Appeal Filed Before Kerala High Court Against Single Bench Decision Upholding Reappointment Of Kannur University Vice Chancellor

The petitioners who had challenged the reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University have appealled before a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court against its recent single judge order dismissing the plea. 

The issue has been gaining momentum in Kerala since this is the first time in the history of the State that a Vice Chancellor was reappointed. Moreover, it is reported that he was reappointed into office hours after his send-off ceremony as the outgoing VC. 

The petition filed through Senior Advocate George Poonthottam and Advocate Nisha George alleged that Ravindran was reappointed as the Vice-Chancellor in total disregard to the prohibition contained in Section 10 (9) of the Kannur University Act.

When the plea came up for consideration, Justice Amit Rawal observed that as held by the Apex Court, a writ of quo-warranto does not lie if the alleged violation is not of statutory provision/rules or if the alleged violation is not of a statutory nature

The appellants have moved the Court citing that the Single Judge had wrongly applied precedents that had no correlation with the facts of the case. 

"The issues decided in the said case has been wrongly applied by the learned Single Judge, as the said decision has no application to the facts of the case as there is no correlation with the facts and since there cannot be a comparison between a contract appointment with the appointment here on hand made in terms of the statutory provisions and prescriptions," the appeal reads.

It was also mentioned by the Single Judge that there was no specific statutory provision that for "re-appointment", the same procedure has required to be followed which was done at the time of initial appointment.

However, the appellants disputed this claim and argued that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge and the applicability of law as available in the case on hand are different.

It was added that when there is no legal distinction prescribed, the Single Judge could not have held that Ravindran had undergone the process and satisfied the parameters for appointment in the year 2017.

"There is nothing in law to presume that the person who is once qualified is always qualified."

The appellants have also contended that when there is a statutory prohibition in appointing a person who has crossed the age of 60 years, the primary question which the Single Judge ought to have considered was whether Ravindran had crossed the age. 

If he had, and the appellants submit that he has, this disabled him from being appointed by using the terminology "re-appointment" in which there is no distinction in law and facts.

They added that the contention of the State that there is no age restriction for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor as per UGC Regulations will not sustain since in that case, there is no provision in the UGC Regulation for re-appointment of the Vice Chancellor either.

On such and other grounds, the appellants have prayed that the Single Judge decision be quashed and Ravindran's reappointment be withdrawn. 

Case Title: Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.