SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ker) 444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
State Of Kerala Represented By The Additional Secretary To The Government Higher Education Department - Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Ors. – Respondents
WA No. 1847 Of 2022
Decided On : 16-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri. V. Manu.
For the Respondents: S. Gopakumaran Nair, Elvin Peter P.J., George Poonthottam, Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, Nisha George.

Point of Law: There is no legal right for an appointee to continue for a fixed period.

Headnote:

APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 - Section 13(7), 13 (2), 13 - Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education,2018 - University Grants Commission (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) Regulations, 2010 - Appeal - Appointment - Post of Vice-Chancellor - Whether any other name is to be recommended to replace her or not - whether such appointee is to be replaced or not - quo warranto cannot be issued for mere procedural lapse or error, but can be issued only when the usurper is found to have no semblance of right to remain in the public office. (Para 13 ).

Finding of the Court: It is appropriate for the State Government, while recommending such names, to follow the procedure of sending a panel of a minimum of three names, in light of the UGC Regulation as far as the regular appointment is concerned. Though it is not related to temporary appointments, the very objective of the UGC Regulations is to eschew arbitrariness and to ensure fair play while recommending such names. Therefore, we are of the view that the Government is free to suggest a panel of a minimum of three other names to the Chancellor to replace the 3rd respondent.

Result: Writ appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

(A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.)

1. This appeal is filed by the State Government.

2. The matter relates to an appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in terms of Section 13(7) of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (for short, “the Act”). The incumbent Vice-Chancellor, viz., Dr.Rajasree M.S., consequent upon the upholding of a challenge by the apex court, vacated the office on 21.10.2022. Section 13(7) of the Act permits the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor for a period not exceeding six months in the aggregate till the regular Vice-Chancellor assumes office. The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (for short, “the University”), who is the Governor of the State, appointed Prof. (Dr.) Ciza Thomas (3rd respondent) without there being a recommendation of the State Government as contemplated under Section 13(7) of the Act. Challenging her appointment as above for the interregnum, the State Government has come up before this Court with the writ petition for the reliefs of quo warranto, writ of certiorari, mandamus etc. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, refused to issue quo warranto. Other reliefs sought by the State Government were also not allowed. The learned Single Judge also issued certain directions, which we will advert to, at a later stage of the judgment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State has come up in appeal.

3. We have heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Advocate General of the State, assisted by Adv. Sri.V.Manu, learned Senior Government Pleader; Dr.S.Gopakumaran Nair, the learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 2; Sri.George Poonthottam, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent; and Sri.R.Sakaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the 4th respondent, assisted by Sri. S. Krishnamoorthy, learned Central Government Counsel.

4. The issue we have to decide falls within the statutory provisions of the Act. At the outset, we must note that there is no UGC Regulation governing the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor temporarily till a regular appointment is made. It is profitable to refer to Section 13(7) of the Act, which reads thus;

    “(7) Where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any of the following circumstances, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of this University or the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, recommended by the Government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a period of not exceeding six months in the aggregate, namely:-

(i) where the committee appointed under sub-section (1) is unable to recommend any name within the time-limit specified by the Chancellor;

(ii) where vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice-Chancellor because of death,, resignation or otherwise and it cannot be filled; up conveniently and expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (5) ;

(iii) where the vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor arises temporarily because of leave, illness or of any other causes;

(iv) where the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor expires;: or

(v) where there is any other emergency:

Provided that the person so appointed shall cease to hold such office on the date on which the Vice-Chancellor resumes office,”

5. Section 13(7) of the Act has three parts. The first part refers to the recommendation, the authority of the Government to recommend names; the second part refers to the nature of the persons, who can be recommended for appointment as a Vice-Chancellor by virtue of their office; the third part refers to the power of the Chancellor to appoint the Vice-Chancellor. The power of the State Government, as referred to under the statutory provisions to recommend names, cannot be doubted inasmuch as that the State has legislative competence under Entry 25 of Concurrent List III of the Constitution of India. The phrase “recommendation” in this context means the authority to initiate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top