Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging CUSAT Professor Appointment as Not Public Office

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation that sought a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of a professor at the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. ruled that a professor at a statutory university does not hold a "public office" that would make the appointment subject to such a writ.

A Professor’s Appointment Under Scrutiny

The petitioner, Dr. V. Madhu, a faculty member at CUSAT since 2006, challenged the 2019 appointment of Dr. Sasigopapalan as Professor in the Department of Mathematics. He alleged that Dr. Sasigopapalan lacked the required qualifications and that the appointment violated statutory regulations. The petition was filed in 2026, after Dr. Sasigopapalan had been elected to the Senate and later to the Syndicate of the university.

The Legal Battle: Public Office or Private Dispute?

Dr. V. Madhu, appearing in person, argued that the professor’s position constitutes a public office and that a writ of quo warranto should be issued to quash an illegal appointment. The respondents, represented by Standing Counsel Kavya Varma M.M., countered that the dispute was essentially private in nature and that a professor’s role does not involve the exercise of sovereign functions.

Court’s Reasoning: Sovereign Functions and Public Interest

The Court relied on its earlier decision in G. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala , which laid down the criteria for issuing a writ of quo warranto: the office must be of a public nature, created by statute, of substantive character, and the holder must be in actual occupation. It also cited the Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P. , which held that a professor’s office does not involve sovereign functions of the government. The Supreme Court’s observation in Ashok Kumar v. State of West Bengal was also referenced, emphasizing that courts must decline PILs that are motivated or frivolous.

What the Court Said

The Bench observed: “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…” It further noted that “the writ petition was filed to settle the score with the 6th respondent,” indicating a private dispute rather than a genuine public interest matter.

Final Ruling

The Division Bench dismissed the PIL with no order as to costs. The decision reinforces that service matters in universities are generally not maintainable as PILs, and the remedy of quo warranto is reserved for truly public offices involving sovereign functions. The Court also took note of the significant delay in filing the petition, which further undermined its bona fides.