Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Ex-CM VS Achuthanandan's Son As IHRD Director In-Charge

The Kerala High Court has recently (26 March) dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. V.A Arun Kumar,son of the late former Chief Minister V.S. Achuthananthan as the Director In-Charge of the Institute of Human Resources Development.Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment in a plea filed by Dr. Vinu Thomas, Dean (Academic) and Controller of Examinations (in charge) at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.Dr. Thomas had applied for the post of Director, IHRD, pursuant to a government notification (Ext. P 27) issued in March 2024. However, the selection process concluded without any appointment, as none of the candidates secured the minimum qualifying mark of 60% fixed by the selection committee.The petitioner has challenged the process, arguing that the notification did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks and the selection committee has no authority to introduce cut-off after the process began. It was also alleged that Dr. V.A Arun Kumar was awarded 5 marks for teaching experience and the 10 marks for research experience, while he has no experience in teaching and has never guided any student in research. The petitioner has alleged that the award of the 15 marks puts Dr.Arun at the top of the ranklist for the selection. The petitioner had thus prayed that the order appointing Dr. Arun as Additional Director (In-charge) be set aside and that a direction may be issued to the State to fill up the post of the IHRD Director based on the ranklist after the aforementioned marks awarded to Dr. Arun are cancelled.The Court held that employers or selection committees are not legally obligated to disclose minimum qualifying marks in recruitment notifications. For senior managerial posts such as Director, institutions are entitled to set appropriate benchmarks during the selection process.“In a recruitment notification, the institution/employer is not expected to or legally bound to disclose the marks to be obtained by a candidate for selection in the recruitment process. In this case, it has to be noted that the selection is for appointment to a superior managerial post of Director. The Institution or the Select Committee will be free to fix a minimum standard for recruitment to such a crucial post under the IHRD. The cut off mark of 60 prescribed therefore cannot be treated as illegal or arbitrary.” Court noted. The Court further noted that even if assuming that marks awarded to Dr. Arun was wrongly awarded, the issue is irrelevant since no candidate including Dr. Arun met the 60% threshold. “When none of the candidates have secured the minimum cut off prescribed by the institution, the argument of the petitioner that the 10th respondent (Dr. V.A Arun Kumar) has no experience in teaching and awarding of 5 marks for teaching experience and 10 marks for research experience, is inconsequential.” Court added. The petitioner's attempt to question the earlier appointment of Dr. Arun as Assistant Director of IHRD in 1997 was dismissed as belated and unrelated to the present selection.“The 10th respondent was appointed as Assistant Director long ago in the year 1997. The petitioner cannot question that appointment at this distance of time, in order to challenge the outcome of Ext.P27 notification.” Court held. This is the second plea challenging his appointment of Dr. Arun. Last year, a Single Bench of the Court had directed registration of a suo motu case to look into whether Dr. Arun Kumar got into the position due to his political connections.This order was challenged in appeal by Dr. Arun and was stayed by the Division Bench. The petitioner in the present case had also filed a counter-affidavit before the Division Bench alleging that Dr. Arun is disqualified to hold the post.In the present, the Court has also held that the decision to fix a minimum cut-off mark and decline appointments due to lack of suitable candidates was neither arbitrary nor illegal.The Court thus dismissed the petition. Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors.Case No: WP(C) 36822/2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker)176Counsel for Petitioner: Babu JOseph Kuruvathazha, Archana K.S, NOel EaliasCounsel for Respondents: M. Rajagopalan Nair (SC-IHRD), Antony Mukkath (GP)Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Ex-CM VS Achuthanandan's Son As IHRD Director In-Charge

Anamika MJ

Tags