Kerala High Court Expresses Concerns About Students Amidst Disputes Between State Govt & Chancellor; Urges To Iron Out Differences

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reminded that Constitutional functionaries such as the State Government and the Governor ought not to contest litigations with the view to obtain a win, but to ensure that the law is complied with and that the Constitutional imperatives are supported and achieved, and in any case, the students are not made to suffer as a result of the same. 

The Court made the above observation while dismissing the petition filed by the State Government challenging the order of the Chancellor appointing Ciza Thomas (3rd respondent herein) as the Vice Chancellor in charge of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, and holding her to be fully qualified in occupying the said position. 

Litigants, as a rule, would always believe that their position is right, and this is why they're goaded to higher levels in pursuit of validation of their contentions. However, when it comes to high constitutional functionaries, the purpose of litigation is not to obtain a win, but to ensure that the law is complied with and that the Constitutional imperatives are supported and achieved.

Justice Devan Ramachandran, observed in this regard, that while the litigants herein were not intended to be blamed by the Court in bringing the matter before it, and added that,

"...at the end of it all, one has to effectively analyze whether the benefits would outweigh the damage caused by the open ventilation of disputes between two high Constitutional functionaries, and what impact this would have on the students of the University, and academicians, and the public. In that sense, perhaps it would have been better that the two functionaries had ironed out their differences as is normally done when Constitutional functionaries obtain differences of opinion, but then this is only at the best, a hope, and can never be an advice, and which this Court in any case, does not intend to offer".

The Court also discussed at length the importance of Universities, and noted that the instant University was one which had virtual monopoly over all technological disciplines, which is the cornerstone of the development of a State or a nation, and if the students are to believe that their interests are detrimentally to be affected on account of disputes which are beyond their realm, and beyond their concern, it would be a sad day for it as also the State of Kerala as a whole.

The Court therefore requested the University, the Chancellor and the UGC to immediately act in unison, to have the Selection Committee constituted in the earliest, and to appoint a VC at the earliest, if possible, within 2 or 3 months' time.

"...this would also be in the interest of the State, because once the validly selected VC is appointed, her term would automatically end and would not require any other action", the Court added. 

It further went on to observe that, 

"I hope the stakeholders would remember that the appointment of the 3rd respondent is for a very short period, which is not even worth disputing as long as she is qualified and have obtained the requisite experience. I can of course, only comment but I cannot command". 

As regards the allegations by the 3rd respondent on the one hand that she was not allowed to function on account of non-cooperation of employees of University, and hence more than 4000 applications were pending for certificate issuance, and other services like conduct of examination, answer script evaluation, were also prejudiced; and the contentions of the Standing Counsel for the University Elvin Peter on the other hand that it was the 3rd respondent who was not opening or acting on the files placed before her, the Chancellor ought to take specific note of the same, and take stringent action to resolve the imbroglio.

Case Title: State of Kerala rep. by the Addl. Secretary to the Government v. The Chancellor

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 621

Click Here To Read/Download The Order