Point of Law: First choice in Section 13(7) of “Act” is Vice Chancellor of any other University in Kerala; and admittedly, all such persons are fully qualified in terms of both experience and educational qualifications under “UGC Regulations 2018”.

JUDGMENT :

1. In an unprecedented move, the Government of Kerala, represented by its Additional Secretary, Higher Education Department, has filed this writ petition, assailing the order issued by the 1st respondent – Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University' for brevity), appointing the 3rd respondent – Prof. (Dr.) Ciza Thomas, “to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a Vice Chancellor with immediate effect in addition to her normal duties until further orders.” (sic)

2. The specific imputation of the Government is that the afore order of the Chancellor – a copy of which is produced as Ext.P7 – is in flagrant violation of Section 13(7) of the “APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015” (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inasmuch as the said Authority has disregarded their recommendation in making such appointment.

3. A woodcut record of the reasons that led to the issuance of Ext.P7 order and the appointment of 3rd respondent, would certainly be necessary to understand the contours of the controversy projected.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, through Ext.P2 judgment, which is cited as Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S and others v. Dr.Rajasree M.S and others (SLP (Civil) Nos.21108/21109 of 2021), declared the appointment of the earlier incumbent in the office of the Vice Chancellor of the University to be void ab initio, holding that she had been appointed contrary to the applicable Regulations of the University Grants Commission (UGC), namely, UGC 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, 2018” (hereinafter referred to as "UGC Regulations, 2018”), since she was selected by a Selection Committee constituted not as per the aforesaid Regulations; and further, that said Committee had recommended solely her name to the Chancellor, in contravention of the mandatory stipulation therein that it ought to have provided a panel of at least three persons.

5. This led to a situation where the incumbent Vice Chancellor ceased to be in office forthwith after Ext.P2 judgment; and it became unexpendable for the Chancellor to find a replacement for the interregnum, till a new candidate is selected by a validly constituted Selection Committee.

6. This was more so because, after Ext.P2 judgment was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the University addressed Ext.P3 letter dated 22.10.2022 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, requesting that a replacement be thought of; followed by Ext.P4 communication of the said Authority, recommending the name of Dr.Saji Gopinath, who is functioning as the Vice Chancellor of the Digital University Kerala. However, this recommendation was responded to by the Office of the Chancellor pointing out that the aforementioned person also suffered from a similar or analogous disqualification, as found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the earlier Vice Chancellor of the University, and that steps have been initiated for his removal.

7. It transpires that Government did not pursue the afore recommendation, but then addressed Ext.P6 letter to the Office of the Chancellor, recommending the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, to be appointed as the Vice Chancellor until such time as the said post is filled up in terms of the “UGC Regulations 2018”.

8. But, the Chancellor did not accept this either and issued Ext.P7 order, appointing the 3rd respondent to exercise “the powers and perform the duties of the Vice Chancellor”, in addition to her normal duties.

9. As said above, the Government calls into question Ext.P7 order in this writ petition, seeking the issuance of a certiorari to quash it; and supplements it by a writ of quo warranto against the 3rd respondent, alleging that she is an usurper in the office of the Vice Chancellor of the University