UGC Regulations Do Not Require Chancellor's Nominee In Search-Cum-Selection Committee For Universities : Kerala High Court's Prima Facie View

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday stayed a Single bench order directing to include the Chancellor's representative in the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly said that Chancellor's representative is not necessary in the search committee for appointment of the KTU VC, and that the Single Judge's order is against statutory regulations to this extent."Indisputably by the learned counsel appearing for all parties, Search-cum-Selection-Committee of the UGC is constituted only by the State Government through a public notification, and the said Committee, after considering the factors / parameters, submit a panel to the Visitor / Chancellor. Thereafter, Visitor / Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor, out of the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection-Committee. Prima facie, statutory regulations does not contemplate or empower nomination by the Chancellor in the Search-cum-Selection Committee for any University", the Court observed while staying the directions of the writ Court in this regard.The bench was dealing with State's appeal seeking reversal of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan's decision in his capacity as Chancellor.The Single Judge had earlier, while dismissing the petition filed by the State Government challenging the appointment of Ciza Thomas, had 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. It had directed the Chancellor and the UGC to constitute a selection committee for the appointment of the new Vice Chancellor of the University within a period of 2 months. It is against the said verdict that the State Government preferred the appeal before the Division Bench. It was argued that the Single Judge's observations in Paragraphs 144 and 145, was against the UGC norms and the provisions of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2015). The impugned part is as under, "....I can only, therefore, beseech the stakeholders to understand this and attempt to appoint a Vice Chancellor on regular basis without any delay; and this is certainly possible because, going by the ratio of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Selection Committee has to be constituted with nominees of the UGC; of the Chancellor and the Syndicate of the University, which can be done quickly. If this is so, then the State should also be happy, because the tenure of the 3rd respondent as the Vice Chancellor could be confined to the smallest possible period. As I have said above, the UGC makes their stand clear that they are willing to offer their nominee to the Selection Committee within a period of two weeks; and it is also similarly stated by the Chancellor. However, Sri. Elvin Peter P.J., learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, says that he has no instructions in this regard and I do not blame him, because this Court had never asked him about this. I, therefore, conclude with the afore observations; and resultantly close this writ petition without acceding to any of its prayers; however, directing the University, the Chancellor and the UGC to immediately act in unison to have the Selection Committee constituted and to appoint a Vice Chancellor at the earliest, but not later than two or, at the best, three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment".Before the Division Bench, it was argued by Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup that in the absence of any statutory provision / Regulation, direction of the writ court to constitute a Search-cum-Selection Committee, with the nominee of the Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, is erroneous, and therefore, such Selection Committee, if any to be constituted, cannot be allowed to act, as per the directions contained in the directions of the Single Judge. It was added that insofar as the constitution of the Selection Committee was concerned, it was for the State Government to act, in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Act, 2015, and that at any rate, there was no provision for inclusion of nominee of the Chancellor in the Selection Committee. On the other hand, Senior Advocate George Poonthottam, appearing on behalf of Prof. (Dr.) Ciza Thomas (the 3rd respondent herein), submitted that in the light of the recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the matter of appointment of Vice Chancellors of Universities, Section 13 of the Act, 2015, could no longer be applied.Advocate S. Krishnamoorthy, appearing on behalf of the UGC submitted that Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 ought to be followed, and that there had to be ...

UGC Regulations Do Not Require Chancellor's Nominee In Search-Cum-Selection Committee For Universities : Kerala High Court's Prima Facie View

Navya Benny

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

UGC Regulations Do Not Require Chancellor's Nominee In Search-Cum-Selection Committee For Universities : Kerala High Court's Prima Facie View

Navya Benny

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers