Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 73633
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH – Appellant
Versus
THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WA NO. 1698 OF 2021 | WP(C) 26975/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: George Poonthottam, Nisha George
For the Respondents: Kurian George Kannanthanan, V. Manu, K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, I.V. Pramod, Ranjith Thampan, C.E. Unnikrishnan
The court upheld the validity of re-appointing a Vice Chancellor without re-initiation of the selection process, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions under the Kannur University Act.
Headnote:(A) Kannur University Act, 1996 - Section 10 - Re-appointment of Vice Chancellor - The single judge found the re-appointment of the existing Vice Chancellor valid under the Act, stating that different criteria apply for re-appointment than for initial appointment - Appellants challenged legality citing non-adherence to eligibility criteria. (Paras 2, 9, 19, 30)
(B) Re-appointment - Legal Framework - Court concluded that once appointed, a Vice Chancellor’s subsequent re-appointment doesn’t require initiation of the selection committee process, emphasizing the Chancellor's discretion within statutory limits. (Paras 21, 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, members of the Senate and Academic Council of Kannur University, contest the re-appointment of the Vice Chancellor arguing lack of adherence to statutory provisions and eligibility criteria.
Findings of Court:
Re-appointment was conducted validly with required qualifications, the learned judge's conclusions held sound.
Issues: Focused on the criteria for re-appointment and whether previous qualifications were sufficient given current eligibility criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed no legal requirement for re-instating the selection process upon re-appointment, allowing continuation for qualified individuals.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment initiation and procedural framework for vice chancellor appointments. (Para 2) |
| 2. background facts and the context of the re-appointment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments concerning eligibility and statutory compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 26) |
| 4. court's observation on re-appointment procedures and compliance. (Para 21 , 22 , 30) |
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 4th respondent to explain under what authority the 4th respondent is holding the office as the Vice Chancellor of the 3rd 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th 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 18th 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 4th respondent basically contendin
