KTU Syndicate Meeting Can't Be Continued After Vice-Chancellor Calls It Off, Will Create 'Ridiculous Situations': Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that members of the Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) cannot continue a meeting once it has been called off by the Vice-Chancellor.Justice T R Ravi passed the order in two writ petitions filed by two Syndicate members challenging the annulment of decisions by the Vice Chancellor which were taken at the 63rd Syndicate meeting of KTU after the VC had declared the meeting as closed. Upholding the annulment of decisions by the VC the court said:"A certain amount of discretion and play in the joints have to be conceded to the Vice Chancellor. When the Vice Chancellor calls off a meeting due to disruption, it is not for this Court to conduct an enquiry into what happened or might have happened during the meeting, which can be said to justify or not justify the action of calling off the meeting, as if sitting in appeal over the said action. The members of the Syndicate had the option to take up the matter with the Chancellor, if they are aggrieved by the conduct of the Vice Chancellor. If it is to be held that the members can convene meeting by themselves, it would mean that in a case like this, there can be a possibility of the three groups of five members each, can all convene different meetings by themselves, satisfying the quorum for the meeting, and decide as they like, on the so called reason of “absence of the Vice Chancellor”. This would only create ridiculous situations""I do not find anything illegal in the order of the Vice Chancellor annulling the decisions taken at the meeting held by the members of the Syndicate, after the meeting was called off, since the said meeting cannot be treated as a meeting of the Syndicate," the court added. As per the facts, the 63rd Syndicate meeting was convened by the Vice Chancellor on January 16 this year. When members sought to include a disciplinary matter that was not part of the circulated agenda, the VC refused and abruptly declared the meeting closed without transacting any business. A majority of members objected and, after electing one among them as Chairperson, continued the meeting in the VC's absence, passing several resolutions including matters relating to staff reappointments.The Vice-Chancellor subsequently annulled these decisions, leading to petitions before the High Court by Syndicate members. They argued that under the University's First Statutes, members had the authority to continue the meeting by electing a presiding officer when the VC was absent.The high court examined the provisions of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, and the University's First Statutes (issued in vernacular Malayalam). The Court noted that only the vice Chancellor and Registrar can validly convene a Syndicate meeting. Section 28 of the Act requires the VC to fix the date and the Registrar to convene it. The Court noted that a meeting cannot be convened on the mere fact that the requirement quorum is satisfied. “To hold that such a meeting should be treated as a properly convened meeting can create havoc.” it was observed.The petitioners relied on Section 10(2) and emphasised on the words “in absence of the Vice Chancellor”. It was argued that once the Vice Chancellor left after calling off the meeting, it was a situation of “absence of the Vice-Chancellor” and the remaining members were free to continue the meeting as if it was the meeting earlier convened. The court however observed that the situation at hand was not a case of absence of the Vice Chancellor. "Firstly, it is not a case where there was absence of the Vice Chancellor. As already observed, this can lead to absurdities," the court said. “Even if the Vice Chancellor was in his office, a meeting can be held in another room by 5 members of the Syndicate and call it as a Syndicate meeting, which is not what is contemplated by law. So also, even if a meeting is completed and all the business is transacted and wound up, five persons can still continue with another meeting and intermeddle with the decisions already taken earlier. An interpretation of the above said Statute in the manner suggested by the petitioners, will only lead to serious mischief,” it said. Referring to case laws, the high court said that in case of statutory meetings, the person who convenes the meeting had power to call off the meeting even before it commenced or to call off a meeting which had already commenced, in certain situations. "Hence, such a power has to be conceded in favour of the Vice Chancellor in the case on hand," the court said. The Court further stressed that disputes over the VC's refusal to transact business must be resolved through the Chancellor, who has supervisory powers, rather than by unilateral action of Syndicate members.The Court also reiterated earlier judicial directions that all university statutes must be published with an authoritative English translation under Article 348(3) of the Constitution. The Court lamented that...

KTU Syndicate Meeting Can't Be Continued After Vice-Chancellor Calls It Off, Will Create 'Ridiculous Situations': Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

Tags