Kerala High Court Dismisses State Government's Plea Against Chancellor Appointing Ciza Thomas As VC In-Charge Of KTU

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by the State Government against the order of the Chancellor appointing Ciza Thomas as the Vice Chancellor in charge of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Justice Devan Ramachandran 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. As regards the dispute in the seniority of Thomas (the 3rd respondent herein), the Court found that excluding the earlier VC, she was ranked 9th in the list of persons found eligible. It observed that although the first person found qualified had been offered by the Chancellor, the same was politely refused, and considering that the others in the list were already occupied in other posts at other places, and she was the only person in Thiruvananthapuram, the said justification was compelling. "Even when fingers could be pointed against the Chancellor in having relied upon the inputs of 'some educationists', in its final analysis, his choice can never be found to be at fault, and in any event, there is not even a whisper or an assertion sotto vocce even by the Government that he has acted with bias or mala fide in having appointed the 3rd respondent".The matter comes in light of the Apex Court decision in Dr. Sreejith PS v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Anr, dated 21.10.2022, declaring the appointment of the incumbent VC Dr MS Rajasree as void ab initio, holding that she had been appointed contrary to UGC Regulations. In the plea filed through Senior Government Pleader V. Manu, it was argued by the State that Thomas's appointment by the Chancellor is not in conformity with the provisions of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. The State had argued that only the Vice Chancellor of any other University or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the university, or the secretary to the government higher education department, as recommended by the government, could be appointed as the VC to hold office till a regular VC is selected. It is seen that as an interim measure, KTU's Registrar had earlier recommended the name of Dr. Saji Gopinath, Vice Chancellor, Digital University of Kerala to the Chancellor in accordance with Section 13(7) of the Act, which the Chancellor did not accept since the said person also suffered from a similar/analogous defect as pointed out by the Apex Court, and that steps had been initiated for his removal. Although the State on its part averred that in order to avoid a stalemate in the university, the government had then recommended the name of Principal Secretary to the Government's Higher Education Department for the post of Vice Chancellor of the University, on November 3rd, the Chancellor had ordered Thomas to take over as officiating VC of the university and exercise the powers and functions attached with the post, pending the appointment of a regular Vice Chancellor, and until further orders. Stating that Thomas was neither the VC of any other university nor the pro Vice Chancellor, the State had said, "Even if for argument's sake, it is admitted that the UGC Regulations 2018 is to override the Act even in matters of appointment of Vice Chancellor - in charge, it is most humbly submitted that there is no provision in the UGC Regulations 2018 contrary to Section 13(7) of the Act".Thus, the Government in the instant case, was seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the Chancellor's order appointing Dr. Ciza Thomas, and a writ of quo warranto on the ground that Thomas was an usurper in the position. It was argued by Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup that as had been held by the Apex Court, in case of any conflict between UGC Regulations and the provisions of the KTU Act, the former prevails. In case of 'regular VC', the said Regulations prevails; however, in case of any 'temporary vacancy', it is the Act which prevails since the former does not even envisage the same. He therefore asserted that the Chancellor could not have travelled beyond the recommendations made by the Government, and that which has been provided for in the provisions of the Act, and hence, the order ought to have been quashed. He thus submitted that the Chancellor had acted beyond the vires of binding statutory stipulations. It was further contended that since the Government was challenging the action of the Chancellor and not the Governor, the instant writ petition is maintainable. It was additionally submitted by the AG that even if it was admitted that the Chancellor was right in not accepting the recommendation of the Government, he ought to have reverted to the Government so that a suitable candidate could be found. It was submitted that the Chancellor did not even attempt to do so, but continued with his course of action based on some extraneous inputs. The appointment of Thomas by the...

Kerala High Court Dismisses State Government's Plea Against Chancellor Appointing Ciza Thomas As VC In-Charge Of KTU

Navya Benny

Tags