Kerala High Court
Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar vs The University Of Kerala on 10 September, 2025
Author: T.R. Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.( C). No.28246 of 2025
2025:KER:66971
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28246 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PROF. DR. K.S. ANILKUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, REGISTRAR,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034,
RESIDING AT SREE DHANYA APARTMENTS,
PONGUMMOODU, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SHRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. (SR.)
SHRI.ADARSH BABU C.S.
SMT.AHSANA E.
SHRI.ASHIK J. VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
2 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695034
W.P.( C). No.28246 of 2025
2025:KER:66971
2
3 THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034
ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IMPLEADED
ADDL.4 DR. PROF. RADHAMANY P.M.
D/O. P C MADHAVAN, EMIRETUS PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, RESIDING AT 'ZANADU',
VALLATHODU, KARIAVATTOM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
ADDL.5 P.S.GOPAKUMAR,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
RESIDING AT PALAVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, KOLLAM
PIN - 690 521.
[ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
06.08.2025 IN IA.1/2025 AND 3/2025 IN WP(C)
28246/2025]
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SMT.GIRIJA K GOPAL
SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SHRI.P.ANIRUDHAN
SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA
SHRI.M.R.SABU
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
SMT.FATHIMA PARVEEN P.S.
SMT.K.N.VIGY
SMT.SOORYA MARIYA KURIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON 10.09.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.( C). No.28246 of 2025
2025:KER:66971
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.( C). No.28246 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The prayers in this writ petition are to quash Exts.P18, P20,
P22 and P23 and to direct the 2nd respondent not to prevent the
petitioner from discharging his duties as Registrar of the 1 st
respondent University. The petitioner has also sought for a
declaration that Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P23 orders issued by the 2 nd
respondent are without any authority of law, arbitrary, unfair,
unreasonable, discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, illegal, void and non est. The case of the
petitioner is as follows;
2. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar of the
University on 23.02.2021. The term of office was four years.
Pursuant to orders of this Court in W.P.(C).No.6197 of 2025 filed by a
Syndicate member, a meeting of the Syndicate was convened, and
the petitioner was re-appointed as Registrar.
3. On 13.06.2025, the Secretary of Sree Padmanabha Seva
2025:KER:66971
Samithi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samithi') submitted Ext.P2
request to the petitioner to allot the Senate Hall of the University
from 5.00 pm on 25.06.2025 for conducting a Seminar in connection
with the 50th Anniversary of National Emergency in India. This was
followed by Ext.P3 request dated 19.06.2025. According to the
petitioner, on Ext.P3 request, the 2nd respondent endorsed the words
"permitted as per rules".
4. Ext.P4 produced by the petitioner is the copy of the Rules
and Regulations for allotment of the Senate Hall, issued on
16.08.2024. Rule 7 authorises the Registrar to cancel any
reservation without prior notice. On 25.06.2025, according to the
petitioner, at around 4.30 p.m., the Security Officer of the University
submitted Ext.P5 statement alleging that the organisers of the
Samithi had installed some religious emblems on the stage and the
petitioner had directed the Public Relations officer of the University
to inspect and report back. It is stated that the Public Relations
Officer affirmed the allegation and requested to cancel the
permission granted for using the Senate Hall. Ext.P6 is the copy of
the report. It is stated that the petitioner was informed by the
Security Officer and the Police Officials that students belonging to
2025:KER:66971
different students Unions like the Kerala Students Union and the
Students Federation of India were in altercation with students
belonging to Akhila Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad and certain persons
belonging to the RSS and there was a possibility of eruption of
violence. The petitioner was hence requested to go over to the
Senate Hall and take remedial measures. The petitioner states that
he had requested the organisers to remove the photographs of
religious symbols in order to avert any untoward incident and since
the organisers were not willing, he had ordered to cancel the
meeting, on the foot of Ext.P6. It is further stated that the
organisers refused to accept the order and the same was mailed to
them. Copy of the order of cancellation has been produced as
Ext.P7.
5. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P8 Note to the petitioner,
calling for a report on the incident that happened on 25.06.2025.
The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 report. On 02.07.2025, the 2 nd
respondent issued Ext.P10 order, suspending the petitioner from
service, invoking Statute 19 of Chapter 4, Part III of the Kerala
University First Statutes, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Statutes') and Section 10 (13) of the Kerala University Act
2025:KER:66971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner challenged
Ext.P10 in W.P.(C).No.24724 of 2025. When the case came up for
admission on 04.07.2025, this Court directed the Government
Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the University to get
instructions and posted the case on 07.07.2025. According to the
petitioner, the 2nd respondent directed the Registrar in Charge to
convene a Special Meeting of the Syndicate on 06.07.2025 with the
Agenda "Finalise the statement of facts to be filed before the Hon'ble
High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C)No.24724 of 2025". Ext.P12 is the
copy of the notice of the meeting. The meeting commenced on
06.07.2025. The 2nd respondent placed a Note along with the draft
statement of facts to be submitted to the Court. According to the
petitioner, the Syndicate considered the issue regarding suspension
and decided to revoke the suspension. A copy of the alleged
minutes of the meeting containing the resolution to revoke the
suspension has been produced as Ext.P14. It is stated that the
Registrar in Charge on the same day issued an order reinstating the
petitioner in service, revoking Ext.P10 order and relieved the Joint
Registrar who was given charge of the post of the Registrar. Ext.P15
is stated to be the copy of the order. The petitioner claims to have
2025:KER:66971
assumed office on the basis of Ext.P15 and Ext.P16 is alleged to be
the copy of the certificate of transfer of charge.
6. On 07.07.2025, when W.P.(C).No.24724 of 2025 came up
for admission, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the writ petition has become infructuous and requested
permission to withdraw the writ petition. It is stated that the
counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent had submitted that the
order revoking suspension was bad in law. This Court by Ext.P17
judgment dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn observing as
follows:
"Whether the decision of the Syndicate of the University is just,
proper, legal and valid has to be decided by the appropriate
authority/forum. As the said the said decision is not the subject
matter of challenge in this writ petition, this Court would not like
to comment on the functions and powers of the Syndicate. As
the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition, the writ
petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The decision of the Syndicate
shall be considered and adjudicated by the appropriate authority
if the same is challenged before the appropriate authority."
7. On 08.07.2025, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P18 order,
stating that the order of suspension is still in force and directing the
petitioner not to enter the University campus and offices until further
orders. It is stated that the meeting allegedly held on 06.07.2025,
2025:KER:66971
was not convened or authorised by the 2 nd respondent. The
petitioner sent Ext.P19 reply to Ext.P18. This was followed by
another order Ext.P20 dated 09.07.2025, reiterating that the
suspension continues. In reply, the petitioner submitted Ext.P21
representation on 10.07.2025. On the same day, the 2 nd respondent
issued Ext.P22 Note to the effect that all files to be submitted to the
Vice Chancellor, shall be routed only through the Registrar in Charge.
On 29.07.2025, the 2nd respondent issued another notice Ext.P23,
stating that none of the files shall be forwarded to the petitioner.
The writ petition is filed in the above circumstances contending that
the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and
without jurisdiction, and therefore liable to be set aside. It is
contended that the 2nd respondent, being a statutory authority, is
bound to act strictly within the limits of the powers conferred under
the University Statutes, which do not include any authority to
suspend the Registrar. It is further contended that even if such
power is available under Section 10(13) of the Act, such an action
must be placed before the Syndicate at its next meeting for
ratification. It is further contended that once the Syndicate, after
due consideration, decided to revoke Ext.P10 order and directed to
2025:KER:66971
reinstate the petitioner, the 2nd respondent did not have any further
authority.
8. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is
stated that the Chief Guest of the function was His Excellency the
Governor of Kerala and all arrangements as per the protocol were
made well in advance. It is stated that about one hour before the
start of the event, the petitioner had called the 2 nd respondent over
phone and informed that a picture of Bharat Matha is placed on the
stage, in violation of the condition that no religious prayers/speeches
or lectures shall be made in the Senate Hall. The 2 nd respondent
states that after contacting the organisers and getting clarifications,
he had directed the petitioner, not to interfere with the conduct of
the programme, but the petitioner had, on his own, decided to
cancel the permission given to use the Senate Hall and that the
order was attempted to be communicated to the organisers at about
6 p.m, when the Hon'ble Governor was on the stage and National
Anthem was being sung. It was also reported that the petitioner
gave press briefing on the stage itself about cancellation of the
permission granted for the programme. The said incident being one
of serious security lapse, the Raj Bhavan Authorities had called for a
2025:KER:66971
report on the incident as also for a report from the Registrar. Based
on the same, the 2nd respondent had asked for a report from the
Registrar. It is stated that the Registrar had informed about the
receipt of Ext.P5 complaint of the Security Officer and Ext.P6 report
of the Public Relations Officer and had also stated that, based on
legal advice, he had filed a complaint against the organisers for using
the hall without permission.
9. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner did not
show due responsibility in diligently dealing with the situation,
particularly when His Excellency The Governor, who is the Chancellor
of the University as well, was attending the function. It is pointed
out that though the petitioner had sought to justify his action on the
basis of students' agitation, he did not even lodge a complaint
regarding the alleged violent acts of antisocial elements who are said
to have created a commotion, and instead had only lodged a
complaint against the organisers for conducting the meeting without
permission. It is stated that the audacity with which the petitioner
cancelled the permission given to use the Senate hall, after the
meeting commenced and when the Hon'ble Governor was attending
the function cannot be viewed as so innocent an act and that the
2025:KER:66971
University was unnecessarily dragged into a controversy and to
disrepute solely due to the unmindful acts of the petitioner. It is also
pointed out that the e-mail regarding cancellation of the programme
was sent only at 6.36 p.m., when the function was underway. The
2nd respondent submits that the source of power to suspend is
contained in Section 10(13), Chapter 3 of the Kerala University Act,
1974, which authorises him to act, if he is satisfied that an
emergency has arisen requiring him to take immediate action
involving the exercise of powers vested in the Syndicate by or under
the Act. It is stated that the Syndicate ordinarily meets only once in
two months and cannot be expected to manage day-to-day
functions. It is contended that going by Statute 18(1)(a), Chapter 2
of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, the Registrar is the
custodian of records of the University, and hence permitting the
petitioner to continue in the post of Registrar would not only be
inadvisable, but also not in the best interests of the University.
10. According to the 2nd respondent, 16 members of the
Syndicate submitted a representation Ext.R2(f) on 05.07.2025
requesting the Vice Chancellor to convene a 'Special Meeting of the
Syndicate at the earliest' to discuss and finalise the statement of
2025:KER:66971
facts to be filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.
24724/2025 as the Syndicate had been impleaded as the 5 th
respondent in the writ petition. On receipt of the request, Ext.P12
notice of the Special Meeting to consider the agenda mentioned in
Ext.R2(f) was issued by the Registrar in Charge. It is stated that the
Statement of Facts was annexed along with Ext.P13 Note to the
Syndicate and the only purpose of the meeting was to finalise the
same. It is stated that during the meeting, some of the members
created obstructions by raising unnecessary demands to discuss
even matters beyond the purview of the sole Agenda. It is stated
that when discussions extended to the legality of the suspension
order of the petitioner, the Chair had to object, for the following
reasons: (a) sole requisition by Syndicate members as also the
Agenda was only to finalise the statement of facts in WP(C)
No.24724/2025 (b) in the absence of any request or representation
by the suspended officer, who also has the statutory remedy of
appeal against the suspension order under Statute 51 of Chapter 4
Part III of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977, (c) it is not
proper to consider the legality of the suspension order, when the
petitioner has chosen to challenge his suspension before the Hon'ble
2025:KER:66971
High Court and the matter is sub judice, following the rationale of
the prescription regarding conduct of meetings of the Senate
contained in Statute 7(vi), Chapter 5 of the Kerala University First
Statutes, 1977. It is further stated that when the meeting got
disorderly owing to the conduct of some members, who did not even
allow the Chair to speak, the meeting was dissolved at around 1.15
p.m. It is pointed out that Exts.R1(d) and R1(e) will show that the
meeting attended by 23 members. ended at 1.15 p.m. It is stated
that though the Registrar in Charge was directed to leave the venue
and submit the minutes of the meeting, which was dissolved at 1.15
p.m., the same was not done. It is contended that the subsequent
meeting allegedly held at 1.30 p.m., is not a properly convened
meeting and had only 19 participants, which goes to show that it was
also not a continuation of the meeting that concluded at 1.15 p.m.,
and that, any decision taken at such a meeting is not valid in law.
The production of two attendance registers along with the statement
filed by the learned Standing Counsel is, by itself, conclusive of the
indisputable fact that there were two separate meetings, one duly
convened by the Vice Chancellor and the other claimed to have been
conducted by some members of the Syndicate.
2025:KER:66971
11. It is further pointed out that the lack of bonafides is
evident from the fact that even without placing the alleged Ext.P14
resolution before the 2nd respondent for approval, the Registrar in
Charge issued Ext.P15 letter on 06.07.2025, which was a Sunday.
The grave mistakes in Exts.P15 and P16 are also pointed out, which
would make it appear that it is the petitioner who has been relieved
from the post of Registrar. It is also pointed out that Ext.P16 does
not bear any order number by which the transfer of charge was
made and that too in the forenoon of 06.07.2025. The counter
affidavit also states about the events that took place later, after the
visual media contained news about the petitioner assuming charge
on 06.07.2025. It is stated that in spite of direction to submit a
report, the Registrar in Charge who purportedly handed over charge,
went on two days' leave. It is stated that the 2 nd respondent then
submitted a report dated 07.07.2025 to the Hon'ble Chancellor
through e-mail detailing the entire sequence of events. The 2 nd
respondent states that in the place of Registrar in Charge
Mr.P.Harikumar, Ext.R2(i) order was issued appointing Dr.Mini Dejo
Kappen in full additional charge of the post of Registrar. It is pointed
out that the existence of Exts.P15 and P16 is not mentioned in
2025:KER:66971
Ext.R2(j) application. It is also pointed out that Exts.P15 and P16
orders do not find a place in the digital platform in which all the
official records of the University are maintained. The rest of the
averments in the counter affidavit are not really relevant for the
decision in this case and are not extracted.
12. The Standing Counsel for the University has filed a
statement on behalf of the 1st and 3rd respondents. There is
apparent conflict in the contentions raised in the statement filed on
behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 and the counter affidavit filed by
the 2nd respondent. The Standing Counsel submits that he has been
instructed on behalf of the University by the petitioner, in his
capacity as the Registrar. This Court does not think it appropriate to
make any comments about the above state of affairs, where the
Registrar and the Vice Chancellor are at loggerheads, except to opine
that it is unsavoury.
13. The statement largely supports the averments in the writ
petition. Annexure R1(d) produced along with the statement is
stated to be the true copy of the Attendance Register for the Special
Meeting of the Syndicate held on 06.07.2025 which commenced at
11.00 a.m., which would show that 23 persons attended. It is stated
2025:KER:66971
that the suspension proceedings were considered by the members
and a majority of them opined that the suspension should be
withdrawn. It is further stated that the meeting of the Syndicate
continued with 19 members of the Syndicate by electing
Dr.P.M.Radhamany, Member Syndicate as Chair as per the provisions
of the Statute 1(2), Chapter 6 of the Kerala University First Statute
1977 and that the continued special meeting of the Syndicate
commenced at 01.30 p.m. Annexure R1(f) produced along with the
statement is stated to be the attendance register of the meeting
which commenced at 01.30 p.m. It is stated that the decision of the
Syndicate taken at the meeting held from 1.30 p.m. has not been
annulled by any authority till date. It is further stated that the Vice
Chancellor, without considering Exts.P14 and P15 orders, had issued
Exts.P18 and P20 orders directing that Prof. Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar
continues to be under suspension.
14. On the above pleadings and contentions, the following
questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the meeting held by some of the members
of the Syndicate on 06.07.2025 at 01.30 PM after
the meeting was dissolved by the 2nd respondent at
2025:KER:66971
01.15 PM, was in order and whether the decisions
taken at that meeting can be treated as valid
decisions of the Syndicate?
(ii) Whether the Vice Chancellor could have ignored
the decisions taken at the above said second
meeting and ordered continuation of the
suspension of the petitioner?
15. Heard Sri Elvin Peter P.J., Senior Advocate, instructed
by Sri K.R.Ganesh, for the petitioner, Sri Thomas Abraham,
Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 3, Smt.Girija K. Gopal
for the 2nd respondent, Sri P. Ravindran, Senior Advocate,
instructed by Sri M.R.Sabu, for the additional 4 th respondent and
Sri T.C. Krishna, for the additional 5 th respondent. The relevant
statutory provisions relied upon by the Counsel on either side
are extracted below:
Sections 10(8), (9) & (15) and Section 23(x)
Kerala University Act.
"10. The Vice-Chancellor.-
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
(8) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal
academic and executive officer of the
University.
2025:KER:66971
(9) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Chairman
of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic
Council, the Students' Council and the Finance
Committee and shall be entitled to be present
at and to address any meeting of any authority
of the University, but shall not be entitled to
vote thereat unless he is a member of the
authority concerned.
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
(15) The Vice Chancellor shall have power to
convene meetings of the Senate, the
Syndicate, the Academic Council and any other
authorities of the University.
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
23. Powers of Syndicate.- Subject to the provisions of
this Act and the Statutes, the executive powers of the
University including the general superintendence and
control over the institutions of the University shall be
vested in the Syndicate and subject likewise the Syndicate
shall have the following powers, namely:-
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
(x) to suspend, discharge, dismiss or otherwise
take any disciplinary action against teachers
and other employees of the University after
giving them reasonable opportunity to defend
their position;
Statutes 12, 18 & 20 in Chapter 2 of Kerala
University First Statute 1977:
2025:KER:66971
"12. Mode of appointment of the Registrar:-
(1) The Registrar shall be appointed by the Syndicate
on the recommendation of a Selection Committee
consisting of the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman, two
other Syndicate members and one expert to be
nominated by the Syndicate, for a period of one
year in the first instance. He shall be a whole time
salaried officer of the University and be appointed
by a written order. In case his appointment has
been continued for over a period of one year, he
shall be deemed to be on probation for a period of
one year commencing from the date of his
appointment within a continuous period of two
years. The written order of his appointment shall
be lodged with the Vice-Chancellor:
Provided that it shall be competent for the
Syndicate to extend the period of probation for a
period not exceeding one year.
(2) On satisfactory completion of probation, the
incumbent appointed as the Registrar shall be
confirmed by a written order.
(3) If, on the expiry of the prescribed period or
extended period of probation, the Syndicate decides
that the Registrar is not suitable for continuance in
the post to which he has been appointed, it shall
discharge him from service or revert him to his
original appointment, as the case may be, after
giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing
2025:KER:66971
cause against the action proposed to be taken
against him.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1)
to (3) above, the Selection Committee may, in the
interest of the University and for reasons to be
recorded in writing appoint a person as Registrar by
deputation from the State Government service or
Central Government Service on such conditions as
it thinks fit.
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
18. Duties of the Registrar:-
(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar.
(a) to keep in his custody the records, the
common seal and other properties
committed to his charge by the
Syndicate:
(b) to conduct the official correspondence of
the University and be responsible for the
proper maintenance of all the records of
the University:
(c) to issue all notices convening meetings of
the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic
Council, the Faculties, the Boards of
Studies, and any committee appointed by
these Authorities:
(d) to prepare and maintain a record of the
proceedings of the meetings of the
Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic
2025:KER:66971
Council, the Faculties, the Boards of
Studies and any Committee appointed by
these Authorities:
(e) to make arrangements for the conduct of
elections to the various authorities or
bodies of the University under the
direction of the Vice-Chancellor:
(f) to maintain a Register of Graduates, a
Register of Matriculates, a Register of
Donors, a Register of Endowments, a
Register of Registered Graduates and
such other Registers as are or may be
prescribed by the laws of the University,
from time to time:
(g) to manage, under the directions of the
Syndicate, the property and investments
of the University and the University Fund:
(h) to sign contracts and other arrangements
on behalf of the University under the
directions of the Syndicate; and
(i) to perform such other functions as may,
from time to time be prescribed by the
Syndicate.
(2) The Registrar shall be competent to countersign bills
above Rs.1,000 and upto Rs.2,500.
(3) The Registrar, shall, in the execution of his office be
subject to the immediate direction and control of
the Vice-Chancellor and shall carry out his orders
2025:KER:66971
and render such assistance as may be required by
the Vice-Chancellor, in the performance of his
official duties.
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
20. Conditions of Service of the Registrar:- The
Registrar shall be governed as regards leave,
provident fund, pension, insurance, retirement
benefits and disciplinary proceedings by the
Statutes and Ordinances governing the conditions
of service of the non-teaching staff of the
University.
Statutes 19 and 51 of Chapter 4 of the Statute;
19. Suspension:-
(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which
it is subordinate or any other authority empowered
by the Syndicate in that behalf may, at any time,
place a University employee under suspension-
(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against
him is contemplated or is pending; or
(b) Where a case against him in respect of
any Criminal offence is under
investigation or trial; or
(c) Where in the opinion of the authority
aforesaid he has engaged himself in
activities prejudicial to the interests of
the University; or
(d) Where final orders are pending in the
2025:KER:66971
disciplinary proceeding, if the appropriate
authority considers that in the then
prevailing circumstances it is necessary,
in the interests of the University that the
University employee should be suspended
from service of the University.
(2) A University employee shall be deemed to have
been placed under suspension by an order of the
appointing authority;
(a) With effect from the date of his
detention, if he is detained in custody,
whether on a criminal charge or
otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-
eight hours:
(b) With effect from the date of his
conviction, for an offence, if he is
sentenced to a term of imprisonment
exceeding forty-eight hours and is not
forthwith dismissed or removed or
compulsorily retired consequent to such
conviction.
Explanation:- The period of forty eight hours
referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 2 shall
be computed from the commencement
of the imprisonment after the conviction and
for this purpose intermittent period
of suspension, if any, shall be taken into
account.
2025:KER:66971
(3) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed
to have been made under this Statute
shall continue to remain in force until it is
modified or reviewed by the authority
competent to do so.
(b) Where University employee is suspended
or is deemed to have been suspended
(whether in connection with any
disciplinary proceeding or otherwise) and
any other disciplinary proceeding is
commenced against him during the
continuance of that suspension, the
authority competent to place him under
suspension, may, for reasons to be
recorded by him in writing, direct that the
University employee shall continue to be
under suspension until the termination of
all or any of such proceeding.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
51. Appeals against orders of suspension:- A
University employee may appeal against an order of
suspension to the authority to which the authority
which made or is deemed to have made the order is
immediately subordinate.
Statutes 1, 2 and 14 of Chapter 6 of the Statute;
1. Convening of Syndicate meetings:-
(1) The Syndicate shall meet ordinarily once in two
months and as and when required for the conduct
2025:KER:66971
of business of the University, on dates and hours to
be fixed by the Vice-Chancellor.
(2) In the absence of the Vice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-
Chancellor, if any, shall preside over the meeting
and if he is also absent the members present shall
elect one of the members of the Syndicate to
preside at the meeting.
2. Quorum for Syndicate meeting:- Nine members
shall constitute the quorum for a meeting of the Syndicate,
and no business shall be transacted at a meeting at which
there is no quorum.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
14. Standing Committee of the Academic Council:-
The Vice-Chancellor shall appoint a standing Committee
which shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman and
the Deans of Faculties as members. Half the number of
members of the Committee shall be the quorum.
Statute 7(6), 18, 22(12) and 62 of Chapter 5 of the
Statute
7. Admissibility of Resolutions:-
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(vi) It shall not refer to any matter which is under
adjudication by a court of law
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
18. Dissolution of Special Meetings:- in the case of a
special meeting convened on requisition under sub-section
(3) of Section 20, the meeting shall stand dissolved if there
has been no quorum within thirty minutes of the time for
2025:KER:66971
the commencement of the meeting. The fact of such
dissolution shall be recorded by the Registrar after getting
the signature of the members present and the record shall
be signed by the Chairman.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
22. Admissibility of Questions:- No question shall
admitted unless it complies with the following conditions:-
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(xii) It shall not ordinarily ask about matters pending
before any statutory tribunal or statutory authority
performing any judicial or quasi-judicial functions or
any commission or court of enquiry appointed to
enquire into, or investigate any matter but may
refer to matters concerned with procedure or
subject or state of enquiry if it is not likely to
prejudice the consideration of the matter by the
Tribunal or Commission or Court of enquiry.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
62. Motion for Dissolution:- A motion for the
dissolution of a meeting shall be in the form "That
this meeting do now dissolve" and may be made at
any time but not so as to interrupt a speech. If the
Chairman be of the opinion that the motion is an
abuse of the rules of the meeting, he may decline
to state the question thereupon to the meeting. If
the motion be accepted by the Chairman it shall be
put forthwith without amendment on debate. If the
motion be carried, the business still before the
2025:KER:66971
meeting shall drop and the Chairman shall declare
the meeting dissolved."
16. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power of
the Vice Chancellor is limited when it comes to taking disciplinary
action against the Registrar. It is submitted that the power of
appointment and disciplinary action is vested with the Syndicate and
even if a decision is taken by the Vice Chancellor purporting to be in
an emergent situation, the decision along with the necessary
materials which led to the decision has to be placed before the
Syndicate at the very next meeting for consideration of the
Syndicate. It is hence submitted that what is contemplated by the
Statutes is not merely placing the papers before the Syndicate, but
placing the papers "for consideration" by the Syndicate and it was
open to the Syndicate to take such necessary action as is required,
which includes re-calling the order of suspension in the case on
hand. It is hence submitted that once a meeting is properly
convened by the Vice Chancellor, the meeting must be completed
and cannot be called off by the Vice Chancellor in exercise of power
as the Chairman of the Syndicate or of the President of the meeting.
It is also submitted that the Vice Chancellor is bound to carry out the
2025:KER:66971
decisions of the Syndicate. The counsel submits that in view of
Statute 1(2) of Chapter VI, the members present can elect one of
the members of the Syndicate to preside over the meeting and
continue with the meeting, in the "absence of the Vice Chancellor"
and hence the 2nd meeting held at 01.30 PM is fully justified. It is
hence submitted that when the Vice Chancellor refused to complete
the meeting on the ground that additional items cannot be included
in the agenda, it is open for the remaining members to continue with
the meeting and take a decision.
17. In the case on hand, admittedly, all the members who
were present when the meeting was originally convened were not
present during the second meeting. This is evident from the
attendance list which has been produced by the University. As such,
it is not a case where all members of the Syndicate except the Vice
Chancellor were present for the second meeting. A similar provision
which facilitates a meeting being held in the absence of the Vice
Chancellor, contained in the Act and Statutes relating to the APJ
Abdul Kalam Technological University had come up for consideration
before this Court in W.P (C) Nos.3197 & 5548 of 2025 and this
Court held as follows:
2025:KER:66971
"24. It can be seen from the above provisions that
Section 28 is the only provision dealing with
meetings of the Syndicate. The Section says of four
requirements. One is that the Syndicate is to meet as
often(sic) as decided by the Vice Chancellor and at
least once in two months and that too on dates to be
fixed by the Vice Chancellor. The second is that the
quorum for the meeting is Five members. The third is
that the Registrar is to convene the meeting. The
fourth is that the meeting is to be convened on such
date and time as directed by the Vice Chancellor. It
is thus clear from a reading that no meeting of the
Syndicate can happen at the instance of the
individual members and has to be necessarily with
the junction of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar.
25. With the above statutory requirements in mind,
let us see the facts that are admitted in this case. To
begin with, a meeting was properly convened by the
Vice Chancellor and it also commenced. Thereafter,
the meeting was called off by the Vice Chancellor due
to altercations regarding inclusion of an additional
item in the agenda. I shall deal with the correctness
or otherwise of the above action later. What
happened next was that the members of the
Syndicate, proceeded to elect a person from among
themselves to chair a meeting and held a meeting,
treating it as a continuation of the meeting that had
already been convened. There is no provision in the
2025:KER:66971
Act, for holding such a meeting. Such a meeting
cannot be a meeting contemplated by Section 28 of
the Act. It was not convened by the Registrar on
directions of the Vice Chancellor. Admittedly, an
additional item was included in the agenda, which
was not originally there. The mere fact that the
requirement of the quorum was satisfied, it cannot
be held to be a properly convened meeting of the
Syndicate. To hold that such a meeting should be
treated as a properly convened meeting can create
havoc. At any point of time, 5 members which alone
is the quorum required can call a meeting, in the
absence of the Vice Chancellor, and upset any earlier
decision of the Syndicate, taken in a properly
convened meeting. It is to prevent such situations,
that even though the quorum is only one-third of the
total strength of the Syndicate, controls are laid by
requiring that the meeting is to be at the instance of
the Vice Chancellor. Even though the Vice Chancellor
does not hold a post above that of the Syndicate,
going by the scheme of the Act, controls are brought
in to ensure that there is no misuse of the provision.
In case the Vice Chancellor falters in his duty to call
the meeting of the Syndicate, there are sufficient
provisions to approach the Chancellor. Such inbuilt
controls are required to ensure a smooth and
systematic functioning of the University.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
2025:KER:66971
27. The only provision in the First Statutes which is
relied on to submit that the second meeting held
after the meeting was called off by the Vice
Chancellor was a validly held meeting, is Statute 10
of Chapter 3 of the First Statutes, which has been
translated from the vernacular as follows:
"Meetings - (1) For the conduct of
business of the University, Syndicate
meetings shall be convened once in two
months or as and when necessary on such
date and time decided by the Vice
Chancellor.
(2) In the absence of the Vice-Chancellor,
the Pro-Vice-Chancellor or a Member
elected by the members for among those
present shall preside over the meeting.
(3) Subject to Statute 13 of these
Statutes, the Syndicate shall frame the
procedure for conduct of its meetings and
the meetings of its Standing Committees"
28. The petitioners rely on Statute 10(2) and lay
emphasis on the words "in the absence of the Vice-
Chancellor". According to them once the Vice-Chancellor
left after calling off the meeting, it was a situation of
"absence of the Vice-Chancellor" and the remaining
members were free to continue the meeting as if it was
the meeting earlier convened, ignoring the calling off of
2025:KER:66971
the meeting, after electing a person to Chair the meeting.
Firstly, it is not a case where there was absence of the
Vice Chancellor. As already observed, this can lead to
absurdities. Even if the Vice Chancellor was in his office, a
meeting can be held in another room by 5 members of the
Syndicate and call it as a Syndicate meeting, which is not
what is contemplated by law. So also, even if a meeting is
completed and all the business is transacted and wound
up, five persons can still continue with another meeting
and intermeddle with the decisions already taken earlier.
An interpretation of the above said Statute in the manner
suggested by the petitioners, will only lead to serious
mischief. So, even if the First Statutes in vernacular are to
be considered, the situation will not be different and the
second meeting will have to be held as not in accordance
with law."
18. In the above case, there was an additional issue relating
to the authoritative text to be followed by the High Court, since the
Statutes were in vernacular. Unlike the case of the Technical
University, this is a case where there is an authoritative version in
English of the First Statutes. I do not find any reason to deviate
from the view taken in W.P (C) Nos.3197 & 5548 of 2025.
19. The question whether the Vice Chancellor had power to
dissolve a meeting which was properly convened was also considered
in the above case. After referring the judgments of the Hon'ble
2025:KER:66971
Supreme Court in Chandrakant Khaire v. Shantaram Kale,
(1988) 4 SCC 577 and Jayantbhai Manubhai Patel v. Arun
Subodhbhai Mehta, [(1989) 2 SCC 484], and the relevant
passages from Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, this
Court held as follows:
"33. From the law laid down in the above two judgments,
it is clear that the law envisages a situation where a
meeting that had been properly convened can be
adjourned by the Chairperson in certain situations. The
Apex Court has also stated as to how the law in the case
of meetings which are convened under the provisions of a
Statute are different from the law relating to companies,
where the parties are governed by their contract
contained in the Memorandum of Association. In
Jayantbhai Manubhai Patel (supra), the Court has
held that the Mayor had power even to call off a meeting
which was properly convened, before it commenced, for
bona fide reasons. The law is thus clear that in case of
statutory meetings, the person who convenes the meeting
had power to call off the meeting even before it
commenced or to call off a meeting which had already
commenced, in certain situations. Hence, such a power
has to be conceded in favour of the Vice Chancellor in the
case on hand."
20. Even though I find that the second meeting was not in
accordance with law and the decision taken cannot be treated as a
2025:KER:66971
decision of the Syndicate, this Court expresses its deep concern
regarding the manner in which the authorities of the University and
the officers of the University are functioning. As observed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh
[(2005) 5 SCC 420], "He indeed must be blind who does not see
that, mighty as are the political changes, far deeper are the
fundamental questions which will be decided by what happens in the
universities. Everything is being brought to the test of reason,
venerable theologies, ancient political institutions, time-honoured
social arrangements, a thousand things which a generation ago
looked as fixed as the hills. If India is to confront the confusion of
our time, she must turn for guidance, not to those who are lost in
the mere exigencies of the passing hour, but to her men of letters,
and men of science, to her poets and artists, to her discoverers and
inventors. These intellectual pioneers of civilisation are to be found
and trained in the universities, which are the sanctuaries of the inner
life of the nation."
21. The University is supposed to be the guardian of the
Higher Education System and its functioning cannot be derailed by
political or other considerations and should be guided only by
2025:KER:66971
academic considerations. The understanding of the Vice Chancellor
regarding the scope of placing the issue regarding suspension before
the Syndicate cannot be said to be correct. The agenda for the
meeting was finalisation of the statement of facts to be placed before
the Court in a pending writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging
the suspension. It is evident from the records that the meeting was
convened on the request of some Syndicate members and the
purpose stated in the request was also for finalisation of the
statement of facts. The agenda was not regarding the requirement
of continuing the suspension. The Vice Chancellor's justification is on
the above premise. But what the Vice Chancellor missed is the fact
that it was open for the Syndicate to have decided not to continue
with the suspension which had been ordered by the Vice Chancellor
and the University could have placed such a decision before the
Court, which was considering the issue of correctness of suspension
and there was not even a necessity to file a counter affidavit. It is
not necessary that every writ petition filed before this Court should
be countered by the respondent and it is always open for the
respondent to admit the case of the petitioner and end the
controversy. Viewed from that angle, the Vice Chancellor could have
2025:KER:66971
exercised his power to have an additional agenda and continued with
the meeting. However, it is not for this Court to go into the
correctness of the decision of the Vice Chancellor, since this Court is
not fully aware with the physical situation which was prevalent
during the meeting which had led to dissolution of the meeting.
Having said that, it was also not open to the members of the
Syndicate to convene a second meeting under the guise that they
are supported by Statute 1(2) of Chapter VI and take decisions, as
already observed in the judgment in W.P (C)Nos.3197 & 5548 of
2025. This can lead to several mischievous situations. Section 21 of
the Act, which deals with the constitution of the Syndicate read along
with Statute 2 of Chapter VI would show that the quorum for a
meeting is only about one third of the total members. The same
mischief which was pointed out in the judgment in W.P (C) Nos.3197
& 5548 of 2025 is a possibility in this University also.
In view of the above findings regarding the correctness of the
second meeting held, it is not necessary to probe further. The
challenge against the suspension hence fails and the prayers
regarding the same are rejected. The writ petition is disposed of
directing the 2nd respondent to convene a meeting of the Syndicate
2025:KER:66971
through the Registrar in Charge to consider whether the suspension
should be continued and the Syndicate may decide accordingly. The
decision taken by the Syndicate will necessarily be binding on the
Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor will have to give effect to it,
subject to the powers of the Chancellor.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
Pn
2025:KER:66971
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28246/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2025 IN
W.P.(C) NO. 6197/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13.06.2025
GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY OF SREE PADMANABHA
SEVA SAMITI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.06.2025 GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY OF SREE
PADMANABHA SEVA SAMITI SEEKING FOR
PERMISSION TO CONDUCT THE SEMINAR IN THE
SENATE HALL OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
THE ALLOTMENT OF SENATE HALL ISSUED AS PER
ORDER DATED 16.08.2024.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED
BY THE SECURITY OFFICER OF THE UNIVERSITY
DATED 25.06.2025 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.06.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 27.06.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER CALLING FOR A REPORT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28.06.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
VC/PROCEEDINGS/01/2025 DATED 02.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUSPENDING THE
PETITIONER FROM SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 06.07.2025 ALONG
WITH DRAFT COUNTER AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
2025:KER:66971
THE SYNDICATE DATED 06.07.2025.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REINSTATING THE
PETITIONER IN SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER OF
THE PETITIONER TAKING CHARGE OF THE
REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY ON THE BASIS OF
EXT.P14 ORDER.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2025
IN W.P.(C) NO. 24724/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING THAT
THE PETITIONER SHALL NOT ENTER THE
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 09.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.07.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 10.07.2025 SENT
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ALL THE SUPERIOR
OFFICER OF THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. VC/UOK/5/2025
DATED 29.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DIRECTING THAT NONE OF THE FILES
SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.2.2018
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE
U.O.NO.AD.AI/2/16791/REGISTRAR/2021 DATED
03/03/2021
ANNEXURE R1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE U.O.NO.AD
AI/1661/2025/UOK DATED 22/02/2025
ANNEXURE R1(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.36311/PRO/2025/UOK DATED 20/6/2025 SENT
TO THE SECRETARY, SREE PADMANABHA SEVA
SAMIDHI
2025:KER:66971
ANNEXURE R1(D) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR
THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON
6/7/2025 WHICH COMMENCED AT 11 A.M.
ANNEXURE R1(E) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL
MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE HELD ON 6/7/2025
APPROVED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND ISSUED
VIA E-MAIL DATED 29/7/2025
ANNEXURE R1(F) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER FOR
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE OF 6/7/2025
WHICH COMMENCED AT 1.30 P.M.
EXHIBIT R 2 [ A ] A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED
23.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF SRI
PADMANABHA SEVA SAMITHI BOOKING THE
UNIVERSITY SENATE HALL AS PER THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA ALONG
WITH THE STIPULATIONS TO BE FOLLOWED
EXHIBIT R 2 [ B ] A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
27.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF
SRI. PADMANABHA SEVA SAMITHI TO THE DEPONENT
EXHIBIT R 2 [ C ] A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
30.05.2026(SIC) GIVEN BY THE SECURITY
OFFICER OF THE UNIVERSITY TO THE VICE
CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ D ] A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
30.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY DR.AJITHA S.,
PRO(I/C) TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ E ] A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
30.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE SECTION OFFICER
TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ F ] A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY 16 SYNDICATE MEMBERS BEFORE THE VICE
CHANCELLOR WITH THE REQUISITION TO CONVENE
THE MEETING OF THE SYNDICATE URGENTLY TO
DISCUSS AND FINALIZE THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
TO BE FILED IN WP(C) NO. 24724 /2025 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXHIBIT R 2 [ G ] A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SOUGHT BY VICE
CHANCELLOR AN IMMEDIATE REPORT FROM THE THEN
REGISTRAR -IN -CHARGE AS PER E-MAIL
COMMUNICATION DATED 06.07.2025 AT 10.08 P.M.
EXHIBIT R 2 [ H ] A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE MAIL
DATED 07.07.2025 ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE
2025:KER:66971
REPORT DATED 07.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
VICE CHANCELLOR TO THE CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ I ] A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE TO THE REGISTRAR (IN
CHARGE) DATED 07.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE VICE
CHANCELLOR PLACING DR.MINI DEJO KAPPEN IN
FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE POST OF
REGISTRAR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ J ] A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN W.P.(C)
NO. 24724 OF 2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT R 2 [ K ] A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA
UNIVERSITY STAFF ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE VICE
CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ L ] A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL
SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY STAFF
UNION BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ M ] A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 01.08.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES
SANGH TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR
EXHIBIT R 2 [ N ] A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF WHICH ALONG
WITH THE ATTACHMENT
EXHIBIT R 2 [ O ] A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE E-MAIL
COMMUNICATION DATED 03.08.2025 FORWARDED
FROM THE LEGAL SECTION OF THE UNIVERSITY TO
THE STANDING COUNSEL
EXHIBIT R 2 [ P ] A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
FORWARDED FROM THE LEGAL SECTION OF THE
UNIVERSITY TO THE STANDING COUNSEL ALONG
WITH EXHIBIT R2(O) COMMUNICATION
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
06.07.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
THE HON'BLE CHANCELLOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY
