Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
Dr. Muhammed Thaha - Appellant
Vs.
The Director Of Collegiate Education - Respondent
WP(C) 13319 Of 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : NISHA GEORGE, GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
For the Respondent: SRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM, STANDING COUNSEL
A Public Information Officer is not legally bound to investigate document authenticity unless a specific complaint is received, and isolated negligence does not justify denying appointment approval.
Headnote:
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 7 - Writ petition for approval of appointment as Principal - Petitioner appointed after due selection process - Allegations of negligence in verifying documents related to a student's admission - Court finds no negligence on part of petitioner as Public Information Officer - Provisional approval granted by University upheld. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Public Information Officer - Obligations under RTI Act - No legal duty to investigate authenticity of documents unless specific complaints are received - Isolated negligence not sufficient to deny approval of appointment. (Paras 15-16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Principal of MSM College, faced allegations regarding a student's forged certificate while serving as Public Information Officer. The petitioner contended he had no role in the student's admission and acted according to RTI provisions.
Findings of Court:
The court found no negligence on the part of the petitioner and upheld the provisional approval of his appointment as Principal.
Issues: The main issues included the petitioner's alleged negligence in verifying a student's documents and the validity of the University's withdrawal of approval.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a Public Information Officer is not obligated to investigate unless a specific complaint is made, and isolated negligence does not justify denying appointment approval.
Result: Writ petition disposed of directing confirmation of provisional approval.
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The petitioner, who is working as Principal, MSM College, Kayamkulam, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct respondents 3 to 5 to approve the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4.
2. The petitioner states that a vacancy of Principal arose in the College on 01.06.2022. A duly constituted Selection Committee which included nominees of the University selected the petitioner for appointment as Principal. The petitioner was appointed as Principal as per Ext.P4 letter dated 07.11.2023. A proposal for approval of the appointment was forwarded to the University as per Ext.P6 letter dated 09.11.2023. The petitioner was earlier appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) with effect from 01.09.2023.
3. The petitioner states that a controversy arose as regards admission of a student named Nikhil M. Thomas. An RTI application dated 30.01.2023 was received by the petitioner who was the then Public Information Officer. Ext.P7 application sought information as regards details of Degree Certificate submitted by Nikhil M. Thomas to obtain PG admission. The said Nikhil M. Thomas had pursued UG Course from the same College. The petitioner was not aware of the said fact. The petitioner informed the RTI applicant that the genuineness of the Certificate of Nikhil M. Thomas has to be decided by the University which issued the Certificate and informed him to collect the details from Kalinga University.
4. The petitioner states that the said Nikhil M. Thomas had produced in the College Ext.P9 Degree Certificate from Kalinga University, Ext.P10 Migration Certificate, Ext.P11 Degree Recognition Certificate and Ext.P12 Eligibility Certificate issued by the University of Kerala. Therefore, there was no reason to doubt the genuineness of the qualification of Nikhil M. Thomas.
5. Subsequently, certain other persons also filed RTI applications seeking similar information. As the information sought was third party information, the petitioner sought permission of Nikhil M. Thomas under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Nikhil M. Thomas denied permission to divulge any information. The petitioner therefore submitted appropriate reply to the RTI applications.
6. Subsequently, the Certificate produced by the student from Kalinga University was found to be fake. The petitioner states that the student was admitted to the PG Course on 28.01.2022 when one Dr. Bhadrakumari was the Principal of the College. The petitioner being an Associate Professor in Arabic, had no role whatsoever in the admission of the student. However, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P23 show-cause notice dated 05.09.2023. The petitioner submits that all allegations in Ext.P23, except allegation No.4, are no way connected to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore submitted a detailed reply dated 16.09.2023 as per Ext.P24.
7. The University thereafter decided to withdraw the approval granted to the petitioner as Principal- in-Charge. Ext.P25 letter dated 05.01.2024 was issued by the University to the Manager directing to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner states that Ext.P25 is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner was never appointed as the Principal-in-Charge though he was appointed as DDO on various occasions. Though his appointment as DDO with effect from 01.09.2023 was approved by the University, the 2nd respondent has not approved the same. The petitioner was appointed as Principal with effect from 07.11.2023 following a due selection process. Ext.P25 therefore cannot be implemented. Ext.P25 has been issued with the ulterior motive to prevent the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Principal.
8. When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 12.04.2024 directing that the petitioner should be allowed to continue as Principal provisionally and subject to the result of the writ petition.
9. Respondents 3 to 5 filed a statement and an additional statement. The respondents stat
