Re-appointment of a Vice Chancellor does not necessitate renewed selection procedures if initial qualifications were met; eligibility persists despite age restrictions.

JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This appeal is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 26975 of 2021 challenging the judgment of the learned Single dated 15.12.2021 dismissing the writ petition by declining the following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext. P5 and quash the same.

2. Issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto calling upon the 4^th respondent to explain under what authority the 4^th respondent is holding the office as the Vice Chancellor of the 3^rd respondent University in violation of the statutory mandate;

2. The question to be decided in this case arises under Section 10 of the Kannur University Act, 1996 ('Act, 1996' for short) dealing with the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, and the consequential re- appointment. In the case on hand, as per Ext. P5 order, the 4^th respondent is re-appointed to the post of Vice Chancellor.

3. The learned single Judge found that the re-appointment of the existing Vice Chancellor namely Dr. Gopinath Ravindran, is in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1996 and therefore, there is no requirement for issuing any writ of quo warranto. Before we proceed to discuss the rival factual and legal contentions, a brief narration of the facts leading to the writ petition is required.

4. The first appellant is an elected member of the Senate of Kannur University and the second appellant is a member of the academic council of the said University. The Kannur University was established through Act 22 of 1996, which has undergone subsequent amendments. The 4^th respondent was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University in the year 2017. His term was due to expire in the year 2021, since the appointment as per the provisions of the Act is for a period of four years.

5. Even according to the appellants, the 4^th respondent possessed the requisite qualifications and eligibility to have been appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the University as provided under sub-Section 9 of Section 10 of the Act, 1996. However, when the 4^th respondent was reappointed, the eligibility criteria was not taken into consideration by the appointing authority in accordance with the provisions of of the Act, 1996. That apart, it is submitted that, the UGC Regulations dated 18^th July, 2018 for the selection of the Vice Chancellor were not taken into account before the re-appointment was made. Other legal contentions are also raised with respect to Ext. P2 notification dated 01.11.2021 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 10 (1)(2) and (3) of the Act, 1996 specifying that the Chancellor of the University has constituted a selection committee to make recommendations for the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor in the University.

6. Accordingly, applications were invited by the Selection Committee for the selection of Vice Chancellor of the University from the eligible candidates, wherein the qualifications and experience are shown to be as prescribed in clause 7.3(i) of the UGC Regulations dated 18.07.2018. It is also stated in the notification that the applicant should not have completed 60 years of age as on the date of notification as provided in Section 10 of the Act, 1996. Therefore, according to the appellants, the State Government having taken steps to conduct selection of the Vice Chancellor in accordance with the qualifications and experience prescribed under the UGC Notification, the eligibility criteria has to be assessed for re-assessment also.

7. Detailed counter affidavits were filed by the State Government as well as the 4^th respondent basically contending that re- appointment was done in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1996 as well as the UGC Reg