Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
M. B. Faisal s/o. Beerankutty – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By Its Secretary To Government – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to writ petitions by syndicate members challenging chancellor's order reinstating employee after disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of tenders, lan installation irregularities, and huge financial loss to university due to 6th respondent's actions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. sequence of vigilance enquiry, disciplinary proceedings, suspension, enquiry report, syndicate punishment, and chancellor's appellate order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. contentions on maintainability, locus standi, and propriety of challenging chancellor's order by university components. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. statutory provisions under calicut university act and statutes on university authorities, chancellor powers, syndicate powers and appellate procedure. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. key principle that quasi-judicial authorities like syndicate cannot challenge superior appellate orders by chancellor due to hierarchy and judicial discipline. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. analysis of 'aggrieved person' test and that syndicate members lack locus standi to challenge appellate o |
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
