HARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a Research scholar in Mass Communication, Department of Communication and Journalism, University of Kerala. Petitioner challenges the appointment of third respondent J.V. Vilanilam as Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University. Petitioner has prayed for several reliefs in the Original Petition, the main relief being to issue a writ of quo-warranto. In the alternative, the petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the 5th respondent, the Chancellor of the University of Kerala to take action against the third respondent under S.7(9) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. Another prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records leading to the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Vice-Chancellor and quash the same.

(2.) Brief facts necessary to consider the case are as follows: The 3rd respondent was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kerala by the 5th respondent, the Chancellor, by virtue of the powers conferred on him under S.10 of the Kerala University Act. The Chancellor appointed a Committee and the Committee suggested the name of 3rd respondent. The Committee consists of three members, one elected by the Senate and another nominated by the Chairman of University Grants Commission and the third member nominated by the Chancellor. No academic qualification as such is prescribed for the post of Vice-Chancellor. Under S.10(5), it is made clear that no person who is more than 60 years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor and as per S.6 the Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of 4 years from the date on which he enters upon the office. The petitioner contends that the third respondent was not competent to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor as he had committed grave misconduct and submitted false information to the Committee.

(3.) I shall first consider the prayer of writ of quo-warranto sought for by the petitioner. Quo-warranto was originally a prerogative writ which the Crown could use to inquire into the title to any office or franchise claimed by a subject. It fell out of use in the 16th Century and was replaced by the information in the nature of quo-warranto, which in form was a criminal proceeding instituted in the name of Crown by the Attorney General or by a private prosecutor. In England this prerogative writ was statutorily abolished by the Supreme Court Act, 1981. Now that relief is available in the form of an injunction. Unlike other prerogative writs, the issue of writ in the nature of quo-warranto is purely discretionary. His Lordship Justice Gajendragadkar as he then was in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao ( AIR 1965 SC 491 ) while speaking for the Constitution Bench explained the content and scope of writ of quo-warranto in the following terms: