'Unwarranted Intervention Of Kerala Govt' : Supreme Court Quashes Re-Appointment Of Kannur University Vice Chancellor

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Thursday (November 30) set aside the re-appointment of Dr.Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice Chancellor( VC) of the Kannur University in Kerala.

The Court quashed the notification dated November 23, 2021, re-appointing Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the VC, on the ground of "unwarranted intervention of the State Government" and by observing that the Chancellor (Kerala Governor) "abdicated or surrendered" the statutory powers for re-appointing the Vice Chancellor.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court took note of a press release issued by the Kerala Raj Bhavan which stated that the process of re-appointment was initiated by the Chief Minister and the Higher Education Minister.

"Although the notification for reappointment was issued by the Chancellor, yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous consideration, or to put it in other words, by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government", the Court pronounced.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra allowed the appeal challenging the February 2022 judgment delivered by a division bench of the Kerala High Court approving the re-appointment of the VC and affirming the December 2021 single bench judgment.

Justice Pardiwala, who pronounced the judgment on behalf of the bench, said that four questions were considered :

1. Whether re-appointment is permissible in a tenure post.

2. Whether the upper age limit of 60 years as stipulated in Section 10(9) of the Kannur University Act is applicable even in the case of reappointment for four years.

3. Whether re-appointment has to follow the same process as the appointment of VC by setting up a selection panel.

4. Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender the statutory power of reappointment?

The questions were answered by the Court as follows :

1. Re-appointment is permissible in a tenure post.

2. The age limit of 60 yrs won't apply in the case of a re-appointment.

3. It is not necessary that re-appointment should follow the same process as a fresh appointment.

However, the bench allowed the appeal on the fourth question. "On facts and on certain principles of law, we have taken the view that the Chancellor abdicated or surrendered the statutory power of reappointment, rendering the entire decision making process bad", Justice Pardiwala said.

Justice Pardiwala stated that the Court has relied on the press release which stated "Kerala Raj Bhavan strongly refutes some news reports that it was on the direction that the Hon'ble Governor that the name of Dr.Gopinathan Ravindran was suggested. The truth is that the same was initiated by the Chief Minister and the Higher Education Minister". The press release further stated that the process was set in motion by a request of the Higher Education Minister and the opinion of the Advocate General of Kerala.

Only the statutory authority can exercise the power, outside interference will vitiate the deicision

The Court relied on the well settled principle that the writ of quo warranto lies if any appointment to the public office is made in breach of the statute or the rules. The Court also clarified that it was not concerned with the suitability of the candidate but the issue was with respect to the decision making process.

"It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Act to appoint or re-appoint the Vice Chancellor. No other person, even the pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority. And if any decision is taken by the statutory authority at the behest or the suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. Thus, it is the decision making process which vitiated the re appointment of Vice Chancellor. Such a process is amenable to judicial review".

It may be recalled that in October 2022, in a similar matter, the Supreme Court had quashed the re-appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University on the ground that the West Bengal State Government "usurped the powers of the Chancellor".

Proceedings before the High Court

The Single Judge had dismissed the writ preferred by elected members of the Senate and Academic Council of Kannur University holding that the impugned appointment violated no statutory provisions of reappointment of the current VC. The petitioners in the SLP relied on section 10(9) of the Kannur University Act to contend that when the notification of Re-appointment of VC was issued in November 23, 2021, he had crossed the age of sixty which is the age limit for appointment to that post. Referring to the same, they argued that as on that date the VC was not eligible to be appointed.

The High Court relied on Section 10(10) of the Act to hold that a VC holding the office was eligible for re-appointment. The only interdiction to re-appointment was that the a person shall not be appointed as Vice Chancellor for more than 2 terms.

"...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," observed the High Court.

Case Title: Dr Premchandran Keezhoth & Anr v The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors | C.A. No. 7700/2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1025

Click here to read the judgment