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

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
GOPINATH P., J.
State of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
The Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 42527 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Asok M. Cherian, N. Manoj Kumar, V. Manu
For the Respondents: S. Prasanth, K.R. Ganesh, Nisha George, P. Sreekumar, Silpa Sreekumar, George Poonthottam, Kavya Varma M.M.

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 Act, 2015.

Headnote:

(A) APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 - Section 13(7) - Writ petition challenging the appointment of a temporary Vice-Chancellor - The notification appointing the 3rd respondent was declared unsustainable as it did not follow the procedure mandated by the Act, which requires government recommendation for such appointments. (Paras 1, 9, 12)

(B) University Grants Commission Regulations - The qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Vice-Chancellor appointments must be adhered to, even for temporary positions, and the government must recommend qualified candidates. (Paras 9, 10)

(C) Judicial Review - The court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures in appointments to maintain the integrity of the university system. (Paras 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The State of Kerala challenged a notification appointing a temporary Vice-Chancellor, arguing it contravened the statutory requirement for government recommendation following a Supreme Court ruling that declared a previous appointment illegal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appointment was not in accordance with the law and emphasized the necessity of adhering to UGC qualifications and the statutory recommendation process.

Issues: The main issues included whether the appointment of the 3rd respondent was valid under the 2015 Act and the implications of UGC regulations on such appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appointment process must comply with the statutory provisions of the 2015 Act and UGC regulations, reinforcing the necessity of government recommendations for Vice-Chancellor appointments.

Result: The writ petition was disposed of, declaring the notification unsustainable but allowing the 3rd respondent to remain in office until the end of their term.

JUDGMENT :

W.P. (C) No. 42527/2024

1. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Kerala challenging Ext.P9 notification bearing No. GS6-2838/2022 (1) dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') appointing the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the University in terms of the provisions contained in Section 13 (7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the '2015 Act') pending the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor on a regular basis.

The facts (in brief):

2. The appointment of one Dr. Rajasree M.S., as Vice-Chancellor of the University was declared illegal by the Supreme Court through judgment dated 21.10.2022. The judgment is reported as Dr. Sreejith v. Dr. Rajasree, 2022 (6) KLT 147 (SC). As a consequence of the said declaration, there occurred a vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, necessitating the appointment of a temporary Vice-Chancellor in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act. On 22.10.2022, the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary to the 1st respondent recommending the name of Dr. Saji Gopinath, Vice-Chancellor, Digital University of Kerala to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the office of the Vice- Chancellor of the University pending the regular selection of a Vice- Chancellor. However, this proposal was not accepted by the 1st respondent, prompting the Government to recommend the name of the Principal Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department, to act as Vice- Chancellor of the University pending appointment of a Vice-Chancellor on a regular basis. However, the 1st respondent proceeded to issue Ext.P1 notification bearing No.GS6-2838/2022 dated 3.11.2022 appointing one Prof. (Dr.) Ciza Thomas to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the University until further orders. This notification, dated 3.11.2022, was challenged by the State by filing W.P. (C) No.35656/2022. A learned single Judge of this Court, through judgment dated 29.11.2022, dismissed the writ petition. The State carried the matter to the Division Bench by filing an intra Court appeal as W.A. No.1847/2022. The Division Bench inter alia found that in terms of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act, the power to recommend names of persons who could be appointed to exercise the powers and perform the duties of Vice-Chancellor pending a regular appointment was with the Government. However, it was held that notwithstanding any contrary provision in sub-section (7) of Section 13, only persons who are qualified in terms of the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC’) Regulations, The University Grants Commission Regulation on Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018 could be so appointed. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.1847/2022 is on record as Ext.P3. That judgment has become final.

3. On 21.2.2023, the Government forwarded a panel containing the names of three persons who could be considered for appointment as a temporary Vice-Chancellor (till a regular Vice-Chancellor was appointed for the University) to the 1st respondent. In response to this letter dated 21.2.2023, the 1st respondent required a clarification from the Government as to whether it was standing by its earlier recommendation dated 22.10.2022 recommending the name of Dr. Saji Gopinath for appointment as temporary Vice-Chancellor or whether it was standing by its recommendation as contained in the letter issued on 21.2.2023, following Ext.P3 judgment. In response, the Government forwarded a letter dated 29.3.2023 containing a reconstituted panel of names for consideration of the Vice-Chancellor, also including the name of Dr. Saji

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