1. Public Interest Litigation seeking writ of quo warranto to quash appointment of a university professor. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 61395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Soumen Sen, CJ, Syam Kumar V.M., J
Dr. V. Madhu – Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor of CUSAT – Respondent
WP(PIL) NO. 90 OF 2026
Important Points
A post of Professor in a statutory university is not a 'public office' as it does not involve the exercise of sovereign functions of the government, thereby rendering a writ of quo warranto unsustainable.
Subject
Civil Law - Service Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) CUSAT Act, 1986 - Section 17 and 31 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 2(c)(xi) - Writ of Quo Warranto - Public Office - Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in service matters - The post of Professor in a statutory university does not involve an obligation of any sovereign functions of the Government, either executive or legislative or judicial, for public benefit - Public in general is not interested in the obligations of employment of a Professor, and any effect on the public interest would be too remote to render the office a public office - Public interest litigations in service matters are generally not maintainable, except in limited circumstances of seeking a writ of quo warranto - Courts must decline to entertain such petitions when they are found to be motivated, frivolous, or filed under the guise of public interest. (Paras 2 and 5)
(B) Writ of Quo Warranto - Criteria for issuance - The office must have a public nature; the office must have been created by charter, statute or constitution; the office must be of a substantive character; and the holder must have been in actual occupation of the office. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A Public Interest Litigation was filed seeking a writ of quo warranto and the quashing of the appointment of the 6th respondent as Professor. The petitioner, who has been teaching in the same institution since 2006, challenged an appointment made in 2019, but only filed the petition in 2026 after the respondent had become a member of the Senate and Syndicate of the university.
Findings of Court:
The post of Professor does not conform to the criteria of a "public office" as it does not involve a delegation of sovereign power of the government. The petition appeared to be a private dispute motivated by a desire to settle scores with the respondent.
Issues: Whether the post of Professor at a statutory university constitutes a "public office" sufficient to maintain a writ of quo warranto and whether the PIL was maintainable given the nature of the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: A public office is a right, authority, and duty created by law vesting sovereign functions of the government for public benefit. Since the office of a Professor does not delegate sovereign power, it is not a public office, making the writ of quo warranto unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Writ of Quo Warranto - Criteria for issuance - The office must have a public nature; the office must have been created by charter, statute or constitution; the office must be of a substantive character; and the holder must have been in actual occupation of the office. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A Public Interest Litigation was filed seeking a writ of quo warranto and the quashing of the appointment of the 6th respondent as Professor. The petitioner, who has been teaching in the same institution since 2006, challenged an appointment made in 2019, but only filed the petition in 2026 after the respondent had become a member of the Senate and Syndicate of the university.
Findings of Court:
The post of Professor does not conform to the criteria of a "public office" as it does not involve a delegation of sovereign power of the government. The petition appeared to be a private dispute motivated by a desire to settle scores with the respondent.
Issues: Whether the post of Professor at a statutory university constitutes a "public office" sufficient to maintain a writ of quo warranto and whether the PIL was maintainable given the nature of the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: A public office is a right, authority, and duty created by law vesting sovereign functions of the government for public benefit. Since the office of a Professor does not delegate sovereign power, it is not a public office, making the writ of quo warranto unsustainable.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. V. Madhu
For the Respondents: Kavya Varma M.M.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. V. Madhu
For the Respondents: Kavya Varma M.M.
Table of Contents
2. Professor's post is not a public office lacking sovereign functions; PIL in service matters not maintainable except for quo warranto; petition motivated. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. A writ of quo warranto lies only against a public office involving sovereign functions; university professor is not such office. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
4. Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 5 )
5. What constitutes a public office for a writ of quo warranto?
An office created by law involving delegation of sovereign functions of government for public benefit, with tenure and emoluments. A professor's post does not meet this. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
6. Is a public interest litigation in service matters maintainable?
No, except when seeking a writ of quo warranto. Courts must decline motivated or frivolous petitions. (Para 5 )
7. When may a court decline to entertain a public interest litigation?
When it is motivated, frivolous, or filed under the guise of public interest, as per Ashok Kumar v. State of West Bengal. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16 th day of September 2026
SOUMEN SEN, C.J .
1.Heard Dr. V. Madhu, the Party-in-Person and Ms. Kavya Varma M.M., learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin University of Science and Technology.
2. This petition is filed in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a writ of quo warranto and quashing the appointment of respondent No. 6. In our interim order dated 1st April 2026, relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., Thru. Secretary, Medical Health and Others , 2019 SCC Online AII 5871 it was held that the post of Professor at KGMU cannot be held to be a public office merely because the University is imparting education and is a statutory body enacted under the Act of 2002. The office of Professor does not seem to involve an obligation of any of the sovereign functions of the Government, either executive or legislative or judicial, for public benefit, and it cannot be said that the public in general is interested and non-observance of the obligations of employment of the Professor, in any event, affects the interest of the public at large and even if it would affect, the same shall be too remote so as to make the office of the Professor a public office.
3. We have also, in our judgment in G. Sasidharan v.State of Kerala and Others , 2026 KHC 312 discussed the criteria to be considered for issuing a writ of quo warranto, which inter alia include that the office must have a public nature; the office must have been created by charter, statute or constitution; the office must be of a substantive character; and the holder must have been in actual occupation of the office.
4. The dispute is essentially a private dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. The petitioner has been teaching in the same institution since 2006, while the 6th respondent was appointed as Professor on 7th August 2019, with effect from 24th July 2019. The petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the appointment of the said respondent if it was in violation of any statutory provision or regulation. However, the writ petition was filed only in the year 2026, after the 6th respondent had been selected as a member of the Senate. At the time of filing of the petition, the 6th respondent had also become a member of the Syndicate of CUSAT.
5. Public interest litigations in service matters are, as a rule, not maintainable, except in the limited circumstance of seeking a writ of quo warranto. The position being so, as rightly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of West Bengal , (2004) 3 SCC 349 every court must exercise circumspection and decline to entertain such petitions when they are found to be motivated, frivolous, or filed under the guise of public interest. The term “public office” is the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which an individual is vested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the Government to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public, for the term and by the tenure prescribed by law. It implies a delegation of a portion of sovereign power. It is a trust conferred by public authority for a public purpose, embracing the idea of tenure, duration, emoluments and duties. Respondent No.6 does not conform to any of these criteria. Moreover, it appears that the writ petition was filed to settle the score with the 6th respondent.
On such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. The reply affidavit filed by the respondent is taken on record.
