Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. This writ of quo warranto follows a predictable path: a relator accuses a person of flaunting his political connections and occupying a public office—the position of a Vice Chancellor, at that—though he lacks the qualification. The so-called usurper denies it. He pleads, as a defence, his credentials and takes shelter under equivalency of qualification. The State and his immediate employer, the University, support him. Has he usurped a public office?

Contretemps and Course Correction:

2. We rendered the judgment on 19th February 2018, made it available the next day—20th February. Soon thereafter, on the very same day, we realised that a Madras High Court’s judgment we had extensively referred to— K.V. Jeyaraj v. Chancellor of Universities (2014 (4) CTC 257)—stood overruled. True, we did not conclude the case based on that judgment’s holding, persuasive as it may have been.

3. As we have examined the judgment further, we have realised that Jeyaraj was taken in appeal to the Apex Court. And it was, indeed, reversed in Kalyani Mathivanan v. Jeyaraj (2015(6) SCC 363). Adding to our discomfiture, we have, in our judgment, referred to Kalyani