Vice Chancellor Appointment | How Can Kerala University Function Without VC? High Court Slams Senate

The High Court on Tuesday grilled Kerala University Senate for not nominating a member for the selection committee, which has to consider names for appointment of the varsity's new vice chancellor.

The court was hearing a petition challenging the Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan's "withdrawal" of membership of 15 Senators. Khan had taken the decision in his capacity as the Chancellor.

Questioning the reluctance in nominating the member, Justice Devan Ramachandran said:

"You can simply nominate a nominee and a VC can straightaway be appointed. Somehow you don't want to appoint a nominee"

Continuing, the court asked:

"What is the University trying to achieve out of this? How can it function without a VC? If the University does not want a VC for one year, then tell me that, we will put somebody else on the job".

The court said since a meeting is scheduled to be held on November 4, it would have been desirable had a nominee's name been sent by the Senate so as to end the whole controversy.

"On 04.11.2022 we have a meeting and all we require is a nominee from the Senate under Section 10(1). The Senate is standing on technicalities to say that we will not nominate; I wonder why", the court observed.

The Court further dealt with the aspect of the Doctrine of Pleasure of the Chancellor and orally observed that, 

"Pleasure in any context is when you act against law, not when you act against any individual. Suppose I appoint you. It is not a case where you act against me that I lose my pleasure; it is when you act against the law under which I appointed you that I lose my pleasure. Only question is whether you have acted illegally". 

The Court further added that it was not personal pleasure that was being looked at but the jurisdictional official pleasure. Thus, "all that has to be looked at is whether you did this deliberately to violate the law; not the Chancellor's directions", the Court orally remarked. 

The Court however added that it was willing to give a chance still to the Senate members, provided they sit together and get a nominee. 

Meanwhile, the Chancellor on Monday filed a written statement responding to the petition.

In the statement filed through Senior Advocate Jaju Babu, it has been submitted by the Chancellor that his actions were "in good faith to avoid all possible delay in appointing a new Vice Chancellor to the Kerala University".

The Chancellor's office has said that the Registrar on June 13 was asked to send the name of the nominee from the Senate. While the nominee of the UGC was received on June 13, the name was not furnished by the University despite reminders, the Chancellor's lawyer said in the statement.

The Chancellor thereafter constituted the Selection Committee on August 5 with a nominee of the UGC and nominee of the Chancellor as its members. It was also clearly stipulated that the nominee of the Senate of the University would be included as and when the same is received from the University, according to the statement.

The written statement further states that the minutes of of the Senate meeting held on August 20 was later sent by the Registrar in which it was mentioned that the House unanimously expressed the view that the notification issued on August 5 was not in conformity with Section 10(1) of the Act, and unanimously requested the Chancellor to withdraw the said notification.

The Chancellor has said since the Senate failed to send the name of its nominee, it was under these circumstances the decision was taken to withdraw the pleasure of allowing the 15 members from continuing in the Senate.

"Section 10(1) and 19(1) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 does not empower the Senate to intervene or stall the operation of the Notification dated 05.08.2022 issued by the Chancellor...In brief, the Senate of the University played truant and indulged in scuttling the process by delaying nomination of a member to the Selection Committee", the Chancellor has argued in response to the petition.

The Senate members including those nominated by the Chancellor do not "enjoy the privilege to indulge in any illegal decision making process against the lawful action of the Chancellor," the statement contends further.

Stating that, as per Section 10(1) of the Act, the sole responsibility of the Senate of the University is to furnish its nominee to the Selection Committee, the Chancellor in the reply further said:

"Instead, the Senate of the University preferred to challenge the authority of the Chancellor in constituting a Selection Committee. Such an action does not fall within their statutory jurisdiction which turned a blind eye to the fact that the letter and spirit of the Notification of Raj Bhavan dated 05.08.2022 explicitly describes the Selection Committee as a three-member Committee. The action of the Senate was clearly against the Act and Statutes. Chancellor's executive power cannot be pre-empted by the Senate.

It was "illegal" on part of the Senate to challenge the lawful action of the Chancellor, the Governor has argued further, adding that the request for withdrawal of the August 5 notification is unheard of and also not in consonance with the provisions of the University Act.

The matter has been posted for tomorrow at 1.45 P.M. 

Case Title: Dr. K.S. Chandrashekhar v. The Chancellor and other connected cases