IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while the Chancellor has discretion in nominations, such discretion must be exercised within the bounds of statutory requirements, ensuring that all relevant factors, including merit and credentials, are considered.

JUDGMENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

Writ Petitions, WP(C) Nos. 41785 and 41766 of 2023, challenge the nominations made by the Chancellor to the Senate of the Kerala University under Section 17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’ for short). The Senate comprises the following class of members:

1. Ex-officio Members

2. Elected Members

3. Life Members

4. Other Members

2. Under the category ‘Other Members’ constituting the Senate, Sub Section (3) of Section 17, which is the issue in two Writ Petitions, reads as follows:

“(3) Four students nominated by the Chancellor, one having outstanding academic ability in humanities, one having outstanding ability in science, one having outstanding ability in sports and one having outstanding ability in fine arts.” (emphasis supplied)

3. The 1st respondent Chancellor of the University is the authority vested with the power to nominate four students to the Senate. The 1st petitioner in WP(C). No.41785/2023 is presently undergoing M.A. Music in Government College for Women, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram, and the 2nd petitioner is undergoing the course for M.Sc. Statistics with specialization in Data Analysis at the University College, Palayam. The 1st petitioner submits that she passed her B.A. (Music) course from the Government College for Women, Thiruvananthapuram, securing First Rank. The course B.A. Music falls under the category of Humanities. The 2nd petitioner submits that she completed her B.Sc. Mathematics course from S.N. College, Kollam, securing First Rank.

4. The petitioners rely on the judgment of this Court in Thanga Dorai v. Chancellor, Kerala University [1995 (2) KLT 663] wherein construing the expression 'outstanding ability' it was held that the University had to prepare a list of rank holders and place the same before the Chancellor. It was held that the student having the highest marks in Science was not included in the list that was placed before the Chancellor and as such the nominations were held to be legally unacceptable. The petitioners submit that the Chancellor has no unbridled power to nominate students disregarding rank holders or their credentials. The normal procedure adopted by the University was to identify the students who had undergone courses in Humanities, Science, Sports and Fine Arts with outstanding ability, and along with a communication and proforma, the same would be forwarded to the student to find out the willingness to be nominated as a Member of the Senate. The petitioners submit that none of these steps were followed by the Chancellor and nominated respondents 5 and 6 with no merit compared to the petitioners. They allege that the 5th respondent is only a third-semester student who has yet to prove his outstanding abilities. Likewise, the 6th respondent is only a sixth-semester student doing his Bachelor of Computer Applications and has no track record to show his abilities. Thus contending that the nominations of respondents 5 and 6 are whimsical, illegal, arbitrary and unfair, and against the statutory provisions incorporated under Section 17, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari challenging Ext.P-5 as regards the nominations of respondents 5 and 6 and also, seeks a direction to nominate the petitioners as members of the Senate.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6. They contend that they were included in Ext.P-4 note prepared by the University of Kerala as eligible for nomination to the Senate. No procedure is prescribed under Section 17(3) of the Act as the only requirement is that, the four students nominated by the Chancellor should possess outstanding ability in Humanities, Science, Sports and Fine Arts. The said power is to be exercised by the Chancellor and it is not delegated to any other authority of the University. They also contend that, after the insertion of the last proviso to Section 18, the members of the Senate nominated by the Chancellor o