Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11706
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
DR.VINODKUMAR JACOB – Appellant
Versus
THE VICE CHANCELLOR – Respondent
WA 236/2025
APARNA RAJAN, M.R.SABU LAKSHMI RAMADAS, SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN, M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, BABU KARUKAPADATH(B-13), ARYA RAGHUNATH(K/000474/2018), KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU(MAH/8319/2019), P.LAKSHMI(K/001868/2021), AYSHA E.M.(K/001130/2022), HASHIM K.M.(K/002518/2023), ABUASIL A.K.(K/001702/2024), HANIYA NAFIZA V.S.(K/003695/2024), M.I.INSAF MOOPPAN(K/001274/2025), RISHI VINCENT(K/001082/2025), MANU KRISHNA S.K.(K/002737/2023), P.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN(A-28), SRI P RAVINDRAN, SR K GANESH
The Vice Chancellor of the university has exclusive powers under Section 14 to call and cancel meetings, making decisions post-cancellation null and void, and interim relief that amounts to final relief is impermissible.
Headnote:(A) APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act - Section 14 - Interim relief - Intra court appeal against an interim order not granting stay on nullification of decisions taken after the Vice Chancellor called off a Syndicate meeting - The Vice Chancellor's unilateral decision to cancel the meeting was upheld, emphasizing adherence to established protocols and collective decision-making. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Powers of Vice Chancellor - The Vice Chancellor holds exclusive authority to call and cancel meetings, and actions taken post-cancellation are deemed null and void. (Para 4)
(C) Interim Relief - The court ruled that granting interim relief that amounts to a final decision is impermissible. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a member of the Syndicate, challenged the Vice Chancellor's order nullifying decisions made at a meeting called off prematurely, arguing that the Vice Chancellor did not have the authority to annul the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Vice Chancellor acted within his powers under the Act and that the appeal lacked merit.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Vice Chancellor had the authority to annul the Syndicate's decisions and the appropriateness of granting interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Vice Chancellor's powers under Section 14 of the Act were exclusive and that the appeal did not warrant interference as the interim relief sought would effectively grant final relief.
Result: Writ appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
1. Present intra court appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated 27.01.2025, not granting interim stay qua the order impugned before the writ court. The order dated 27.01.2025 of the learned Single Bench and the order under challenge in writ petition, dated 20.01.2025, are extracted herein.
order dated 27.01.2025 “Admit.
2. Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 to 3.
3. From Ext.P4, it is evident that the detailed records of incidents have been placed before the Chancellor of the University.
4. The 1st respondent is directed to file an affidavit in the matter.
Post on 10.02.2025.”
order dated 20.01.2025
The 63rd Syndicate Meeting of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, convened on 16th January 2025, was officially called off by the Vice Chancellor, who is the Chairman of the Syndicate, without addressing any matters pertaining to the business of the me the meeting.
A detailed record of the incidents leading to and following the meeting on 16th January 2025 has been submitted to the Hon'ble Chancellor, His Excellency, The Governor of Kerala.
Therefore, to ensure compliance with the established procedures and to uphold the integrity of the Syndicate's operations, it is hereby ordered that:
1. Nullification of Decisions: Any decisions taken after the meeting was officially called off by the Vice Chancellor are to be treated as null and void.
2. Directive to University Officers: All University officers are directed not to take any action or implement any decisions purportedly made after the meeting was dispersed by the Vice Chancellor.
2. Appellant – petitioner being the member of the syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, preferred a writ petition claiming the following reliefs:
i) call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari;
ii) issue any other such writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in order to meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
iii) award the costs of this case to the petitioner; and
iv) Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to be dispense with the translation of the document produced in the vernacular language.”
3. The aforementioned reliefs were based upon the provisions of Section 14 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act , dealing with the powers of the Vice Chancellor. It was pleaded that the Vice Chancellor did not have the power to annul the proceedings of the meeting of the syndicate subsequently, when the meeting was called off by the Vice Chancellor. Basically, the pith and substance of the grievance was that, in respect of suspension of one Sri.Praveen.R., Section Officer Higher Grade, a direction was issued by this Court vide judgment dated 07.03.2024 in W.P. (C)No.39062 of 2023 to complete the enquiry proceedings as expeditiously as possible, within a time frame of 4 months and contempt petition was filed. True copy of the contempt petition and the person arrayed in the contempt petition, has been placed on record. All members of the syndicate indicated that the agenda concerning the enquiry proceedings with regard to the suspension of Sri.Praveen.R. shall continue. However, the Vice Chancellor called off the meeting and in that regard, other members of the committee unanimously elected one Dr.Vinodkumar Jacob as Chairperson to continue the meeting. Meeting continued and the following decision was taken:
“The Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, having convened for its 63rd meeting on 16th January 2025, underlines the importance of adhering to established protocols and upholding the collective decision- making responsibilities vested in this august body.
During the 63rd Syndicate meeting, an issue concerning the suspension of Shri Praveen R., Section Officer (Higher Grade), was raised by a Syndicate member as an additional agenda item. Several Syndicate member
