'No Usurpation In Office, Eligible For Post': Kerala High Court Upholds Appointment Of Prof Venkateshwarlu As Central University VC

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed a batch of petitions that challenged the appointment of Prof. H Venkateshwarlu as the Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala.

A division bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the selection and appointment of the VC was as per the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009 and the statutes thereunder:

“The 3rd respondent has been appointed as Vice Chancellor, by the Visitor, the competent authority, as per the statutory provisions and is holding office with legal authority and there is no usurpation in office by the 3rd respondent. He has the necessary qualification and eligibility for the post. This Court will not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Visitor in the choice of the person to be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor.”

The petitions were filed contending that the VC had no authority to hold the office as his appointment was marred by procedural defects. The petitioners contended that the appointment was in violation of the UGC regulations, Central Universities Act, 2009 and the statutes thereunder.

Brief Facts

A notification was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education inviting applications for the post of VC of the Central University, Kerala.

A Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted by the Ministry for recommending a panel of names for the said appointment. The Committee constituted in terms of Statute 2(2) of the Statutes shortlisted 16 candidates from among 223 applicants. From 16 candidates shortlisted, the Committee recommended the names of 5 candidates for appointment to the post of VC after personal interaction. The Ministry scrutinised the panel of names but did not find the candidates suitable for the post. The committee thus recommended the Visitor to reject the panel selected and recommended selection of a fresh panel of 5 academicians. It submitted a summary note to the Visitor in this regard and a note assessing the 5 candidates.

The Visitor agreed with the recommendation of the committee and directed the Committee to select a fresh panel for consideration to the post of VC. The Committee subsequently submitted a shortlist of 10 candidates for personal interaction. From the 10 persons shortlisted, the Committee again recommended the names of 5 persons. From the 5 persons, the Visitor appointed Prof. Venkateshwarlu as the VC.

Section 11 of the Central Universities Act states that the Visitor may appoint the VC in accordance with the statutes. Under Section 8(1) of the Central Universities Act, the President of India is the Visitor of the University. 

What Constitutes An Extended Fresh Panel?

The main contention of the Petitioners was that the fresh panel should not have selected from the list already rejected by the committee after scrutiny. It was contended that the fresh panel ought to have been formed from the 11 remaining shortlisted candidates and not from the entire list of 223 candidates who applied for the post.

The Ministry of Education contended that the 11 persons initially shortlisted were considered but were not called for personal interaction as it had already been done by the committee. The 10 persons who were subsequently shortlisted for interaction was in addition to the candidates who had been shortlisted at the first instance. The shortlisted 11 persons were also considered again by the Selection Committee, and was a coincidence that among the 11 persons shortlisted earlier no one was selected for the fresh panel. The respondent also contended that the VC fulfilled the academic qualifications and other eligibility criteria for appointment and that it was in accordance with the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009 and the Statutes.

The court considered the question of what constitutes an extended fresh panel as envisaged in the proviso to Statute 2(1) of the Statutes.

The court did not accept the contention of the petitioners and noted that if the 207 candidates from the 223 candidates who applied for the post, other than the initially shortlisted 16 were rejected then the 11 persons among the 16 who were not recommended by the Committee initially would also be deemed to be rejected. This would mean that there would be no candidates for consideration to the post. The court observed:

“In our view, the extended fresh panel shall include the names of all 218 (223-5) candidates other than the 5 persons in Ext.P6. From this extended panel, the Committee has, by Ext.P10, shortlisted 10 candidates for personal interaction and by Ext.P11, the Committee has recommended the names of 5 persons and the Visitor has appointed the 3rd respondent from the said panel. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that persons who were rejected by the Committee in the initial round of scrutiny have been shortlisted. The contention of the petitioners that the extended fresh panel ought to have been formed from the available 11 from Ext.P5 cannot be sustained.”

Is The Visitor Bound By The Advice Of The Ministry For Appointment Of Vice-Chancellor?

The petitioners also contended that Visitor was not bound by the advice of the Ministry and should not have acted upon the directions of the Ministry and hence the appointment of VC was invalid.

The court held that the Visitor can take an independent decision when it comes to the appointment of VC and is not bound by the recommendations of the Ministry. The Visitor is free to approve or reject the proposal of the Ministry.

“If the Visitor does not approve any of the persons included in the panel, he/she can also call for an extended fresh panel. Whether to approve or reject a panel is the discretion of the Visitor and he is not bound by the recommendation of the Ministry/Department. The Visitor need not record reasons for approving or rejecting the proposal/ recommendation of the Search Committee/ Ministry. Under the scheme of the Central Universities Act and Statutes, when the Visitor can take independent decision upon his/her own discretion, it is for the petitioners to plead and prove that the decision of the Visitor was not on his own discretion. They have not succeeded in doing so.”

The court held that the petitioners failed to established any violation of the provisions of the Statutes and that the appointment could not be set aside on the ground that the visitor acted on the recommendation of the Ministry.

Case Title: Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal V Union Of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 184

Click here to read/download judgment