Supreme Court to form search committee for Kerala VC appointments amid Governor–State standoff

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would constitute a search committee to shortlist candidates for the post of Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Digital University [The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University vs. State of Kerala and Ors.].

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan decided to adopt this course of action in an attempt to resolve the ongoing standoff between the Kerala Governor and the State government over the appointments.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Kerala Governor, in his capacity as Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (AKTU), challenging a Kerala High Court decision which upheld the State government’s authority to recommend temporary Vice-Chancellors.

The matter also involved a fresh application by the State, challenging a recent notification by the Governor appointing Dr K Sivaprasad as interim VC of AKTU.

At the outset, Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Governor, submitted that the appointment was in complete compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. He said the State was insisting that no interim VC could be appointed unless its recommendation was accepted by the Chancellor.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for Kerala government, said the State had followed the statutory process by constituting a search committee to recommend names for a regular VC.

However, the Chancellor went ahead and formed a separate search committee without involving the government contrary to the provisions of the UGC, Gupta contended.

The Bench then asked the Attorney General to clarify who had the authority to constitute a search committee as per law. When AG Venkataramani maintained that the Chancellor was empowered to nominate members, Gupta countered that under the UGC regulations and the Technological University Act, the State government is vested with this power.

Justice Pardiwala observed that the Court’s objective is to avoid prolonged procedural conflict and focus on filling the posts with regular appointees. He suggested that both sides propose an equal number of names so the Court could finalise a duly constituted search committee.

“The Chancellor may participate in the regular appointment process, but why create a stalemate at the stage of forming the search committee? You both give us four names, and we will consider them. One member will come from the UGC,” Justice Pardiwala said.

The Attorney General responded that the Chancellor had the authority to appoint the committee after a public notification, to which he had no objection if the notification was issued by the State.

Gupta, however, insisted that neither the UGC nor the Chancellor had executive powers in this regard.

When Gupta argued that UGC regulations were silent on the method of constituting a search committee and therefore, the State had the executive power to do so, the Bench proposed that the Court itself could constitute the committee.

“Then we will appoint it. Each of you give us four names. The UGC will appoint one member,” Justice Pardiwala said.

The discussion also turned to the Governor’s appointment of Dr K Sivaprasad as a temporary VC without accepting the State’s recommended names. Gupta pointed out that Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act requires the Chancellor to act on the State’s recommendation for such appointments. He said the State had submitted three names on August 1 but the Governor went ahead and appointed someone else the same day.

Justice Pardiwala indicated that the Court would, for the time being, keep aside disputes over the temporary VC to prioritise regular appointments. He urged the parties to cooperate so the matter could be resolved promptly.

“In the larger interest, we may ignore for now what has been pointed out about the temporary VC. But why waste time on the permanent VC issue? We will help you out and appoint the committee. You can then sit with the State government and decide,” Justice Pardiwala said.

When Gupta expressed concern that excluding the State’s role in appointments could undermine the federal structure, Justice Pardiwala reiterated that the Court’s endeavour is to end the impasse.

“We will now constitute the search committee. It will conduct its exercise and follow the procedure established by law. Mr Gupta, it is our request, do not precipitate this issue relating to the temporary appointment. Let us put an end to this,” the judge said.

The matter is likely to be taken up tomorrow after the State and the Governor come up with their respective list of suggested names.

[Read Live Coverage]