respondents 1 to 3, while making the said appointment. As I
have already found that, the 6th respondent cannot be treated as an
usurper to a public office, there is no scope for issuance of quo
warranto, the scope of consideration of the illegality in making the
appointment, is confined to the scope of writ of Certiorari or other
incidental reliefs.
12. When coming to the issuance of a writ of Certiorari,
the objection raised by the respondents with regard to the locus
standi of the petitioner and also the delay on the part of the
petitioner in approaching this Court become relevant. As rightly
pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the University, in the
writ petition, there is no averment regarding the qualifications of
the petitioner and no documents were produced to show the same.
13. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was
not a party to the selection process conducted on the basis of
Ext.P1. The only averment in the writ petition is that, had a proper
selection been conducted after advertising the post consequent to
the resignation of the original appointee, the petitioner could have
submitted an application for being appointed. While considering this
question, the delay in approaching this court by submitting this writ
petition is very crucial. As pointed out by the 6 th respondent, even
2025:KER:34715
though the appointment of the said respondent was on 4.7.2022,
the first response from the petitioner in the form of a
representation, which is Ext.P7, was submitted only on 10.05.2023.
The writ petition was filed only on 3.7.2023. Even though, it was
averred in the writ petition that, the delay occurred in view of the
fact that, the petitioner took some time to collect the details
regarding the appointment of the 6th respondent by invoking the
provisions under the Right to Information Act, absolutely no details
of such applications are furnished, either in the writ petition or in
the reply affidavits filed. The decisive factor in condonation of delay
is not the length of delay, but the sufficiency of a satisfactory
explanation, as observed by the Supreme Court in Perumon
Bhagavathy Devaswom Vs. Bhargavi Amma, 2008 (8) SCC
321 . In the absence of any such details, i.e., the dates on which
such applications were filed, the date on which the necessary
information were furnished to the petitioner, it can only be
concluded that the petitioner failed to explain the delay in filing the
writ petition. In Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Another v. G.
Jayarama Reddy and Others, [(2011) 10 SCC 608], the Apex
Court has categorically held (para.26) that:
"Although the Framers of the Constitution have not prescribed
2025:KER:34715
any period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and the power conferred upon the High
Court to issue to any person or authority including any
Government, directions, orders or writs including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari is not hedged with any condition or constraint, in
the last 61 years the superior courts have evolved several rules
of self-imposed restraint including the one that the High Court
may not enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to
the petitioner if he is found guilty of laches. The principle
underlying this rule is that the one who is not vigilant and does
not seek intervention of the Court within reasonable time from
the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the
constitutional, legal or other right is not entitled to relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution. Another reason for the High
Court's refusal to entertain belated claim is that during the
intervening period rights of third parties may have crystallised
and it will be inequitable to disturb those rights at the instance
of a person who has approached the Court after long lapse of
time and there is no cogent explanation for the delay. We may
hasten to add that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and
no straightjacket formula can be evolved for deciding the
question of delay/laches and each case has to be decided on its
own facts."
14. In Narayani Debi Khaitan v. State of Bihar and Others,
[1964 SCC OnLine SC 1], wherein the Supreme Court held (para
8 ) that:
" It is well-settled under Art. 226, the power of the High Court
to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary. There can be no
doubt that if a citizen moves the High Court under Art. 226 and
contends that his fundamental rights have been contravened by
any executive action, the High Court would naturally like to give
relief to him; but even in such a case, if the petitioner has been
guilty of laches, and there are other relevant circumstances
which indicate that it would be inappropriate for the High Court
to exercise its high prerogative jurisdiction in favour of the
petitioner, ends of justice may require that the High Court
should refuse to issue a writ. There can be little doubt that if it
is shown that a party moving the High Court under Art. 226 for
a writ is, in substance, claiming a relief which under the law of
limitation was barred at the time when the writ petition was
filed, the High Court would refuse to grant any relief in its writ
jurisdiction. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when
the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in
favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is
2025:KER:34715
otherwise guilty of laches. That is a matter which must be left
to the discretion of the High Court and, like all matters left to
the discretion of the Court, in this matter too discretion must be
exercised judiciously and reasonably.".
15. Thus, when the facts of this case is considered in the
light of the above principles, this court finds that the delay is very
crucial. This is in view of the fact that, if the petitioner was
interested in getting an appointment as Registrar, he would have
taken necessary steps for challenging the appointment of the 6 th
respondent immediately after the same. Now the 6 th respondent
had already taken charge on the basis of Exts.P4 and P5 and he is
still holding the said post.
16. Yet another aspect to be noticed in this regard is that,
once it is found that this is not a fit case in which a writ of quo
warranto can be issued, it is to be considered whether the petitioner
has any private interest in it or not. As observed above, since the
petitioner did not give any description of his qualifications to hold
the post of Registrar in the writ petition, it cannot be concluded that
the petitioner has any private interest in it. Therefore, it can only be
treated as Public Interest Litigation which cannot be invoked in a
dispute relating to service matters, as consistently held by the Apex
Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu vs. Jitendra Kumar, (1998) 7 SCC
2025:KER:34715
273;Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2005) 1 SCC 590; Neetu Vs. State of Punjab, (2007) 10 SCC
614; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465; Madan Lal Vs. High Court of
J&K ,2014 (15) SCC 308 and Vishal Ashok Thorat and others
vs. Rajesh Shripambapu and others, (2020) 18 SCC 675.
Evidently, the matter involves appointment of the 1st respondent,
which is a matter relating to service of a Government servant and
therefore unless the petitioner is able to establish that the
petitioner was denied his right to be appointed as Registrar, despite
being part of the selection process or being eligible to be appointed,
the same can only be treated as a Public Interest Litigation which is
not entertainable in a dispute in a service matter. Therefore, on
that reason also, the challenge raised by the petitioner has to fail,
since the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the
same. In other words, the contentions of the petitioner are to be
rejected for lack of locus standi and also on account of the delay or
lapses on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his rights.
17. Even though, this Court finds that, the writ petition
is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, it is only
proper that, the issue raised by the petitioner be answered on
2025:KER:34715
merits as well, for completeness. The main contention of the
petitioner is that, the appointment of the 6th respondent is against
the stipulations contained in the Cadre Recruitment Rule for Non
Teaching Staff for the Central University of Kerala, the copy of
which is produced as Ext.P6 (incomplete copy). The learned counsel
for the University has made available the full set of the recruitment
rules referred to above. The specific contention raised by the
respondent is that the recruitment rules referred to above are not
applicable to the post of Registrar, as according to them, the same
is applicable only to non-teaching staff, which cannot be applicable
in the post of Registrar. The said contention is based on the
provisions contained under section 9 of the Central Universities Act,
2009. The said provision provides the details of the "Officer of the
University and the post of Registrar is serial No.5 therein". Section
14(i) specifically contemplates that the Registrar shall be appointed
in such a manner and on such terms and conditions of service, as
may be prescribed by the statutes. When going through Ext.P6
Recruitment Rules, it can be seen that, the same was formulated by
invoking the powers under Section 26(d) of the Central University
Act, 2020. As far as Section 26(d) of the Act is concerned, it
provides for appointment of teachers, academic staff and other
2025:KER:34715
employees of the University and their emoluments and conditions of
service. As far as the officers of the University are concerned, what
is relevant is Section 26(c), which deals with the appointment,
powers and duties of the office staff of the University and their
emoluments. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondent, Ext.P6 cannot be made applicable to
the case of the petitioner.
18. Of course, it is true that, Ext.P1 notification
specifically contemplated that a select list shall be prepared after a
selection process and if the original appointee resigned from the
post after accepting the same, it has to be readvertised, to fill up of
the post and in that event, the panel will become invalid. However,
it is evident from Ext.P5 that, this clause was specifically taken into
account by the 3rd respondent-Committee while taking a decision as
to whether the 6th respondent who was the serial No.2 in the select
list has to be appointed or not. After consciously considering the
same, they have taken a decision to appoint the 6 th respondent by
following an O.M. issued by the Government of India on
13.06.2000, a copy of which is on record as Ext.R6(i).
19. In Exhibit P6(i), the Government of India, taking into
account the recommendations made by the 5 th Central Pay
2025:KER:34715
Commission, stipulated that, with a view to reduce the delay in
filling up of the post resulting from resignation of the incumbent
within one year of his appointment, it can be filled up immediately
by the candidates from the reserved panel. It was also stipulated
that such a vacancy should not be treated as a fresh vacancy.
Therefore, the 3rd respondent, while taking a decision to appoint the
6th respondent, simply followed the Office Memorandum referred to
above, which itself is based on the recommendations of the 5 th
Central Pay Commission. In such circumstances, the appointment
of the 6th respondent cannot be treated as illegal in view of the fact
that, the same was made by following the guidelines issued by the
Government of India in this regard. Even though the same was not
strictly applicable to the University, in the matter of appointment
under the same, nothing would preclude the University from
following the guidelines therein and merely because the University
followed the same, it cannot be termed as illegal. This is particularly
because, as far as the filling up of the post of Registrar is
concerned, this Court has already held that, Ext.P6 Rules cannot be
made applicable. Therefore, it was open to the University to adopt
the guidelines formulated by the Government in this regard which
was intended to avoid any delay in making the appointments.
2025:KER:34715
20. As far as the post of Registrar is concerned, it is
very crucial for the University and any delay in making the
appointment could be very fatal to the University and the affairs
relating to the same. Therefore, in the absence of any specific
prohibition in adopting the said Guidelines referred to above, the
act of the University in issuing Exhibits P4 and P5 by appointing the
6th respondent cannot be termed as illegal.
21. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, the clauses in Ext.P1, by
itself will not grant any right to the petitioner herein to challenge
the appointment of the 6th respondent for various reasons. First of
all, the petitioner did not participate in the selection process as per
Ext.P1. Secondly, this Court has already held that the petitioner
does not have any legal right to challenge the same. Thirdly,
Ext.R6(i) guidelines formulated by the Government authorise the
authority concerned to fill up the post if it becomes vacant within
one year from the date of filling up of the vacancy due to death or
other reasons. In this case, the original appointee took charge on
8.10.2021 and he submitted 90 days prior notice on 1.4.2022
conveying his intention to resign from the said post with effect from
01.07.2022. Thus, the resignation was before completion of one
2025:KER:34715
year, and therefore nothing precluded the University from filling up
the post by appointing the 6 th respondent, who was serial No.2 in
the selection list prepared based on Ext.P1 notification.
In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reasons
to interfere with Exts.P4 and P5 orders and accordingly this writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
pkk
2025:KER:34715
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21649/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
16.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST DATED 09.09.2021 OF
ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES SHORTLISTED BY THE
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE TO THE POST OF REGISTRAR
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT
LETTER DATED 08.10.2021, SENT TO DR.
SANTOSH KUMAR
EXHIBIT4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 56TH
MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA HELD ON
30.06.2022
EXHIBIT5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.07.2022
OFFERING THE 6TH RESPONDENT APPOINTMENT AS
REGISTRAR OF THE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, KERALA
EXHIBIT6 TRUE COPY OF THE CADRE RECRUITMENT RULES
FOR NON-TEACHING STAFF OF THE CENTRAL
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
EXHIBIT7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPTS
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
SELECTION COMMITTEE MEETING FOR THE POST OF
REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 31.07.1989
ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF MARK LIST/MEMORANDUM NO.113
WITH REGISTER NO.2390 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
2025:KER:34715
EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF MARK LIST/MEMORANDUM NO.080
WITH REGISTER NO.2162 ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF M.PHIL DEGREE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA IN
APRIL, 2002.
EXHIBIT R6(F) TRUE COPY OF PH.D DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA ON 31.08.2009
EXHIBIT R6(G) TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED
14.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF NEHRU
ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE, KANHANGAD
EXHIBIT R6(H) TRUE COPY OF EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
NO.CUK/NT/PF-86/MNM/2017(PT) DATED
23.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT R6(I) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.41019/18/97- ESTT(B) DATED 13.06.2000 OF
THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF
PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA.
EXHIBIT R6(J) TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF MY ONLINE
APPLICATION (WITHOUT ITS ENCLOSURES)
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.10.2023,
RECEIVED AS PER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
