Point of Law: It is trite and settled law that a writ of quo warranto can be issued in the case of appointment of like nature which is contrary to the statute.

ORDER :

(S. Manikumar, J.)

Before the writ court, the State of Kerala, represented by the Additional Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, has sought for the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P7 notification issued by the first respondent and quash the same;

ii) Declare that Exhibit P7 notification issued by the first respondent ordering the third respondent to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice Chancellor of the second respondent University, is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015;

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto calling upon the third respondent to explain under what authority the third respondent is exercising the powers and functions of the Vice Chancellor of the second respondent University;

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction commanding the first respondent to appoint the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University or the Vice- Chancellor of any other University in the State of Kerala or the Secretary to Government of Kerala, Higher Education Department as the Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, in accordance with Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015.”

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:-

2.1. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Section 13(7) of the Act, in the event of arising of vacancy of the Vice Chancellor in the University, only the Vice Chancellor of any other University or the Pro Vice Chancellor of the University, or the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, as recommended by the Government, can be appointed as the Vice Chancellor, to hold office, till a regular Vice Chancellor is selected and appointed, in accordance with law. The Prof. (Dr.) Ciza Thomas, the 3rd respondent, is neither the Vice Chancellor of any other University, nor the Pro Vice Chancellor of the University. The 3rd respondent is also not the Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department. Ext. P7 notification dated 03.11.2022 issued by the Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, the 1st respondent, ordering the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice Chancellor of the University, ignoring the recommendation of the Government and overlooking the statutory mandate providing for specific persons/officers to be entrusted with such powers, is void ab initio, and per se illegal.

2.2. Petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the Act do not bestow any unfettered power or discretion on the 1st respondent to appoint any person of his choice, to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice Chancellor of the University, pending appointment of a regular Vice Chancellor. The powers of the 1st respondent in this regard are circumscribed by Section 13 (7) of the Act. Moreover, the 1st respondent can act under Section 13 (7) of the Act, only on the recommendation of the Government. The act of the 1st respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent, solely according to his choice, and not based on the recommendation of the Government, that too beyond the zone of choice statutorily prescribed, is arbitrary and illegal.

2.3. Petitioner has further submitted that insofar as the 3rd respondent has been appointed to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice Chancellor of the University, in violation of statutory provision regarding the same, the said appointment is void ab initio and per se illegal, and the 3rd respondent is an usurper to the Office of the Vice Chancellor of the University. It is trite and settled law that a writ of quo warranto can be issued in the case of appointment of like nature which is contrary to the statute.

2.4. Petitioner has also submitted th