Introduction:
The Telangana High Court, in Centre for Better Governance v. State of Telangana & Others (W.P. No. 36451 of 2025), reaffirmed the importance of adhering to statutory procedures governing appointments in autonomous institutions. Justice Renuka Yara quashed the appointment of the Director of the National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management (NITHM), holding that the State Government had acted beyond its authority by unilaterally appointing the Director, despite the Memorandum of Association and Rules vesting that power exclusively in the institution’s Governing Council.
The writ petition was filed by the Centre for Better Governance, a registered society, challenging Government Order (G.O.Rt. No. 206 dated July 15, 2025), by which the Government of Telangana appointed Prof. V. Venkata Ramana, a Professor at the University of Hyderabad, as Director of NITHM on deputation. The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto, contending that the appointment was contrary to the Memorandum of Association governing NITHM and that the Government had usurped powers reserved exclusively for the Governing Council. The petitioner also questioned the appointee’s qualifications and suitability for the post.
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the State Government could independently appoint the Director of NITHM and whether the subsequent ratification of the appointment by the Governing Council could validate an appointment made contrary to the governing rules.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that Rule 12 of the Memorandum of Association and Rules of NITHM clearly vests the authority to determine the qualifications, prescribe the experience, appoint the Director, and regulate the tenure and service conditions exclusively in the Governing Council. It was submitted that the Government had completely bypassed the statutory procedure by independently identifying the candidate and issuing the appointment order without any recommendation or decision of the Governing Council. The petitioner further contended that the fourth respondent did not possess the domain expertise required in tourism and hospitality management and also raised objections regarding his previous tenure and remuneration.
The fourth respondent defended the appointment by contending that the qualifications relied upon by the petitioner related to earlier recruitment notifications applicable only to direct recruitment and not to appointments made on deputation. It was argued that his academic credentials, including a Master’s degree in Management and his administrative experience, made him fully eligible for the post. It was further submitted that any procedural defect stood cured because the Governing Council had subsequently ratified the appointment during its 66th meeting held on July 28, 2025.
The State Government supported the appointment and defended the Government Order, while maintaining that the subsequent approval granted by the Governing Council validated the process.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the writ petition, the Telangana High Court held that the appointment was fundamentally contrary to the Memorandum of Association and Rules governing NITHM. Justice Renuka Yara observed that Rule 12 leaves no ambiguity regarding the authority responsible for appointing the Director. The Rule expressly empowers the Governing Council to determine the qualifications and experience required for the post, appoint the Director, and prescribe the tenure and service conditions. The Court held that no independent role is assigned to the State Government under the governing framework for selecting or appointing the Director.
Upon examining the records, the Court found that the impugned Government Order did not indicate that the appointment had been preceded by any recommendation or decision of the Governing Council. Instead, the material demonstrated that the Government itself identified the candidate, initiated correspondence with the University of Hyderabad seeking extraordinary leave for him, and thereafter issued the appointment order. According to the Court, this sequence of events clearly established that the Government had assumed powers exclusively reserved for the Governing Council.
The Court firmly rejected the contention that the subsequent resolution passed by the Governing Council ratifying the appointment could cure the procedural defect. It noted that the minutes of the Council meeting merely reflected that the appointee was introduced before the Council after he had already assumed office pursuant to the Government Order. Such post facto ratification, the Court observed, is not contemplated under Rule 12 of the Memorandum of Association. Where the governing rules prescribe a specific procedure for appointment, that procedure must be followed from the outset and cannot be validated retrospectively by subsequent approval.
Justice Renuka Yara emphasised that statutory procedures governing appointments in autonomous institutions cannot be bypassed for administrative convenience. Once the Rules expressly confer appointment powers upon a designated authority, any appointment made by another authority without legal sanction becomes unsustainable. The Court held that permitting such deviations would undermine the autonomy of institutions and defeat the very purpose of prescribing statutory procedures.
Having concluded that the appointment itself was procedurally illegal, the High Court found it unnecessary to examine the petitioner’s remaining allegations regarding the fourth respondent’s academic qualifications, domain expertise, remuneration, alleged dual salary, or previous service record. The Court observed that since the appointment was liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the governing Rules alone, consideration of those issues became unnecessary.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed G.O.Rt. No. 206 dated July 15, 2025, appointing the fourth respondent as Director of the National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management.
The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory authorities and autonomous institutions must function strictly within the framework of their governing rules. It also reiterates that where the law prescribes a particular authority and procedure for making appointments, executive action cannot override or substitute that statutory mandate, and subsequent ratification cannot validate an appointment made without jurisdiction.