The Kerala High Court took up a petition challenging the appointment of Dr. V.A. Arun Kumar as the Director-in-Charge of the Institute of Human Resources Development, an institution functioning under the Government of Kerala and engaged in the management of professional and technical education centres across the State. The challenge was raised on the ground that Dr. Arun Kumar allegedly did not possess the requisite qualifications and experience prescribed for appointment to the post and that the selection process which resulted in his appointment was vitiated by irregularities. The court was called upon to examine whether the appointment complied with the applicable statutory rules and eligibility norms governing appointments to senior administrative positions in educational institutions under government control.
The petitioner before the High Court was Dr. Vinu Thomas, who was serving as Dean (Academic) and Controller of Examinations in charge at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. He questioned both the initial entry of Dr. Arun Kumar into the IHRD and his subsequent elevation to the position of Director. According to the petitioner, Dr. Arun Kumar’s original appointment as Assistant Director in the IHRD in the late 1990s itself was defective, as he allegedly did not possess the minimum work experience required at the time. It was asserted that the prescribed eligibility condition required a minimum period of professional experience as a software consultant, which the petitioner claimed Dr. Arun Kumar did not have when he was appointed.
The petition further alleged that during the process of selection and promotion within the IHRD, marks were awarded to Dr. Arun Kumar under various heads in a manner that was not justified by his actual qualifications or experience. Specific grievance was raised regarding the allocation of marks for teaching experience, research work, and other academic contributions. The petitioner contended that these marks played a decisive role in placing Dr. Arun Kumar at the top of the rank list, thereby facilitating his appointment as Director. It was argued that if the allegedly inflated or improperly awarded marks were excluded, Dr. Arun Kumar would not have ranked first and would not have been selected for the post.
Another significant aspect raised before the High Court related to the eligibility norms for the post of Director of IHRD. The petitioner submitted that the post of Director was comparable in stature and responsibility to senior academic and administrative positions such as that of a university vice-chancellor. On this basis, it was argued that a high level of academic standing, teaching experience, and administrative exposure was essential for appointment. The petitioner claimed that Dr. Arun Kumar’s career progression did not reflect such credentials, and that he had begun his service in a clerical capacity before being promoted through the ranks, without acquiring the depth of academic or administrative experience required for the top position.
The petition also referred to changes in eligibility criteria over time, alleging that amendments or relaxations in qualification norms were introduced in a manner that benefited Dr. Arun Kumar. According to the petitioner, the dilution of experience requirements and modification of selection criteria undermined the principles of merit and transparency that should govern appointments to senior posts in public educational institutions. It was asserted that these changes were arbitrary and tailored to accommodate a particular individual rather than being based on institutional needs or objective considerations.
During the hearing, the High Court took note of the fact that this was not the first time Dr. Arun Kumar’s appointment had come under judicial scrutiny. Earlier proceedings had raised questions about the propriety of his appointment, including concerns about whether political influence had played a role. In those proceedings, a single judge of the High Court had directed the registration of a suo motu case to examine allegations of favoritism and the possible impact of political connections on the appointment process. That direction, however, was later stayed by a Division Bench in an appeal filed by Dr. Arun Kumar, resulting in the matter remaining unresolved at that stage.
In the present proceedings, the High Court focused on the specific grounds raised by the petitioner relating to eligibility, experience, and the allocation of marks in the selection process. The court examined the pleadings to ascertain whether a prima facie case had been made out warranting detailed judicial scrutiny. The petitioner sought reliefs including the quashing of the marks awarded to Dr. Arun Kumar under disputed heads and a direction to the authorities to prepare a revised rank list after excluding those marks. Consequential reliefs sought included reconsideration of the appointment to the post of Director based on the revised rank list.
The State and other respondents were represented before the court and were called upon to respond to the allegations raised in the petition. The High Court granted time to the respondents to file a detailed statement addressing the factual and legal contentions put forward by the petitioner. The court indicated that the matter involved examination of records relating to recruitment rules, selection procedures, and service particulars, and that an informed decision could be taken only after considering the response of the authorities and the materials placed on record.
The High Court also considered the broader implications of the challenge, noting that appointments to key positions in educational institutions have a direct bearing on governance, academic standards, and public confidence in administrative processes. The court observed that allegations of irregularity in appointments cannot be brushed aside without proper examination, particularly when they relate to compliance with statutory norms and the principles of fairness and transparency. At the same time, the court noted that any interference with an appointment must be based on clear legal grounds and supported by evidence.
In the course of proceedings, attention was drawn to the institutional framework of the IHRD, which manages a network of colleges and educational centres and plays a significant role in technical education in Kerala. The Director of the IHRD exercises substantial administrative and financial powers, and therefore the qualifications and suitability of the person holding the post are matters of public importance. The court noted that the selection process must inspire confidence among stakeholders, including faculty, students, and the public at large.
The High Court did not pass any final order on the merits of the appointment at this stage. Instead, it directed that the matter be listed for further hearing after the respondents file their statements. The court made it clear that all contentions were kept open for consideration and that the legality of the appointment would be examined in accordance with law after hearing all parties. The proceedings thus remain pending, with the High Court set to scrutinize the selection process, eligibility criteria, and factual assertions in detail before arriving at a conclusion.
Through this ongoing case, the Kerala High Court is engaged in assessing whether the appointment of Dr. V.A. Arun Kumar as Director-in-Charge of the Institute of Human Resources Development conforms to the governing rules and principles applicable to public appointments. The outcome of the case is expected to clarify the standards applicable to senior appointments in government-controlled educational institutions and the extent to which courts can intervene when allegations of irregularity and lack of qualification are raised.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.