Chancellor Doesn't Have Unbridled Power: High Court Quashes Nominations Made By Chancellor To Senate Of Kerala University In 'Other Members' Category

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. directed the Chancellor to make fresh nominations in the category of 'Other Members' as per law within six weeks. The Court said:

“It is trite that there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions. As stated above, there is an infraction of statutory provisions rendering the nomination bad. Though it is a case of nomination, in the exercise of the statutory power, if the nomination made is contrary to the requirement of the statute or if relevant factors were not considered or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decisions, which no reasonable person would have done, the nominations will have to be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts.”

Three writ petitions were filed challenging the nominations made to the Senate. Two writ petitions were filed challenging the nominations made by the Governor under Section 17 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 in the category of 'Other Members'.

According to Section 17, the Chancellor has the authority to nominate four students to the Senate, each distinguished by their exceptional academic abilities in the fields of humanities, science, sports, and fine arts.

The writ petitioners alleged that nominations made by the Chancellor were legally unacceptable and stated that Chancellor do not have unbridled power to make nominations disregarding the ranks and merits of other students. It was alleged that Chancellor made nominations without following the normal procedure adopted by the University.

The third writ petition was filed challenging the nominations as the government representatives to the Senate of Kerala University. As per Section 17, the Government Representative should have experience in higher education field. It was alleged that persons nominated as government representatives do not have any experience in the field of higher education and also has crimes registered against them. It was alleged that they were ineligible to hold the post of government representatives.

The Chancellor filed a statement before the Court stating that the statute does not prescribe a procedure for making nominations. It was also submitted that nominations were made after assessing the nominees' eligibilities. Regarding the nominations of government representatives, it was submitted that they have been associated with the field of Higher Education in the State since years and have sufficient experience.

Regarding the nominations to the category 'Other Members', the Court stated that there is no procedure prescribed in the statute for making nominations to the Senate. However, the Court stated that credentials of other students (respondents) who were rank holders should also have been considered before making the nominations. The Court said:

“True, there is no procedure set out for making nominations. However, as stated above, nominations at the very least should conform to the statutory requirements. Any arbitrary use of power violates not only the rule of 'Equality' enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also the rule of 'Discrimination' inbuilt in Article 16. An unguided, unfettered and unbridled power is foreign to the exercise of any power, constitutional or statutory. It is trite that even in the exercise of discretionary power, the requirements of reasonableness, rationality, impartiality, fairness and equity are inherent to such exercise and can never be according to any private opinion.”

Regarding the nominations to government representatives, the Court stated that they have sufficient experience in the higher education field and mere pendency of cases cannot be treated as a disqualification for nomination to the Senate. It thus dismissed the third writ petition and declined to interfere with their nominations.

Thus, the Court allowed two writ petitions quashing the nominations made in the 'Other Members' category to the Senate and declined to interfere with the nominations made as the government representatives to the Senate of Kerala University.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 298

Case Title: Arunima Ashok v The Chancellor & Connected Cases

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 41785 OF 2023 & Connected Cases

Click here to read/download Judgment