Telangana HC Sets Aside NITHM Director's Appointment, Finds State Bypassed Governing Council's Exclusive Power
The High Court of Telangana quashed G.O.Rt.No.206 dated 15 July 2025 appointing a University of Hyderabad professor as Director of the National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, holding that the State Government unilaterally usurped power that Rule 12 of NITHM's own rules vests exclusively in its Governing Council.
Justice Renuka Yara, sitting singly at the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, on 20 July 2026 allowed a writ petition filed by Centre for Better Governance, a registered non-governmental organisation, and set aside G.O.Rt.No.206 issued by the State of Telangana's Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture Department on 15 July 2025. That Government Order had appointed Prof. V. Venkata Ramana, a Professor in the School of Management Studies at the University of Hyderabad, as Director of the National Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management (NITHM), Hyderabad. The Court found that the appointment was made without any role for the NITHM Governing Council, whose power to appoint the Director — and to determine the qualifications, experience, tenure and terms of that appointment — is expressly and exclusively conferred by Rule 12 of NITHM's Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations.
The Dispute Before the Court
NITHM was established as a 50-50 joint venture between the State of Telangana and the Central Government for high-standard education in the tourism and hospitality sector. Under the Memorandum of Association framed in September 2001, general superintendence, direction and control of the institute vest in its Governing Council. Rule 6(h) of those rules empowers the Council to create permanent, temporary, ad-hoc or contractual posts, lay down terms and conditions of service, and prescribe the method of employment.
Rule 12(a) goes further and addresses the Director specifically. It states that the Director shall hold such qualifications and experience as the Council may decide, that the Council shall appoint the Director, and that the tenure and terms and conditions of the appointment shall be such as the Council may determine. The petitioner's case, in short, was that by issuing G.O.Rt.No.206, the State Government stepped entirely outside this framework.
Centre for Better Governance submitted a representation on 5 November 2025 seeking withdrawal of the Government Order. Receiving no response, it filed the writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of quo warranto to declare the Government Order ultra vires and to direct removal of respondent No.4 from the directorship along with reimbursement of pay and allowances drawn.
Petitioner's Grounds
The petitioner challenged the appointment on several grounds. The most pointed was that the State Government had no independent power under NITHM's bye-laws to appoint the Director and that by issuing the Government Order, it bypassed the Governing Council entirely, acting without jurisdiction and violating institutional autonomy.
On qualifications, the petitioner relied on earlier recruitment notifications dated 13 May 2015 and 14 October 2015 which stipulated that the Director must hold a First Class Master's Degree in Tourism, Hospitality or Travel, a Ph.D in Tourism or Hospitality, and post-doctoral publications. Prof. Venkata Ramana holds an MBA and a Ph.D in Management, having served in the School of Management Studies at the University of Hyderabad. The petitioner argued that he lacks academic qualifications or professional experience in Tourism, Hospitality or Hotel Management, which is the core domain of NITHM.
The petitioner also raised a procedural objection rooted in Central Government service rules. According to an Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions dated 15 March 2024, the total period of deputation shall not exceed five years. The petitioner contended that Prof. Venkata Ramana had already been on continuous deputation from 7 August 2017 to 15 October 2024 — over seven years — and that accepting a fresh deputation without the mandatory cooling-off period was in defiance of those norms. Additionally, the petitioner placed before the Court newspaper clippings relating to student unrest at IIIT Basara and the respondent's removal from the post of In-Charge Vice-Chancellor of RGUKT on 15 October 2024, arguing that the State exercised no due diligence.
Respondent No.4's Defence
Prof. Venkata Ramana contested the petition on maintainability and merits. On locus standi, he argued that the petitioner had filed what was effectively a public interest challenge in service and appointment matters under the guise of quo warranto, relying on B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association (2006) 11 SCC 731 for the proposition that a third party who was not a candidate has no locus to challenge an appointment.
On qualifications, he argued that the notifications of 2015 were issued only for direct recruitment and carry no binding force as statutory rules. Deputation appointments, he contended, are governed by principles of administrative suitability and overall experience, not strict academic equivalents prescribed for direct recruitment. He further argued that a Master's Degree in Management was itself expressly recognised as an eligible qualification in a Comptroller and Auditor General extract dated 23 October 2023, which identified a First Class Degree in Tourism, Hospitality or Management as the essential qualification. The Ph.D-related criteria, he added, was desirable and not mandatory.
On institutional authority, he drew a distinction between Rule 6(xv) — which he read as dealing only with creation of posts — and the actual power of the Governing Council to fill those posts. He argued that the Governing Council retained and had in fact ratified the appointment at its 66th meeting on 28 July 2025. He also noted that the University of Hyderabad had sanctioned extraordinary leave to him for three years commencing from 27 June 2025, demonstrating institutional approval from his parent employer. His salary and perks, he stated, are attached to the Director's post and are in accordance with 7th Pay Commission norms.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Renuka Yara focused the analysis on Rule 12 of NITHM's Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations. The Rule is clear: it is the Council which determines qualifications and experience, it is the Council which appoints the Director, and it is the Council which fixes the tenure and terms of appointment. The Court extracted the Rule in full in the judgment and held that the appointment had to be tested against it.
The Court rejected respondent No.4's reliance on the CAG extract to establish eligible qualifications. The Court held that it is not for the Comptroller and Auditor General to determine what qualifications are required for appointment as Director of NITHM. That function belongs to the Governing Council alone under Rule 12.
On the ratification argument, the Court examined the minutes of the 66th Governing Council meeting dated 28 July 2025. Those minutes recorded that the newly appointed Director was introduced to the members of the Governing Council, and that the Council perused G.O.Rt.No.206 and ratified the appointment. The Court found this sequence highly revealing: the Director was introduced to the Council rather than appointed by it. The Government had already selected the candidate, evaluated his credentials and communicated directly with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hyderabad to arrange extraordinary leave — all before the Council met.
The Court found that G.O.Rt.No.206 itself makes no reference to any request or recommendation from the Governing Council. In the absence of any prior request or recommendation by the Council identifying the required qualifications and experience, the Court held that the only inference possible was that the State Government had unilaterally usurped the Council's power. The Governing Council had no role at all in the decision-making process. The procedure of ratification after the fact is not contemplated under Rule 12 and cannot cure that defect.
Having found the appointment in clear violation of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of NITHM, the Court declined to examine the remaining grounds — allegations about dual salary, the disparity between the Director's remuneration and that of contractual staff, or the claims about respondent No.4's prior track record based on newspaper clippings. The procedural infirmity was sufficient to render the appointment unsustainable.
Order
The writ petition was allowed. G.O.Rt.No.206 dated 15 July 2025, issued by the State of Telangana, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture Department, was set aside. Any pending miscellaneous applications in the matter were closed.