Supreme Court Holds Reappointment Of Kannur University VC 'Patently Illegal', Says Unwarranted Interference By State Govt Vitiated The Decision

Justice Pardiwala pronouncing the verdict, observed, "Our final conclusion is that the writ of quo-warranto lies if any appointment to a public office is made in the breach of the statute of rules. In the case on hand, we are not concerned with the suitability of the respondent no. 4. The desirability of the candidate for appointment to a post is to be judged by the appointing authority and not by the court, unless the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules/provision. We have reached the conclusion that although the notification for the re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor, yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations, or to put in other words by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government. It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Act 1996 (Kannur University Act, 1996) to appoint or to reappoint a Vice Chancellor, no other person even the Pro-Chancellor or a superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority. And if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on a 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 entire process of re-appointment of the respondent no. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor. We emphasize on the decision-making process because in such a case the exercise of power is amenable to judicial review…”.

The bench formulated four questions, which were answered accordingly:

1. Whether re-appointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post. To which the bench answered that it is not necessary that in a tenure post there cannot be a reappointment.

2. Whether the outer age limit of 60 years for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor as stipulated under sub-section 9 of Section 10 of the 1996 Act is to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for one more term of 4 years. The bench while agreeing with the impugned judgment held that it will not apply when it comes to reappointment.

3. Whether the reappointment of the Vice Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under Section 10(1) of the Act. The bench answered that for the purpose of re-appointment, it is not necessary to follow the same process for appointment by setting up of a selection committee.

However, on the fourth question, the bench allowed the plea which was, "Did the chancellor surrender the statutory power of re-appointment of the Vice Chancellor". The Court cited a press release which had indicated that the Chief Minister and the Higher Education Minister of the State influenced the decision of the Chancellor suggesting Gopinath's name.

"...we have allowed the appeal on facts and law, the Chancellor surrendered the statutory power of re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor rendering the entire decision making process bad. We have relied on the press release which states, 'Kerala Raj Bhavan strongly refutes the claim in some reports that it was on the direction of the Hon’ble Governor that the name of was suggested for re-appointment of Vice Chancellor of Kannur. The truth is that the same was initiated by the Chief Minister and the Higher Education Minister'".

The bench further read the last portion of the press release which it said was relevant in the matter, "...That the process of selection of Vice-Chancellor which was set in motion with a notification dated 27-10-2021 came to an end consequence to the request from the Minister of Higher Education on the opinion of the Advocate General of the State of Kerala".

The plea challenged the re-appointment of Dr Gopinath Raveendran as the Vice Chancellor of Kannur University for being over age (above 60 years) as per the age bar prescribed under Section 10 of the Kannur University Act, 1996.

In the impugned judgment, a division bench of the Kerala High Court had observed that in the matter of re-appointment, the age bar prescribed under Section 10(9) of the Act for appointment of the Vice Chancellor would not come into play, because the Vice Chancellor who has 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.

In the matter, applications were invited by the Selection Committee for the selection of Vice Chancellor of the University from the eligible candidates, wherein the qualifications and experience were to be followed as prescribed in clause 7.3(i) of the UGC Regulations.

As per the notification the applicant should not have completed 60 years of age as on the date of notification, as provided in Section 10 of the Act, 1996. Therefore, it was argued that the State Government having taken steps to conduct selection of the Vice Chancellor in accordance with the qualifications and experience prescribed under the UGC Notification, the eligibility criteria has to be assessed for re-assessment.

A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court while dismissing the writ petition had then concluded that the expressions 'appointment' and 'reappointment' have different connotations and for undergoing the reappointment, the qualifications are prescribed under clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and that there is no age bar for reappointment.

It was further held that at the initial stage of appointment, in the year 2017, all the parameters were considered for appointment as per the procedure, but for the re-appointment, as per sub-Section 10(10), there is no requirement for undertaking the task of constitution of the selection committee as was done during the initial appointment.

Then in appeal, the division while upholding the judgment, observed, “Taking into account all the above intrinsic aspects with regard to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, eligibility, qualification etc., and also the relevant inputs of the UGC Regulations, 2018, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. Even though various contentions were advanced and several judgments were cited by the respective Senior Counsel in regard to the intricacies of issuance of a writ of quo warranto, we are not inclined to go into that question, since we find that the re-appointment of the 4th respondent was made in accordance with law, and therefore he can never be said to be an usurper to the post. Having rendered the findings as above, the arguments advanced strenuously by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, relying upon the term 'eligibility', contained under Section 10(10) of the Act 1996 in the matter of making re- appointment by referring to various legal dictionaries, we do not find much force in the same”.

Cause Title: Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. V. The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors.