A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday upheld a single judge's decision to quash two temporary vice chancellor (VC) appointments made by the Governor - Dr. K Sivaprasad as temporary VC of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Dr Ciza Thomas as temporary VC of Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology (Digital University) [The Chancellor v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases]
Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PV Balakrishnan found no merit in the writ appeals challenging the May 19 ruling of the single judge that had invalidated the appointments made by the ex-governor Arif Mohammad Khan in his capacity as the chancellor of both universities.
The Court observed that the ex-Governor, acting as chancellor, had no authority under the respective University Acts or the UGC regulations to unilaterally appoint a temporary VC outside the framework laid down by law.
In both cases, the Court found that the chancellor had bypassed the process prescribed by the respective statutes which mandated that the VCs must be appointed only after giving due consideration to the government recommended panel.
"Therefore, under Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act or Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act, the Chancellor has no power to issue notifications like Ext.P9 notification dated 27.11.2024 in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 and Ext.P4 notification dated 27.11.2024 in W.P.(C)No.43637 of 2024 appointing a person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the Technological University or the Digital University, until further orders, pending regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor," the Court held.
The controversy arose from two separate notifications dated November 27, 2024, through which Dr Sivaprasad and Dr Thomas were appointed temporary Vice Chancellors of KTU and Digital University respectively.
The appointments were challenged by the State of Kerala in writ petitions filed before the High Court, where a single judge bench ruled in favour of the State and declared the appointments as illegal for being contrary to Sections 13(7) and 11(10) of the KTU and Digital University Acts respectively.
However, the single-judge had allowed the appointees to continue until May 27, 2025 to prevent administrative disruption.
Subsequently, appeals were filed against the single judge's decision.
The State argued that the appointments made by the Governor were arbitrary and violated the provisions of the Acts, which prescribed a specific process for temporary appointments of VCs including mandatory consultation with the State government and selection of VC based on the recommendations made by the State.
The Chancellor defended his decision, stating that his actions were to prevent any disruption in university administration and even argued that the provisions in the State University Acts allowing temporary appointments were in conflict with the UGC Regulations.
The Court clarified that since the UGC Regulations did not cover temporary appointments, there was no actual legal conflict with the Acts.
Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with inconsistency between Central and State laws, would not apply here, the Court opined.
However, the Court made it clear that even State laws must be implemented in a way that aligned with the broader objectives and standards of the UGC Regulations and appointments to the post of Vice Chancellor, whether regular or temporary, must strictly adhere to the norms prescribed in Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations.
The Bench emphasised that the Chancellor has no unilateral power to issue the notifications as the appointments were invalid on procedural grounds.
The Court also stressed that any temporary appointment under the statutes must be limited to a maximum of six months, and cannot be open-ended or vague.
Finally, expressing concern over the vacant VC positions in both universities, the Court called upon both the Governor and the State to urgently coordinate in filling all pending vacancies, including those of regular VCs as per law and without delay.
The primary focus should be on the welfare of students and the autonomy of the universities, the Court underlined.
"Considering the stalemate existing in the administration of the Technological University and the Digital University, which is continuing for a considerably long period, and which had an adverse impact on the functioning of the said Universities and the interest of the student community, we are of the view that the Chancellor as well as the State Government will have to act pro-actively, to ensure that regular appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the said Universities are made, without any further delay," the Court stated.
Senior Counsel S Sreekumar along with advocate S Prasanth, standing counsel for the Chancellor of Universities appeared for the Chancellor.
Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup appeared for the State of Kerala.
[Read Judgment]