Plea Before Kerala High Court Challenges Appointment Of Calicut University VC M K Jayaraj

A petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Calicut University, Dr. M.K. Jayaraj. 

The petition has been filed by Dr. T. Muhammedali, Associate Professor in an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University, for the issuance of the writ of quo warranto against Dr. Jayaraj. 

Muhammedali has argued that the post of the VC is a public office and the vacancy of such post ought to be filled by following the procedure as provided in the UGC Regulations and when the UGC Regulations are silent, by following the procedure as contained in the State enactment. It has been pointed out that a notification is required to be issued by the Chancellor of State University as mandated under the Calicut University Act, 1975.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner that a conjoint reading of Section 10 of the Act of 1975, as well as the Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations 2018 would indicate that the provisions in the State Act are in direct conflict with the provisions in the UGC Regulations. In such a situation, the petitioner avers that it is the Central law which ought to prevail.

The petition alleges the Search Committee had been constituted by the State Government contrary to the provisions in the UGC Regulations. Muhammedali has argued that the UGC Regulations 2018 clearly stipulate in Regulations 1.2 and 1.5 that the same shall apply to every University and every University is required to follow the Regulations once it is notified. 

However, he has alleged that the notification dated July 16, 2019 regarding the constitution of the Search Committee, had been issued under the 2013 Regulations constituting the Search Committee with 3 members, which is contrary to UGC Regulations 2018. 

The petitioner further points out that under both the Regulations of 2013 and 2018, the persons included in the Search Committee ought to be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education.

"The Chief Secretary cannot at any stretch of imagination can be considered as a person in the sphere of higher education. Through his inclusion, as a member and the Convener, the very constitution of the committee got vitiated. Consequently all actions are void ab-initio," the plea argues.

The petitioner has further said that the "illegally constituted Search Committee" had recommended names without providing their assessments as regards the respective candidates for making the said recommendation, which is an essential requirement and process, while submitting the panel to the Chancellor. In this manner, the petitioner claims, the appointment of the VC was contrary to law. 

"Continuance of the said person in such a high office namely the Vice Chancellor of the University is not in the interest of the University nor that of the academic sphere of the State all the more when the said illegality has been identified by the 2nd respondent (the Chancellor of the University) in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court in several judgments more especially in Prof. Dr. Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871], in the case of the appointment of Vice Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam University," Muhammedali has argued. 

Contending that Dr. Jayaraj is not a person duly selected and appointed to the post of VC of Calicut University, the petition contends he is "not entitled to continue in the said post which is a public office resulting in the continuance, as that, by a usurper".  

Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, and Advocates Nisha George, A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, and Sidharth R. Wariyar are appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case. 

Case Title: Dr. T. Muhammedali v. Dr. M.K. Jayaraj & Ors.