Kerala High Court Upholds Reappointment Of Kannur University Vice Chancellor, Dismisses Appeal Against Single Judge Decision

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the re-appointment of Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University.

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.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly rejected the appeal moved by the appellants praying that the Single Judge decision be quashed and Ravindran's reappointment be withdrawn.

"No doubt, if there is any manner of shortcomings on the part of the Vice-Chancellor initially appointed, so as to affect the academic excellence, moral issues or otherwise to have any adverse consequence to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor, it would be different. But, the appellants have not raised any sort of such allegations against the 4th respondent (Ravindran). Merely because a notification was issued to conduct a selection, that by itself will not dissuade the Government/Chancellor to recommend and re-appoint the existing Vice-Chancellor."

The petition filed through Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocates Nisha George and Arun Chandran 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.

Ravindran was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor in 2017 after observing all the legal procedures. However, his term came to an end this year and the post became vacant. Accordingly, steps were initiated to appoint a Vice-Chancellor.

Though steps were in progress for the selection of a new Vice-Chancellor, surprisingly, the notification calling for eligible candidates was withdrawn and the selection committee constituted was dissolved with immediate effect.

On the very next day, the Chancellor notified the reappointment of Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor for another four years.

Aggrieved by this, the appellants moved the Court citing that the Single Judge had wrongly applied precedents that had no correlation with the facts of the case.

The main contention put forth by the appellants was that when there is no legal distinction prescribed between the appointment and the re-appointment, the single Judge had no right in law in holding that Ravindran had undergone the process as prescribed under the Act and the UGC Regulations and satisfied the parameters for appointment in the year 2017.

Advocate General. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup assisted by Senior Government Pleader V. Manu appeared for the State. Advocate Ranjith Thampan represented Ravindran, Senior Advocate Kurian George Kannanthanam for the Chancellor and Advocate I.V. Pramod appeared for the Kannur University. All of them endorsed the finding of the Single Judge. 

After hearing the parties, the Court found that the fundamental issue raised in the appeal revolves around Section 10 of the Act, 1996 dealing with the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

The Bench noted that one of the important aspects to be noted is that as per Section 10(9), it is clearly specified that no person who is more than sixty years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.

But Section 10 (10) makes it explicit that the Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for re-appointment. However, interdiction is made as per the proviso thereto, by making it clear that, a person shall not be appointed as Vice Chancellor for more than 2 terms.

Therefore it was observed that it is significant to note that Section 10(10) is conjunctive in nature and not distinctive.

"...the statute itself has made a clear cut procedure with respect to the re-appointment and has made it clear that the Vice-Chancellor who holds the office for a term of 4 years consequent to the initial appointment, shall be eligible for re-appointment." 

The Court also pointed out that no allegations or specific pleadings were made in the petition or the appeal to show that Ravindran had acquired any sort of incompetency during his original tenure as prescribed under the extant laws so as to disqualify him for re-appointment.

Further, the Judges found force in the contention of the respondents that the age limit of 60 years is prescribed only for appointment under the University laws, which is not applicable to the re-appointment.

"This we say because, under the law, a person otherwise qualified can be appointed just before he or she completes the age of sixty years and the law permits the appointee to continue in service unruffled by the age bar." 

As such, the Bench reached a conclusion after assimilating the factual and legal situations and understanding the issues that in the matter of re-appointment, the age bar prescribed under Section 10(9) for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor would not come into play, because the Vice-Chancellor who was appointed before attaining the age of 60 years is entitled to continue for a term of four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment.

Therefore, the Single Judge's decision was upheld and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal finding that the appellants have not made out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities in the case.

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

Click Here To Read/Download The Order