1. This writ petition is filed challenging termination of the petitioner as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University consequent upon resignation of Dr.Kuncheria P.Isaac on 31/12/2017.

2. The short issue to be considered in this writ petition is whether appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellor is co-terminus with that of Vice Chancellor or not. The Chancellor, taking note of clause 7.2.0 of UGC Minimum Qualification Regulations, 2010, was of the view that the office of Pro-Vice-Chancellor is coterminus with the office of Vice Chancellor. Indisputably, the appointment was not made as coterminus. The statutory provisions under A.P.J.Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 ('University Act, 2015' for short) do not indicate that the office of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is co-terminus with that of Vice Chancellor. The Chancellor, by placing reliance on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in WPC 19796/2018 Radhakrishnan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2016 (2) KLT 245 (F.B.)] was of the view that the State law is in conflict with the U.G.C. Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 ('U.G.C. Regulations, 2010', for short) which was made in exercise of the powers conferred under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 ('U.G.C. Act, 1956', for short) is inoperative and void. Accordingly, following the judgment of the Full Bench, the Chancellor by the impugned order directed the petitioner to vacate the office of the Pro-Vice- Chancellor.

3. It is appropriate in this context to refer UGC Regulations, 2010, in regard to the selection of Vice chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor, which reads as follows:

“7.0.0. SELECTION OF Pro-Vice-Chancellor/VICE - CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES:

7.1.0. PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR:

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole time Professor of the University and shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of Vice-Chancellor.

7.2.0. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co-terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor. However, it shall be the prerogative of the Vice-Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice-Chancellor to the Executive Council, during his tenure. These Regulations, for selection of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be adopted by the concerned University through amendment of their Act/Statute.

Appointment of Pro-Vice-Chancellor in University Act, 2015 reads thus:

“15. Appointment, powers and duties of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor:-

(1) The Chancellor shall appoint a person recommended by the Government, who is working in the field of engineering, technology and having the qualifications prescribed in the Statutes, to be the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, who shall be a fulltime salaried officer of the University.

(2) No person who is more than sixty years of age shall be appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor.

(3) The term of appointment of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be for a period of four years and if found eligible for reappointment, he may be appointed for the next four years also:

Provided that no person who is more than sixty years of age shall be eligible for reappointment.

(4) The salary and other conditions of service of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be as determined by the Chancellor.

(5) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations, the powers and duties of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be determined by the Chancellor in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor and-the Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such powers and perform such duties in due course.”

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that UGC Regulations, 2010, never intended that the office of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is co-terminus with the Vice Chancellor. It is also argued that without declaring Section 15 of the University Act, 2015, as void, the Chancellor could not have ordered Pro-Vice-Cha