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 Mathivanan, too. To rectify this regrettable faux pau, on 21st February 2018 we informed the counsel concerned that we would be recalling our judgment and render a fresh one. The recalling, we may observe, was only to remove references to the judgment that stood nullified and ceased to exist, for the doctrine of merger applies. Even without K.V. Jeyaraj, we hold, the ratio of our judgment and the case outcome remain unaffected.

4. Today, the matter posted under the caption 'to be spoken to', Sri Raveendran, the learned Senior Counsel for the University, first, submitted that a Special Leave Petition had already been filed. He submitted, next, that if the Court recalled the judgment, then, it must re-hear the matter. Objections noted.

5. We may observe that in this “fresh judgment” we have not discussed anything that prejudices the pleas on either side, nor have we dealt with, anew, questions of law or facts. As already mentioned, we have removed all references to K.V. Jeyraj, the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court.

6. That apart, we have explicitly referred in paragraph 25 to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Chancellor. Besides, we have added paragraphs 62 to 67, elaborating on precedential interpretation, to keep the discussion coherent and cohesive.

7. Let there be no cavil or quarrel on cosmetic corrections we have made. And let not a party's winning or losing detract the Court's determining the dispute. Failings there may have been, for we are fallible. Indeed, our duty is divine.

Facts:

8. Petitioner Premkumar claims to be a public-spirited person: an environmentalist who also founded a cultural organisation. In October 2017 he came to this Court seeking a writ of quo warranto against Dr. Babu Sebastian, the second respondent. Premkumar asserts that recently he came to know that Dr. Sebastian had managed “to sneak into the post of the Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G. University), misusing the clout commanded by him in the corridors of power.” Dr. Sebastian, according to Premkumar, did not satisfy the basic mandatory stipulations required for his holding the post of Vice Chancellor. He lacks the qualification.

9. UGC Regulations 2010 (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) prescribes the qualifications, among others, for the post of Vice Chancellor. Since the Government of Kerala adopted those regulations from 18.09.2010, a person to be appointed Vice Chancellor must be “a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as a professor in a university system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academi