Plea Before Kerala High Court Challenges Vice Chancellor's Reappointment At Kannur University

A plea has reached the Kerala High Court challenging the reappointment of one Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University

The petitioners include an elected member of the senate and a member of the academic council of the University. 

They approached the court seeking a writ of quo-warranto against Ravindran, who was reappointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University allegedly in total disregard to the prohibition as contained in Section 10 (9) of the Kannur University Act.

The primary contention is that the 4th respondent was continuing as the Vice-Chancellor of the University,  a public office without a valid order or the status of a valid title to hold the office. Accordingly, it was argued that he was a usurper in the law. 

Conditions To Be Eligible For The Post Of Vice-Chancellor:

As per Section 10 of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor is to be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of a committee appointed by him.

Under Section 10 (9), there is a statutory prohibition to the effect that no person who is more than 60 years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.

Section 10(10) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall hold the office for a term of four years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for reappointment, provided that a person shall not be appointed as Vice Chancellor for more than two terms.

Apart from the Act, the UGC Regulations mandate the constitution of a selection committee which has to make their recommendations after identifying the credentials of persons with their eligibility, on the issuance of notification as provided in the regulations.  

Brief Facts:

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.

A selection committee was thereby constituted after a public notice was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates.

Though steps were in progress for the selection of a new Vice-Chancellor, surprisingly, the notification was withdrawn and the committee was dissolved with immediate effect. On the very next day, the Chancellor notified the reappointment of Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor for a period of another four years.  

Contentions Raised:

The petitioners alleged that there was so much debate in the academic circle that the re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor University was a valuable consideration for certain favoured actions. 

Irrespective of the merit or demerit of such widespread debates in the academic circle, the petitioners challenged the legal validity of the notification of Ravindran's reappointment strictly on legal parameters and sought a writ of quo-warranto in view of his statutory prohibition for the being appointed as the Vice-Chancellor in terms of Section 10 (9).  

It was reiterated that when reappointment is made by virtue of the provision contained in Section 10 (10), the law does not provide an exemption to be followed in the case of an incumbent holding the post of Vice-Chancellor. 

Similarly, they added that while considering the question of reappointment, the candidate so considered shall initially satisfy the condition provided in Section 10(9) since there is no distinction between appointment and reappointment. Such an appointment can only be after satisfying the procedure provided under clause 7.3 in its entirety of UGC Regulations.

Any other appointment is ab-initio void and the person so appointed is not entitled to hold the post legally, the plea reads.

It was further argued that the reappointment was not on the basis of an independent evaluation or consideration of materials. According to the petitioners, the decision was taken upon Government's proposal/request, which is a misfortune, as the Chancellor ought not to have acted upon such request or recommendation, since the Government, in law, has no say in the matter of appointment or reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor.  

At this juncture, the plea also stated that the power exercised by the Chancellor in the matter of appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is a power to be exercised uninfluenced by any external interference.

They contended that the fact that Ravindran's selection and appointment in 2017 were done after the process of selection is no legal justification to bypass the said process and therefore, his appointment cannot be described as an appointment as per law.  

On the said grounds, the petitioners prayed that the Court call for the records leading to Ravindran's reappointment and to quash the same. 

The petition was filed through Senior Advocate George Poonthottam and Advocate Nisha George.   

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