Professor At Statutory University Does Not Hold 'Public Office', Can't Be Subject To Quo Warranto: Kerala High Court
K. Salma Jennath
18 Sept 2026 9:00 AM IST
Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of a professor of Mathematics department in the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT).The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. referred to the Allahabad High Court judgment [Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., Thru....
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium 
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of a professor of Mathematics department in the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. referred to the Allahabad High Court judgment [Dr. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., Thru. Secretary, Medical Health and Ors.] and 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 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.”
The petitioner, who appeared in person, has been teaching in CUSAT since 2006 whereas the party respondent/6th respondent (Dr. Sasigopapalan) was appointed as professor in 2019. Subsequently, Dr. Sasigopapalan was selected as a Senate member and later, as Syndicate member.
The Court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the professor's appointment for violation of any statutory provision or regulation until the filing of the present PIL. It was of the view that the dispute was a private dispute between the petitioner and the party respondent and the plea was filed to settle scores.
The Court further referred its own decision in G. Sasidharan v. State of Kerala and Ors., where the contours of jurisdiction to issue quo warranto writ was discussed and remarked:
“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 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.”
Thus, it dismissed the public interest litigation.
Case No: WP(PIL) No. 90 of 2026
Case Title: Dr. V. Madhu v. The Chancellor of CUSAT and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
Counsel for the respondents: Kavya Varma M.M. – Standing Counsel – CUSAT
