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) 1730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent 
W.A. Nos. 1160, 1165, 1180, 1181 of 2025
Decided On : 14-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Prasanth
For the Respondents: K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, V. Manu

IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of Vice-Chancellors must comply with statutory provisions and UGC regulations, ensuring lawful and independent decision-making by the Chancellor.

Headnote:

(A) APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 - Section 13(7) - Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act, 2021 - Section 11(10) - Appointment of Vice-Chancellor - Notifications issued for temporary appointments were found unsustainable as they did not comply with statutory provisions regarding the appointment process. The court emphasized the necessity of following the prescribed procedures in making such appointments. (Paras 1 , 2 .2, 2.3, 17.6, 30)

(B) Jurisdiction of Chancellor - The Chancellor's role in appointing Vice-Chancellors must respect the statutory framework and cannot be overridden by executive recommendations without proper adherence to procedures outlined in legislative acts and UGC regulations. (Paras 19 .1, 19.2, 20)

Facts of the case:

The writ appeals arose from the appointment notifications issued by the Chancellor for Vice-Chancellors of two universities, challenged by the State of Kerala on grounds of illegality and procedural non-compliance, particularly concerning the recommendations and qualifications required under relevant laws. (Paras 1 , 2 , 3)

Findings of Court:

The court found the Chancellor's notifications to be invalid as they did not align with the statutory requirements for appointing Vice-Chancellors, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the established legal framework for such appointments. (Paras 30 )

Issues: The main issues included whether the Chancellor's notifications for temporary appointments were legally sustainable and the extent of the Chancellor's discretion in the appointment process. (Paras 1 , 30 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that appointments must follow the legislative framework and UGC regulations, and any deviation from this framework undermines the legality of the appointments. The Chancellor's decisions must reflect an independent exercise of discretion and comply with statutory provisions. (Paras 19 .1, 30)

Result: The writ appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower court's ruling that the notifications were not sustainable in law. (Paras 30 )

Table of Content
1. court's ruling on temporary vice-chancellor appointments. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
2. final observations on the necessity of regular appointments. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
3. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. These writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, arise out of the judgment dated 19.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 and that dated 19.05.2025 in W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024. The appellant in W.A.No.1160 of 2025 is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 and the appellant in W.A.No.1181 of 2025 is the 3rd respondent in that writ petition. The appellant in W.A.No.1165 of 2025 is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024 and the appellant in W.A.No.1180 of 2025 is the 3rd respondent in that writ petition.

2. W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 was filed by the State of Kerala, the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.1160 of 2025 and 1181 of 2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 notification dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent in that writ petition (the appellant in W.A.No.1160 of 2025), namely, the Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, read with University Grants Commission 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. By Ext.P9 notification it was ordered that, pending the appointment of a person as Vice- Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, on regular basis, the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 (the appellant in W.A.No.1180 of 2025), who was working as Professor, Department of Ship Technology, Cochin University of Science and Technology, shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, with immediate effect, until further orders. In W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024, the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Ext.P9 notification dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent Chancellor ordering the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers and functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Chancellor to make appointment to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, till a regular Vice-Chancellor takes charge, from the panel forwarded by the State Government as per Ext.P4 letter dated 09.10.2024 to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor of Kerala, in accordance with Section 13(7) of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015.

2.1. In W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024, a counter affidavit dated 17.02.2025 has been placed on record on behalf of the 1st respondent Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (the appellant in W.A.No.1160 of 2025), opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Exts.R1A to R1E documents. On behalf of the writ petitioner, a written submission dated 01.04.2025 was placed on record by the learned Special Government Pleader. On behalf of the 1st respondent Chancellor, an argument note dated 08.04.2025 was placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel for APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.

2.2. After considering the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 19.05.2025, disposed of W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024, with the directions contained in the last paragraph of that judgment, which reads thus:

“A reading of the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 201

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