The court acknowledged the legitimacy of Syndicate decisions binding on the Vice Chancellor unless contrary to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, members of the Syndicate of the University of Kerala, have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

“(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to forthwith convene the meeting of the Syndicate in compliance with the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in Ext.P11 judgment; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to convene the meeting of the Syndicate forthwith in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 6, Statue 1 of the Kerala University First Statutes;

(iii) to declare that the action of the 2^nd respondent in not convening the meeting of the Syndicate amounts to blatant abdication of its statutory duties and is therefore absolutely arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions contained in the Kerala University Act and Statutes.”

2. The prayers are premised on the allegation that, in spite of this Court's direction in Ext.P11 judgment to convene a meeting of the Syndicate to consider whether the suspension of the Registrar of the University should be continued, the Vice Chancellor did not convene the meeting.

3.After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the following order was passed on 25.10.2025;

“ The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the next meeting of the Syndicate is being delayed deliberately to avoid a discussion on the suspension of the Registrar. The learned counsel for the Vice Chancellor refutes the allegation and submits that the next meeting is being convened on 01.11.2025, within the period of two months prescribed in the Statute itself.

2. The learned Senior Counsel then submitted that even in the notice of the next meeting, the agenda is not appended and hence there is every possibility that in the meeting convened on 01.11.2025 also, the suspension of the Registrar will not be taken up for consideration.

3. To this, the learned counsel for the Vice Chancellor replied that the apprehension is without substance and suspension of the Registrar will be included as an agenda item.

4. The learned Senior Counsel then expressed concern about the possibility of the meeting being disrupted midway and requested to direct recording of the proceedings of the meeting being held on 01.11.2025, as is usually done during the Senate meetings. 5. The learned counsel for the Vice Chancellor submits that, offhand, it cannot be stated whether facility for recording the meeting can be provided, and if that is possible, the needful will be done.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that the University will make necessary arrangements for recording the meeting.

The submission that the agenda regarding suspension of the Registrar will be included as an item in the meeting to be convened on 01.11.2025 is recorded. This Court is also confident that all participants of the meeting will maintain decorum and discharge their duties responsibly.”

4.Thereafter, the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 31.10.2025, as it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that, contrary to the submission made on behalf of the Vice Chancellor that the agenda regarding suspension of the Registrar will be included as an item in the meeting convened on 01.11.2025, the said matter is not included in the agenda of the meeting circulated to the members. The learned counsel appearing for the Vice Chancellor refuted the allegation and made available the list of agenda items whic