The Vice Chancellor's authority to suspend a university Registrar is subject to the Syndicate's jurisdiction, and any meeting lacking proper convening procedures renders decisions invalid.

JUDGMENT :

T.R. RAVI, J.

1. The prayers in this writ petition are to quash Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P23 and to direct the 2^nd respondent not to prevent the petitioner from discharging his duties as Registrar of the 1^st respondent University. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Exts.P18, P20, P22 and P23 orders issued by the 2^nd respondent are without any authority of law, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, illegal, void and non est. The case of the petitioner is as follows;

2. The petitioner was appointed as Registrar of the University on 23.02.2021. The term of office was four years. Pursuant to orders of this Court in W.P.(C).No.6197 of 2025 filed by a Syndicate member, a meeting of the Syndicate was convened, and the petitioner was re-appointed as Registrar.

3. On 13.06.2025, the Secretary of Sree Padmanabha Seva Samithi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samithi') submitted Ext.P2 request to the petitioner to allot the Senate Hall of the University from 5.00 pm on 25.06.2025 for conducting a Seminar in connection with the 50^th Anniversary of National Emergency in India. This was followed by Ext.P3 request dated 19.06.2025. According to the petitioner, on Ext.P3 request, the 2^nd respondent endorsed the words “permitted as per rules”.

4. Ext.P4 produced by the petitioner is the copy of the Rules and Regulations for allotment of the Senate Hall, issued on 16.08.2024. Rule 7 authorises the Registrar to cancel any reservation without prior notice. On 25.06.2025, according to the petitioner, at around 4.30 p.m., the Security Officer of the University submitted Ext.P5 statement alleging that the organisers of the Samithi had installed some religious emblems on the stage and the petitioner had directed the Public Relations officer of the University to inspect and report back. It is stated that the Public Relations Officer affirmed the allegation and requested to cancel the permission granted for using the Senate Hall. Ext.P6 is the copy of the report. It is stated that the petitioner was informed by the Security Officer and the Police Officials that students belonging to different students Unions like the Kerala Students Union and the Students Federation of India were in altercation with students belonging to Akhila Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad and certain persons belonging to the RSS and there was a possibility of eruption of violence. The petitioner was hence requested to go over to the Senate Hall and take remedial measures. The petitioner states that he had requested the organisers to remove the photographs of religious symbols in order to avert any untoward incident and since the organisers were not willing, he had ordered to cancel the meeting, on the foot of Ext.P6. It is further stated that the organisers refused to accept the order and the same was mailed to them. Copy of the order of cancellation has been produced as Ext.P7.

5. The 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P8 Note to the petitioner, calling for a report on the incident that happened on 25.06.2025. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 report. On 02.07.2025, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P10 order, suspending the petitioner from service, invoking Statute 19 of Chapter 4, Part III of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Statutes') and Section 10 (13) of the Kerala University Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner challenged Ext.P10 in W.P.(C).No