UGC Regulations Do Not Require Chancellor's Nominee In Search-Cum-Selection Committee For Universities : Kerala High Court's Prima Facie View

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday stayed a Single bench order directing to include the Chancellor's representative in the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. 

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly said that Chancellor's representative is not necessary in the search committee for appointment of the KTU VC, and that the Single Judge's order is against statutory regulations to this extent.

"Indisputably by the learned counsel appearing for all parties, Search-cum-Selection-Committee of the UGC is constituted only by the State Government through a public notification, and the said Committee, after considering the factors / parameters, submit a panel to the Visitor / Chancellor. Thereafter, Visitor / Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor, out of the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection-Committee. Prima facie, statutory regulations does not contemplate or empower nomination by the Chancellor in the Search-cum-Selection Committee for any University", the Court observed while staying the directions of the writ Court in this regard.

The bench was dealing with State's appeal seeking reversal of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan's decision in his capacity as Chancellor.

The Single Judge had earlier, while dismissing the petition filed by the State Government challenging the appointment of Ciza Thomas, had observed that there was no doubt that Thomas was fully qualified going by the UGC Regulations, since it permits experience in both teaching and research, and since she was working as the Senior Joint Director in Directorate of Technical Education, the choice was justified. It had directed the Chancellor and the UGC to constitute a selection committee for the appointment of the new Vice Chancellor of the University within a period of 2 months. 

It is against the said verdict that the State Government preferred the appeal before the Division Bench. It was argued that the Single Judge's observations in Paragraphs 144 and 145, was against the UGC norms and the provisions of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2015). The impugned part is as under, 

"....I can only, therefore, beseech the stakeholders to understand this and attempt to appoint a Vice Chancellor on regular basis without any delay; and this is certainly possible because, going by the ratio of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Selection Committee has to be constituted with nominees of the UGC; of the Chancellor and the Syndicate of the University, which can be done quickly. If this is so, then the State should also be happy, because the tenure of the 3rd respondent as the Vice Chancellor could be confined to the smallest possible period. As I have said above, the UGC makes their stand clear that they are willing to offer their nominee to the Selection Committee within a period of two weeks; and it is also similarly stated by the Chancellor. However, Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, says that he has no instructions in this regard and I do not blame him, because this Court had never asked him about this. I, therefore, conclude with the afore observations; and resultantly close this writ petition without acceding to any of its prayers; however, directing the University, the Chancellor and the UGC to immediately act in unison to have the Selection Committee constituted and to appoint a Vice Chancellor at the earliest, but not later than two or, at the best, three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment".

Before the Division Bench, it was argued by Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup that in the absence of any statutory provision / Regulation, direction of the writ court to constitute a Search-cum-Selection Committee, with the nominee of the Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, is erroneous, and therefore, such Selection Committee, if any to be constituted, cannot be allowed to act, as per the directions contained in the directions of the Single Judge. 

It was added that insofar as the constitution of the Selection Committee was concerned, it was for the State Government to act, in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Act, 2015, and that at any rate, there was no provision for inclusion of nominee of the Chancellor in the Selection Committee. 

On the other hand, Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, appearing on behalf of Prof. (Dr.) Ciza Thomas (the 3rd respondent herein), submitted that in the light of the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the matter of appointment of Vice Chancellors of Universities, Section 13 of the  Act, 2015, could no longer be applied.

Advocate S. Krishnamoorthy, appearing on behalf of the UGC submitted that Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 ought to be followed, and that there had to be one member in the Search-cum-Selection-Committee nominated by the Chairman of the UGC. 

Senior Advocate S. Gopakumaran Nair, appearing on behalf of the Chancellor (1st respondent herein), argued that the Chancellor, being the head of the higher educational institutions, and in the interest of the student community, ought to have a say in the matter of constitution of the Selection Committee, and in such circumstances, directions issued by the writ court was justified. 

The Court herein perused Section 13 (2), and (7) of the Act, 2015, as well as Regulation 7.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. 

The Court found that although the applicability of Section 13 to the case at hand was one of the issues raised, the same could only be addressed at the time of final hearing of the writ appeal. 

However, as regards the impugned directions of the Single Judge was concerned, the Court observed, 

"at this juncture, we are of the view that, taking it for granted that Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, cannot be made applicable for selection and appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor in any University, consequently, the University Grants Commission Regulations can only be applied. In which case, the selection to the post of Vice Chancellor should be made through identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee, through a public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination thereof".

The Court further observed that as per the provisions, the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee ought to persons' of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges, and that while preparing the panel, the Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance, to be given in writing along with the panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall also be nominated by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities. 

"Reading of the above prima facie shows that Vice Chancellor is not empowered to constitute a Search-cum-Selection-Committee nor nominate a person of his choice in the said Committee", the Court added. 

It was in this light that the impugned directions of the Single Judge were stayed. 

The case has been posted for further consideration on January 9, 2023. 

Case Title: State of Kerala represented by Additional Secretary to Government v. The Chancellor

Click Here To Read/Download The Order