KTU syndicate members can't continue meeting called off by VC; would cause havoc: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that syndicate members of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) cannot independently carry on convening a syndicate meeting that has already been called off by the University's Vice-Chancellor [Dr Vinodkumar Jacob v The Vice Chancellor & ors and connected case].

Justice TR Ravi held that a meeting held by syndicate members, after the same was declared closed by the Vice-Chancellor (VC), could not be treated as a legally convened meeting under the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act of 2015 (Act) or the University's First Statutes.

The Court further ruled that the VC is well within his powers to cancel decisions taken in such meetings.

The Court noted that under Section 28 of the Act, a forum of five syndicate members is required to convene a meeting. However, the initiative for convening and conducting such meetings rests purely with the VC, it found.

It added that this statutory requirement was to control members from calling parallel meetings independently without the VC or the Registrar, as it could create havoc.

"The mere fact that the requirement of the quorum was satisfied, it cannot be held to be a properly convened meeting of the Syndicate. To hold that such a meeting should be treated as a properly convened meeting can create havoc. At any point of time, 5 members which alone is the quorum required can call a meeting, in the absence of the Vice Chancellor, and upset any earlier decision of the Syndicate, taken in a properly convened meeting. It is to prevent such situations, that even though the quorum is only one-third of the total strength of the Syndicate, controls are laid by requiring that the meeting is to be at the instance of the Vice Chancellor," the Court explained in its August 25 ruling.

Any other interpretation could lead to ridiculous situations, the Court added.

"If it is to be held that the members can convene meeting by themselves … there can be a possibility of the three groups of five members each, can all convene different meetings by themselves, satisfying the quorum for the meeting, and decide as they like, on the so called reason of ‘absence of the Vice Chancellor.’ This would only create ridiculous situations."

The Court made the observation while dismissing petitions by two KTU syndicate members who challenged the VC's order annulling decisions passed at the 63rd syndicate meeting.

The VC had initially convened the meeting but called it off midway when members demanded the inclusion of an agenda item concerning disciplinary action against an employee.

In protest, the members elected one among themselves as Chairman and passed certain resolutions, which were later annulled by the VC.

This decision to annul the resolutions was challenged before the High Court.

The petitioners (syndicate members) submitted that the VC had no power to annul syndicate decisions. They relied on Statute 10(2) of the University's First Statutes to argue that once the VC had left the meeting, the syndicate could continue its meeting in his absence by electing a chair.

However, the Court observed that such an interpretation of the statutes could lead to absurd consequences. It pointed out that the 2015 Act expressly required Syndicate meetings to be convened at the instance of the VC and the Registrar and not by individual members.

The Court further emphasised that while the Syndicate was the chief executive body of the university, the VC also played an important role in the functioning of the university.

The proper remedy for the members aggrieved by the conduct of the VC was to approach the Chancellor and not hold separate meetings, the Court added.

"A certain amount of discretion and play in the joints have to be conceded to the Vice Chancellor. When the Vice Chancellor calls off a meeting due to disruption, it is not for this Court to conduct an enquiry into what happened or might have happened during the meeting, which can be said to justify or not justify the action of calling off the meeting, as if sitting in appeal over the said action. The members of the Syndicate had the option to take up the matter with the Chancellor, if they are aggrieved by the conduct of the Vice Chancellor," it said.

The Court proceeded to uphold the VC's decision to annul the resolutions passed at the meeting.

"I do not find anything illegal in the order of the Vice Chancellor annulling the decisions taken at the meeting held by the members of the Syndicate, after the meeting was called off, since the said meeting cannot be treated as a meeting of the Syndicate," it held.

Interestingly, the Court also criticised the fact that the First Statutes the University were issued only in Malayalam, without an authorised English translation as mandated under the Constitution of India.

The Court noted that this failure to translate despite repeated directions created difficulties in adjudication and asked the legislature to rectify such lapses in the future.

"It is all the more important that an English translation as provided in Article 348 (3) of the Constitution is available, in cases where the legislations are regarding Universities, which take care of higher education, and when the State is aiming to become a global education hub. Should not the students coming from all over India and all over the World have access to the law relating the University where they wish to pursue their higher education or should we still remain as “Koopa mandookam” (translated as frog in a well)?" the Court asked.

The Court has also directed the VC to convene another meeting at the earliest to consider pending issues that were left to be considered.

The Court further reminded that the VC that he need not call off or adjourn a meeting merely because requests are made to add an additional item to the meeting's agenda.

"It is well within the powers of the Chairman of a meeting to add additional items in the agenda which may become necessary and to discuss on the same and if necessary, postpone the decision to another day," the Court said.

Senior counsel P Ravindran assisted by advocate Aparna Rajan appeared for Dr Vinodkumar (one of the petitioners)

Advocate T Rajasekharan Nair appeared for Saju I (petitioner).

Senior government pleader AJ Varghese and advocate MA Vaheeda Babu represented the Vice Chancellor of KTU.

[Read Judgment]