The Kerala High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the appointment of a professor in the Mathematics Department of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). The University Professor Quo Warranto plea sought to invalidate the appointment through a writ of quo warranto. The Court held that a professor at a statutory university does not hold a “public office” for this purpose.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. examined the maintainability of the plea.
The Bench referred to the Allahabad High Court judgment in Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., Thru. Secretary, Medical Health and Ors.
The Court observed:
“The office of Professor does not seem to involve an obligation of any of the sovereign functions of the Government, either executive or legislative or judicial, for public benefit, and it cannot be said that the public in general is interested and non-observance of the obligations of employment of the Professor, in any event, affects the interest of the public at large and even if it would affect, the same shall be too remote so as to make the office of the Professor a public office.”
Petitioner Challenges Professor’s Appointment
The petitioner appeared before the High Court in person. The petitioner has been teaching at CUSAT since 2006.
The party respondent, 6th respondent Dr. Sasigopapalan, secured appointment as a professor in 2019. Subsequently, Dr. Sasigopapalan became a Senate member. Later, Dr. Sasigopapalan also became a Syndicate member.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had not previously challenged the professor’s appointment. The petitioner had not alleged any violation of a statutory provision or regulation until filing the present PIL.
The Court viewed the matter as a private dispute between the petitioner and the party respondent. It also found that the petitioner filed the plea to settle scores.
Court Explains Scope Of Quo Warranto
The High Court also referred to its earlier ruling in G. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala and Ors. That judgment discussed the scope of jurisdiction for issuing a writ of quo warranto.
The Court reiterated:
“Public interest litigations in service matters are, as a rule, not maintainable, except in the limited circumstance of seeking a writ of quo warranto…The term ‘public office’ is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It implies a delegation of a portion of sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose, embracing the idea of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties.”
Professor Does Not Hold ‘Public Office’
Applying these principles, the Division Bench examined the nature of a professor’s position. It found that the office does not involve the exercise of sovereign governmental functions.
Therefore, the position does not qualify as a “public office” for invoking quo warranto jurisdiction.
The Court consequently found no basis to entertain the University Professor Quo Warranto plea.
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court dismissed the public interest litigation seeking to quash the professor’s appointment.
