The Vice Chancellor has the authority to cancel meetings, and decisions made by unauthorized majorities do not hold validity under statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

T.R. RAVI, J.

W.P (C) No. 3197 of 2025

1. The prayers in this writ petition are; to call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari; to issue any other such writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary to meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and to award the costs of this case to the petitioner.

2. Petitioner is a member of the Syndicate of the 3^rd respondent University. The Vice Chancellor (1^st respondent) convened a meeting of the Syndicate to consider various issues included in the 63^rd agenda of the meeting of the Syndicate. This Court, as per its judgment in W.P.(C) No.39062/2023, had ordered finalisation of disciplinary proceedings by the Syndicate against one of the employees of the University. The time granted by this Court had expired on 07.10.2024. Even though the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the Sub Committee had submitted its recommendation regarding the penalty, the matter has not been finalised due to the delay in convening the meeting of the Syndicate. In the agenda for the 63^rd meeting, this matter was not included. One of the members of the Syndicate mentioned this matter at the meeting and requested inclusion of this item in the agenda. Most of the members present in the meeting supported this suggestion. However, the 1^st respondent refused to entertain the request and declared that the meeting was closed, even without considering any of the items on the agenda.

3. A majority of the members present objected to the action of the 1^st respondent. After electing one of the members of the Syndicate to preside, the members continued with the meeting in the absence of the 1^st respondent, and transacted the business included in the agenda. The 1^st respondent, however, passed an order annulling the decision of the Syndicate. The writ petition is filed in the above circumstances. It is contended that there is no provision either under the University Act or the Statute framed thereunder enabling the 1^st respondent to annul any decision of the Syndicate. Reliance is placed on Statute 10 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University First Statutes, 2020, ('First Statutes' for short) which provides that the Syndicate, in its discretion, can consider and discuss any issue brought to its notice. It is contended that the powers conferred on the 1^st respondent under Section 14 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 ('the Act' for short) do not contain any power to annul any of the decisions of the Syndicate and that such power is reserved to be exercised by the Chancellor alone. It is contended that Chapter III sub-statute 1.3, enables the Syndicate to proceed with any transaction included in the agenda by electing one of the members as a Chairperson in the absence of the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that it is in exercise of this power that the Syndicate decided to proceed with the 63^rd meeting of the Syndicate.

4. The 1^st respondent has filed an affidavit contending that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The locus standi of a Syndicate member to file the above writ petition is challenged. It is submitted that the writ petition has not been filed on behalf of the Syndicate or as authorised by the Syndicate, and that there is no averment in the writ petition as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the 1^st respondent. It is contended that the writ petition proceeds on a wrong premise that a meeting which was called of by the Vice Chancellor can be continued by the other members of the Syndicate, by electing another Chairperson. It is contended that the said provision deals with only a situation where a meeting of the Syndicate is to be convened in the absence of the 1^st respondent and does not deal with a situation where a meeting is called off by the 1^st respondent due to persistent arguments of some members to include an addi