PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH Vs. CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 26975 of 2021 challenging the judgment of the learned Single dtd. 15/12/2021 dismissing the writ petition by declining the following reliefs:

(2.) Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto calling upon the 4th respondent to explain under what authority the 4th respondent is holding the office as the Vice Chancellor of the 3rd respondent University in violation of the statutory mandate; 2. The question to be decided in this case arises under Sec. 10 of the Kannur University Act, 1996 ('Act, 1996' for short) dealing with the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, and the consequential re-appointment. In the case on hand, as per Ext. P5 order, the 4th respondent is re-appointed to the post of Vice Chancellor.

(3.) The learned single Judge found that the re-appointment of the existing Vice Chancellor namely Dr. Gopinath Ravindran, is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1996 and therefore, there is no requirement for issuing any writ of quo warranto. Before we proceed to discuss the rival factual and legal contentions, a brief narration of the facts leading to the writ petition is required.