Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH, J
VINU THOMAS S/o. CHACKO N. THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The petitioner, who is working as Dean in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, has filed W.P.(C) No.6809/2024 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P21 and P22 orders issued by the 1st respondent;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to remove the 6th respondent from the additional charges of Director, IHRD, forthwith;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to appoint the Director of IHRD, in terms with Ext.P18 special rules of IHRD and Exts.P15 and P19 notifications issued by the 4th respondent AICTE, forthwith, at any rate within a time frame, as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court;
(iv) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the 6th respondent has no minimum eligibility/qualification to hold the office of the 3rd respondent and discharge the functions of the Director of IHRD;
(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to appoint any qua
The court upheld the petitioner's right to challenge the legality of selection proceedings for the Director of IHRD and emphasized adherence to proper appointment procedures.
Institutions may impose undisclosed cutoff marks for selection to senior posts; no obligation to specify minima in notifications.
The decision-making process must adhere to established norms and be free from bias and favoritism.
The appointment of an In-charge Director must follow established procedures and guidelines, and any deviation from these norms, especially influenced by bias or favoritism, renders the appointment in....
The court emphasized the necessity of following established procedures for appointments in public institutions to uphold the principles of equality and transparency.
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge the process or regulations post-selection, establishing a principle of acquiescence in recruitment law.
The Director of an NIT cannot impose disciplinary actions without explicit delegation of authority from the Board of Governors, violating principles of natural justice.
The selection process for public office cannot be challenged unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or bias, and revisions to eligibility criteria are permissible within the discretion of th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
