Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Prof Venkateshwarlu As VC Of Central University of Kerala

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of the Kerala High Court that had upheld the appointment of Prof Venkateshwarlu as Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala. The petition was filed contending that the appointment of the VC is in violation of UGC Regulations, Central Universities Act, 2009, and it’s statutes and is marred by procedural defects.The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta while dismissing the SLP, pointed out that 3 years had passed since the appointment of the VC. It was also pointed out that the persons aggrieved by the selection process had not approached the Apex Court. ‘Already 3 years have passed. In 2020 the appointment was made, in 2022 you go to the High Court.." Justice Kant said during the course of the hearing. Those who were aggrieved by the selection process had been party to the writ petition, but had not approached the Apex Court in appeal, Justice Datta pointed out. ‘They have accepted it. Those 11 are most affected.’ Justice Datta said. Justice Datta also stated that a writ of quo warranto will not apply in this scenario where the candidate is found to be eligible. “If the procedure is not followed to the T, will a writ of quo warranto lie? Quo warranto lies when you don’t have the authority.. Here he eligible, he has the experience, he has the educational qualification.” Justice Datta said. The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the the Visitor cannot reject a panel recommended by the committee on the basis of the advice of Ministry. "The HRD Minister directs the Visitor to select such and such person. What is the sanctity of the process?” he argued. The counsel also contended that the ' extended fresh panel' constituted by the committee ought to have been formed from the 11 remaining shortlisted candidates and not from the entire list of 223 candidates who applied for the post. “Committee made a list of 16 persons, 5 persons were found ineligible, balance 11 persons were there. The second round of selection should go to these 11 persons, not the entire 223 persons.” he said."It is not mentioned in the Statue so clearly. There is scope for interpretation of the word ‘extended fresh panel’. The High Court has interpreted the term ‘extended fresh panel’, there can be two views but you can’t show that the view taken by the High Court is an absurd view." Justice Datta responded.“But there should be a fairness in the procedure. Out of the 223, when 16 persons are selected and 5 persons from this are found to be ineligible, then you should go back to the remaining 11 persons, not to the entire list of 223 persons once again, because they were rejected already.” Adv. Dinesh argued. The Kerala High Court on 11th April 2023, had dismissed a batch of petitions that challenged the appointment of Prof. H Venkateshwarlu as the Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala.A division bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman of the Kerala High Court had held that the selection and appointment of the VC was as per the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009 and the statutes thereunder:“The 3rd respondent has been appointed as Vice Chancellor, by the Visitor, the competent authority, as per the statutory provisions and is holding office with legal authority and there is no usurpation in office by the 3rd respondent. He has the necessary qualification and eligibility for the post. This Court will not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Visitor in the choice of the person to be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor.”Case Title: Naveen Prakash Nautiyal V. H. Venkateshwarlu, Diary No. 31723-2023Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Prof Venkateshwarlu As VC Of Central University of Kerala

Sheryl Sebastian

Tags