Ex-CM VS Achuthanandan's Son Unqualified For IHRD Directorship, Was Appointed Due To Political Clout: KTU Dean To Kerala High Court

Thomas's counter affidavit was filed in an appeal moved by Dr. VA Arunkumar challenging the Single Judge's direction to the Registry to suo motu register a public interest litigation to look into his qualifications.

The Single Judge's decision was stayed by the High Court's Division Bench in July after noting that the Dr. Arunkumar was not heard by the Single Judge.

When the matter came up before a division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., the appellant (Arunkumar) sought time to file a reply to Thomas's counter. Accordingly, the court granted three weeks time and interim stay was extended.

In his counter, Thomas has alleged that the appellant's appointment as Assistant Director of IHRD in 1997 was achieved due to political clout since he did not possess the requisite 2 years' work experience as a Software Consultant.

He also stated that to his bona fide knowledge, the appellant was not a regular employee under the IHRD, which was also one of the requirements at the time to be appointed as Assistant Director.

Thomas further stated that the IHRD amended the qualification to the post of Principal, College of Applied Science vide a 2002 order only to ensure the promotion of the appellant to the said post.

Referring to the qualifications for the principal of the College of Applied Science and that of teachers of universities, Thomas has alleged that the appellant was not eligible to the post or even that of a lecturer.

He relied on the judgment of the High Court in WP(C) No. 16655 of 2007 dated 02.07.2009 to contend that the appellant did not have any teaching experience.

He also pointed to an alleged amendment to the method of appointment to the post of Joint Director as well, which according to him, was done “solely with the malafide intention to promote the appellant to the post of Principal of Applied Science Colleges, and thereafter to the post of Joint Director, IHRD, since the appellant had no qualification to get promoted to the post of Deputy Director, IHRD and Joint Director, IHRD…”

Next, referring to the appellant's appointment as Joint Director (IHRD), Thomas stated that the he did not possess the requisite 10 years' teaching or industrial experience but the feeder category of 'Principal of College of Applied Science' was added solely to promote the appellant.

“In order to suit the thread of the pre-fixed story, the appellant was promoted to the post of Principal, College of Applied Science, Kattappana on 15.07.2005, despite his total lack of teaching experience at any level of the academic stream – whether Kindergarten, Lower Primary, Upper Primary, High School, College or University,” states the counter.

It is further stated that the appellant after being promoted to Principal was permitted to hold the additional charge of Joint Director without having to discharge duty as Principal.

Referring to the appellant's appointment as Additional Director (IHRD) also, it was pointed out that since he did not have the qualifications required, the qualifications were amended to exclude teaching experience.

According to Thomas, the IHRD issued a notification creating 2 extra posts of Additional Director. However, since the posts were created without government approval, those were cancelled but the appellant was permitted to continue in service as Additional Director (in-charge) without making a fresh appointment for more than 10 years.

“teaching experience of 12 years was mandatory to hold the post of Additional Director, However, the 3^rd respondent has not conducted any fresh appointment to the post of Additional Director as required under Annexure-R1(n) Special Rules, on account of the political clout of the appellant, for enabling the appellant to continue to function as Additional Director, IHRD, by totally closing the door, to all others, to get appointed to the post of Additional Director, IHRD, for more than 10 years,” states Thomas.

He further stated that the same course of action was done to promote the appellant as Director, to which Thomas also applied for along with four others. He submitted that in order to make him eligible, the appellant, who was then working as Additional Director (in charge) of Director IHRD, issued a NOC raising several derogative observations against him.

The observations included allegations pertaining to irregularities in the purchase of groceries for the men's hostel of the college in which Thomas was working as a Principal. This had led to him file the writ petition before the Single judge.

He, thus, submitted that there was no error in the decision of the Single Judge directing to look into whether the appellant got IHRD Directorship solely due to political influence.

The case is posted next on December 5.

Case Title: Dr. V.A. Arunkumar v. Dr. Vinu Thomas and Ors.

Case No: WA No. 1698/ 2025

Counsel for Appellant: Vivek Menon, Rance R.

Counsel for Respondent: Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, M Rajagopalan Nair