Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate Education

May 13, 2025

Citation: 2025 KER 33517
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Judge: N. Nagaresh, J.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 13319 of 2024; May 13, 2025
Case: Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate Education & Others

Appointment of Principal – Approval by University – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Negligence Allegation.

Petitioner appointed as Principal of MSM College, Kayamkulam, after due selection process – University withheld approval citing petitioner’s alleged negligence as Public Information Officer in verifying authenticity of a student’s forged degree certificate.

Table of Contents

Held

Petitioner not involved in student’s admission; no negligence in handling RTI applications as per RTI Act provisions; isolated negligence, if any, insufficient to deny approval of appointment – Writ petition allowed – University directed to confirm provisional approval of petitioner’s appointment as Principal.

For the Petitioner:

Nisha George
George Poonthottam (Senior Advocate)
A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan

For the Respondents:

Thomas Abraham (Standing Counsel for respondents 3 to 5, i.e., University of Kerala, Syndicate, and Vice Chancellor)
Government Pleader (representing respondents 1 and 2, i.e., Director of Collegiate Education and Deputy Director of Collegiate Education)

Facts

Dr. Muhammed Thaha, Principal of MSM College, Kayamkulam, filed a writ petition seeking approval of his appointment as Principal by the University of Kerala (respondents 3 to 5). The petitioner was appointed Principal on November 7, 2023, after a selection process involving University nominees (Ext.P4). A proposal for approval was sent to the University (Ext.P6). However, the University issued a show-cause notice (Ext.P23) and a letter (Ext.P25) alleging negligence by the petitioner, as Public Information Officer, in not verifying the authenticity of a forged degree certificate submitted by a student, Nikhil M. Thomas, for PG admission. The student’s admission occurred on January 28, 2022, when another principal was in charge, and the petitioner was an Associate Professor in Arabic with no role in the admission. The petitioner responded to RTI applications as per the RTI Act, seeking the student’s consent to disclose information, which was denied. The University withheld approval of the petitioner’s appointment and advised disciplinary action. An interim court order on April 12, 2024, allowed the petitioner to continue as Principal provisionally.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner’s handling of RTI applications constituted negligence sufficient to justify withholding approval of his appointment as Principal.
Whether the University’s actions in issuing Ext.P25 and delaying approval were arbitrary and illegal.

Holding

The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing respondents 3 to 5 to confirm the provisional approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Principal, granted on June 3, 2024.

Reasoning

No Role in Admission: The petitioner was not the Principal at the time of Nikhil M. Thomas’s admission and had no involvement in the process. The forged certificate issue arose before his tenure as Principal.
RTI Compliance: As Public Information Officer, the petitioner acted in accordance with the RTI Act, 2005, by seeking the student’s consent to disclose third-party information and responding appropriately when consent was denied. A Public Information Officer is not obligated to investigate document authenticity absent a specific complaint or authority under the RTI Act (Section 7).
Negligence Insufficient: Even assuming minor negligence in not proactively verifying the certificate, an isolated instance does not justify denying approval of an appointment made through a due selection process.
University’s Actions: The court found Ext.P25 arbitrary, as it wrongly implied the petitioner was Principal-in-Charge and failed to acknowledge his proper selection as Principal. The University’s provisional approval post-interim order further supported the petitioner’s case.

Disposition

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the University of Kerala to confirm the petitioner’s appointment as Principal.

Key Exhibits

Ext.P4: Appointment letter dated November 7, 2023.
Ext.P6: Proposal for approval dated November 9, 2023.
Ext.P7: RTI application dated January 30, 2023.
Ext.P9: Forged degree certificate from Kalinga University.
Ext.P23: Show-cause notice dated September 5, 2023.
Ext.P25: University letter dated January 5, 2024, advising disciplinary action.

Appointment of Principal, Approval by University, Disciplinary Action, Forged Certificate, High Court of Kerala, MSM College, Negligence, Negligence Allegation, Principal Appointment, Right to Information Act 2005, RTI Act, University Approval, Writ Petition

Prajida Kumari K. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Kerala Education Rules (KER), Chapter XIVA, Rule 51A – Preferential Claim for Appointment – Scope and Applicability.
Dr. Manu v. Sree Sankaracharya University of SanskritMay 13, 2025
The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department (Hindi) at the Central University of Kerala, sought to set aside orders denying his placement as Professor with effect from 01.06.2009 and requested revision of his placement under the 5th UGC Scheme.
Muhammed Thaha v. Director of Collegiate EducationMay 13, 2025
Appointment of Principal – Approval by University – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Negligence Allegation.
Dr. Sangeetha S. v. State of KeralaMay 13, 2025
Inter-University Transfer – Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, Section 68A
Constitutional Validity of Section 498A – Insights from Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 536May 11, 2025
In Janshruti (People’s Voice) v. Union of India & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 498A, IPC, which criminalizes cruelty by husbands or their relatives against married women, particularly in dowry-related cases.
Probation under Indian Law – Insights from Chellammal v. State, 2025 INSC 540May 11, 2025
Introduction Probation, as a rehabilitative measure, aims to reform offenders and reintegrate them into society without the deleterious effects of imprisonment. In Chellammal & Anr. v. State (2025 INSC 540), the Supreme Court of India elucidated the legal framework governing probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), and the… Read more: Probation under Indian Law – Insights from Chellammal v. State, 2025 INSC 540
Short Note on Credit Guarantee Scheme for Startups (CGSS)May 10, 2025
The Credit Guarantee Scheme for Startups (CGSS), notified on May 8, 2025, by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DPIIT), aims to provide collateral-free debt funding to DPIIT-recognized startups by offering credit guarantees for loans from Member Institutions (MIs).
Law Note: Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908May 10, 2025
Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) governs the contents, structure, and requirements of judgments delivered by an Appellate Court in India.
Short Note on International Financial Services Centres Authority (KYC Registration Agency) Regulations, 2025May 9, 2025
The International Financial Services Centres Authority (KYC Registration Agency) Regulations, 2025, notified on April 11, 2025, by the IFSCA under the IFSCA Act, 2019, establish a framework for KYC Registration Agencies (KRAs) in the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC).
Law Note on Section 313 CrPC / Section 351 BNSS : Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 529May 9, 2025
Section 313 CrPC mandates that the trial court provide the accused an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.