'Against Institutional Hierarchy': Kerala High Court Holds University Syndicate Can't Challenge Chancellor's Orders, Carves Out Exceptions

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the Chancellor is the head of the University as well as the appellate authority with respect to the decisions taken by the Syndicate in matters of disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the Syndicate has to give effect to the orders passed by the Chancellor, being the superior authority.

“both the Chancellor and the members of the Syndicate are forming part of body corporate named the University of Calicut and they are the integral parts of such body corporate… the Syndicate is under an obligation to give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, raising a challenge against such an appellate order is not something envisaged under the provisions of the Act and Statutes framed thereunder. Moreover, as observed in the decisions referred to above, being an adjudicating authority, the Syndicate is not expected to challenge the order passed by the superior authority in exercise of the statutory powers conferred upon such superior authority being the appellate authority of the Syndicate. Such a challenge or an attempt to challenge would be against the institutional hierarchy and the discipline,” the Court said.

The Court, however, added that this is not an absolute rule and Syndicate can challenge the orders of the Chancellor that are illegal, bias or contrary to law:

“when the order sought to be challenged is patently illegal or was passed with evident bias, by ignoring the basic principles of law or completely contrary to the statutory provisions, in such cases, an exception has to be drawn to enable the competent authority of the University which are bound to protect the interests of the University as a whole, to raise a challenge against such orders, by invoking the legal remedies available. Such exceptions are to be provided, in view of the fact that, recent developments in the matter relating to the administration of Universities in the Country, would clearly make out the cases that are arising from conflict between the individual or political ideologies of the person/persons holding such authorities in the Universities, rather than disputes arising in the pursuit of attempting to ensure the welfare of the University as whole. Therefore, in exceptional cases where the order is patently illegal or passed in utter disregard to the legal principles and the statutory provisions governing the field, thereby affecting the interests of the University and the beneficiaries thereof, certainly it would be competent to the authorities concerned to step in, to address such situations.”

The Court was considering two writ petitions filed by two members of the Syndicate of the Calicut University challenging the Chancellor's order that set aside the Syndicate's decision in a disciplinary proceeding against the Instrumentation Engineer of the University.

The Syndicate had found the afore person guilty of causing loss of around Rs. 27.5 lakhs to the University due to certain irregularities in the tender process of installation of Local Area Network (LAN) connection in the University offices. It had recommended punishment of revision to the post of Junior Engineer for 5 years and for the recovery of the above amount.

This was challenged in appeal before the Chancellor, who set aside the Syndicate order and ordered reinstatement of the Instrumentation Engineer with all service benefits. The Syndicate held a meeting and resolved to challenge this order before the High Court.

In between, several other litigations ensued with respect to the issue. A Vigilance investigation was initiated and the State's finance department also conducted an inspection and recommended disciplinary action against the afore person. The matter reached the High Court and the Division Bench ordered the University to complete the disciplinary proceedings.

While considering the present two pleas, the Court first considered the question of maintainability since the same was raised. It examined Sections 3, 7, 16, 21 of the Calicut University Act, 1975 relating to powers of the Syndicate, the position of the Chancellor, etc. as well as Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 dealing with disciplinary enquiry procedures. The Court also placed reliance on several decisions of the Apex Court.

Thereafter, the Court opined that since in the present case, the Chancellor was exercising appellate jurisdiction with respect to the Syndicate's decision in disciplinary proceedings, the latter cannot challenge the former's orders.

The Court also provided two other reasons for dismissing the writ petitions in limine.

One of them was that the Chancellor and the Syndicate members form part of the body corporate created by Section 3 of the Act and therefore, both these parts are to act in tandem with each other for the common interest of the University.

“An interference in the orders passed by such authorities could be made by the other authority in different hierarchies, only if such interference or an attempt to interference is authorized under the provisions of the Act, specifically,” the Court added.

The other reason assigned by the Court was that the petitioners in the cases are not “aggrieved persons” since they are neither affected individually by the Chancellor's decision nor their individual legal rights have been violated.

Next, the Court went on to see whether the present case falls within the exceptional situations that justify a challenge by the Syndicate against the Chancellor's order. It remarked that since the Chancellor passed the order after completing the inquiry and there was no illegality in the decision-making process, the Court cannot sit in appeal against the factual decision taken.

While dismissing the petitions, the Court observed that the case records reveal a strong case of abuse of power, resulting in huge loss to the University. Thus, it opined that University and the State should ensure that there is a proper investigation and appropriate measures are taken to punish the culprits and recover the amount lost:

“Since there are apparent irregularities in the amount disbursed, it is in the interest of the University that a proper investigation is carried out, culprits behind the same are identified and punished adequately. It should also to be ensured that the loss sustained by the University is to be recovered. Therefore, the 1st respondent [State] and the University shall ensure that a proper investigation in the matter is carried out by the Vigilance Department, and appropriate measures to recover the amount and to punish the culprits, are taken.”

Case Nos: WP(C) Nos. 31672 & 40998 of 2024

Case Title: M. B. Faisal v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 277

Counsel for the petitioners: Amal Kasha, T.B. Hood, M. Isha

Counsel for the respondents: S. Prasanth - Standing Counsel - Chancellor Of Universities Of Kerala, P. Sreekumar (Sr.), Nisha George, George Poonthottam (Sr.), A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, M.A. Vaheeda Babu, P.C. Sasidharan – Standing Counsel – Calicut University, K.G. Sarojini - Govt.Pleader, Abu Karukapadath, P.K. Abdul Rahiman, Arya Raghunath, Karukapadath Wazim Babu, P. Lakshmi, Aysha E.M., Abuasil A.K., Manu Krishna, Haniya Nafiza, Hashim K.M.

Click to Read/Download Judgment