The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, considered the maintainability of a quo warranto petition filed against a professor appointed to a statutory university. The court examined whether the position held by the professor constituted a 'public office' within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which governs the exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Courts.
The court observed that quo warranto is a prerogative writ available only to challenge a person’s claim to hold a public office. It emphasized that the remedy is not available in respect of private offices or positions that do not involve the discharge of public duties under the authority of the State. The burden of establishing that the office in question is a public office lies on the petitioner seeking to invoke the writ.
Analyzing the nature of the professorship in question, the court noted that the appointment was made under the statute governing the university, which is established by law but operates as an autonomous academic institution. The court held that while the university may be a statutory body, the emoluments and conditions of service of its professors are governed by the university’s own statutes and regulations, not by the civil service rules applicable to government employees.
The court further observed that the duties of a university professor are primarily academic in nature—relating to teaching, research, and internal governance of the institution—and do not constitute the discharge of sovereign or governmental functions. It distinguished such roles from those of officers appointed under civil service rules who exercise statutory powers on behalf of the State.
On this basis, the Kerala High Court concluded that the position of a professor at a statutory university does not qualify as a 'public office' for the purpose of invoking the remedy of quo warranto. Consequently, the petition challenging the professor’s appointment was held to be not maintainable.
The court clarified that its observation does not imply that no academic position can ever be considered a public office, but stressed that each case must be examined on its own facts, particularly the source of authority, the nature of duties, and the extent of state control. However, in the instant case, the requisite elements to classify the professorship as a public office were absent.
The judgment reinforces the principle that quo warranto is a narrow remedy, confined to cases where there is a clear usurpation of a public office, and cannot be extended to challenge appointments in autonomous academic bodies merely because they are established by statute. The court cautioned against the mechanical application of the writ without a proper inquiry into the character of the office in question.
The disposition of the case was that the quo warranto petition was dismissed, with the court holding that the professor, not holding a public office, could not be proceeded against under Article 226 by way of this writ. The order affirms the limited scope of the remedy and underscores the need for judicial restraint in expanding its ambit beyond its traditional boundaries.