Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Vice Chancellor's Reappointment At Kannur University [Read Order]

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea challenging the reappointment of one Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University.

Justice Amit Rawal while upholding the reappointment of Ravindran after proper scrutiny of the applicable laws, held as follows:

• A writ of certiorari can be issued only at the instance of person who was qualified for the post or a candidate for the post. As per the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, there is a specific statutory provision that even for "re-appointment", the same procedure is required to be followed which was done at the time of initial appointment. However, there is no such provision in the Kannur University Act.
• The expression 'appointment' and 're-appointment' have different connotations; for undergoing the re-appointment the qualifications are prescribed under Clause 7.3 of the UGC regulations ibid and there is no age bar and for reappointment, criteria of age would not be applicable.
• As per the pleading and submissions, there has not been any incident or lack of integrity, transparency as provided in the UGC regulations. 

The petition filed through Senior Advocate George Poonthottam and Advocate Nisha George alleged that Ravindran was reappointed as the Vice-Chancellor in total disregard to the prohibition contained in Section 10 (9) of the Kannur University Act.

Ravindran was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor in 2017 after observing all the legal procedures. However, his term came to an end this year and the post became vacant. Accordingly, steps were initiated to appoint a Vice-Chancellor.

Though steps were in progress for the selection of a new Vice-Chancellor, surprisingly, the notification calling for eligible candidates was withdrawn and the selection committee constituted was dissolved with immediate effect.

On the very next day, the Chancellor notified the reappointment of Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor for another four years.

The petitioners argued that while considering the question of reappointment, the candidate so considered shall initially satisfy the condition provided in Section 10(9) since there is no distinction between appointment and reappointment. Such an appointment can only be after satisfying the procedure provided under clause 7.3 in its entirety of UGC Regulations, they added.

It was reiterated that when reappointment is made by virtue of the provision contained in Section 10 (10), the law does not provide an exemption to be followed in the case of an incumbent holding the post of Vice-Chancellor.

They contended that the fact that Ravindran's selection and appointment in 2017 were done after the process of selection is no legal justification to bypass the said process and therefore, his appointment cannot be described as an appointment as per law.

On the said grounds, the petitioners prayed that the Court call for the records leading to Ravindran's reappointment and to quash the same.

Case Title: Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order