The Chancellor's appointment of a temporary Vice-Chancellor under the 2021 Act is valid and does not require prior government recommendation, with UGC Regulations prevailing for qualifications.

JUDGMENT :

W.P. (C) No. 42637/2024

1. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Kerala challenging Ext.P4 notification bearing No. GS3-2194/2024 dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent-Chancellor of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) appointing the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2021 Act’) pending appointment of a Vice-Chancellor on a regular basis. I have, through my judgment in W.P. (C) No.42527/2024, considered a similar issue in the context of the provisions contained in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the '2015 Act'). On a consideration of the provisions of the 2015 Act and, in particular, sub-section (7) of Section 13 of that Act which, also deals with the method of appointment of a Vice- chancellor on temporary basis, I have held that the procedure for appointment contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act must be followed. In other words, I have found, on the basis of the provisions contained in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act and, also on the basis of the findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No. 1847/2022 that the notification issued by the 1st respondent appointing a person as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University was bad since the said notification did not follow the procedure contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act. However, it has also been clarified that the person appointed must have the qualifications contemplated by the University Grants Commission Regulations (On Minimum Qualifications for appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges 2018).

2. It was contended for the State that the findings of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No. 1847/2022 actually cover the issue raised in this case as well. If that were the case, this Writ Petition must also be disposed of in the lines of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 42527/2024. However, I find that the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the 2021 Act are not in pari materia with the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act. The provisions are extracted below:-