Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, J.
S. Jayaram – Petitioner
Versus
The University of Kerala And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 35646 OF 2022
Decided On : 08-12-2022
Kerala University Act, 1974 - Section 10, (1), 7(4) - University - Process of Selection - Selection of New Vice Chancellor - Petitioner, who is stated to be an elected member of University seeks that Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted by Chancellor of said University, as per Ext.P3, be directed to be proceeded with process of selection to post of its Vice Chancellor – Even though a resolution is stated to have been adopted by them on that date, reconsidering their earlier view, it still puts a condition on Chancellor to withdraw Ext.P3, before they make nomination - Para 34.
Finding of the Court :
Urgent and imperative requirement is that Search-cum-Selection Committee be constituted at earliest and a new Vice Chancellor be appointed to University - This can brook no further delay, earlier incumbent in office having retired even above being so, this Court cannot accede to prayer of petitioner that Search-cum- Selection Committee constituted under Ext.P3 notification be asked to make recommendation because, as said above, same is still cohate, without its third member mentioned therein - Contrary to impression of petitioner, Ext.P3 has not constituted a two member Committee, but a three member one; with third one awaited to be nominated by Senate of university - It is hence unnecessary to say specifically that such a Committee cannot be asked to move forward to search or settle a panel for appointment of new Vice Chancellor - Resultantly and since learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel for parties are ad idem that University requires a Vice Chancellor at earliest - Exts.P3 and P9 will stand inoperative; and Chancellor will make a fresh notification under Section 10(1) of 'Act', read with Regulation 7.3 of 'UGC Regulations 2018'; and then proceed to ensure selection of new Vice Chancellor, within earliest time frame.
Result : Petition dispose of.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who is stated to be an elected member of the Senate of the University of Kerala (the ‘University’ for short), seeks that the Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted by the Chancellor of the said University, as per Ext.P3, be directed to be proceeded with the process of selection to the post of its Vice Chancellor.
2. Sri.George Poonthottam – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Ann Mariya Francis, appearing for the petitioner, explained the genesis of the controversy, saying that when the erstwhile Vice Chancellor of the University was nearing his term – which was to end on 24.10.2022 -the Chancellor called upon the Senate to nominate their member to the Search-cum-Selection Committee, under the provisions of Section 10 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (the ‘Act’ for short). He asserted that the meeting of the Senate, convened on 15.07.2022, nominated a certain Dr.V.K.Ramachandran as their member; but that on 04.08.2022, he withdrew, citing personal reasons.
3. The learned Senior Counsel then submitted that the Registrar of the University, thereafter, intimated the Office of the Chancellor about the above said development and requested that 'new steps' be taken to constitute the Search-cum-Selection Committee; consequent to which, the Chancellor issued a notification, dated 05.08.2022, constituting it – a copy of which is on record as Ext.P3 – including the nominee of the University Grants Commission (UGC), along with that of his; and making it clear that third member will be included as and when the nomination is received from the University.
4. Sri.George Poonthottam predicated that the Chancellor had issued Ext.P3 in the best interests of the University and that of its students; but that the Senate, which met on 20.08.2022, refused to nominate their member and requested him to withdraw the said notification, on the ground that it was illegal and contrary to Section 10(1) of the 'Act'. He added that, it transpires that some correspondence were thereupon exchanged between the two functionaries, leading the Senate to meet on 11.10.2022; but that because majority of its members abstained from it, it was adjourned for want of quorum.
5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, while so, pending consideration of two or three other matters relating to expulsion of the members of the Senate by the Chancellor -by this Court, the Senate again met on 04.11.2022; and resolved that they have reconsidered their decision taken on 20.08.2022; but that they will nominate their member only after the Chancellor withdraws Ext.P3 notification.
6. Sri.George Poonthottam argued that thus, a pattern has been exhibited by the Senate of the University in refusing to nominate their member to the Search-cum-Selection Committee under the sanction of Section 10(1) of the 'Act'; and hence, that his client has been constrained to approach this Court – solely to protect the interests of the students and that of the institution – seeking that the Chancellor be directed to complete the selection process of the Vice Chancellor, pursuant to Ext.P3 notification and in terms of Ext.P9 communication subsequently issued by him to the Search-cum-Selection Committee – granting them three months from 05.11.2022 to make recommendations for such purpose.
7. The learned Senior Counsel then fortified the reliefs sought in this writ petition arguing that Chancellor is fully empowered to constitute even a two member Search-cum-Selection Committee, as has been done in Ext.P3 notification, because, Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (the 'UGC Regulations 2018'), only mandates that there must be more than one member for such a Committee – one of whom to be nominated by the Chairman of the UGC; and all of whom shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of hi
Point of Law : under the mandate of Section 10(1) of the 'Act', he/she shall be included in the Search- cum-Selection Committee, thus rendering it capable to function within the statutory scheme.
Appointment as Vice-Chancellor of University – While preparing panel, Search Committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence; exposure to higher education system in country and abroad, an....
The exercise of the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' by the Chancellor must not be arbitrary or capricious; the court can intervene if such withdrawal lacks justification.
It is trite and settled law that a writ of quo warranto can be issued in the case of appointment of like nature which is contrary to the statute.
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 qualifica....
The appointment of Vice-Chancellors must comply with statutory provisions and UGC regulations, ensuring lawful and independent decision-making by the Chancellor.
The court established that while the Chancellor has discretion in nominations, such discretion must be exercised within the bounds of statutory requirements, ensuring that all relevant factors, inclu....
The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of a University must be made in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010, which are mandatory and binding on the State Government. A person who is connected wi....
The appointment of a temporary Vice-Chancellor must comply with statutory procedures and UGC qualifications, requiring government recommendations as per the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University A....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
