Court Quashes Kerala Governors Vice Chancellor Picks, Urges Lawful Appointments
In a setback to the Kerala Governor, who also serves as the Chancellor of major universities in the state, the High Court on Monday dismissed writ petitions challenging a single judge's verdict that declared the temporary appointments of Vice-Chancellors at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala Digital University as unsustainable.
The appeals were filed by the Chancellor and others, against the May 19, 2025 judgment which said the appointments were made without following proper legal procedure.
The controversy began after the Chancellor appointed two persons--Ciza Thomas to the Kerala Digital University and K Sivaprasad to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University --to the temporary posts of VC through notifications issued on November 27, 2024.
These appointments were made under the respective University Acts, citing powers to fill the post for a maximum of six months in the absence of a regular VC.
However, the state government challenged the appointments, arguing that they did not follow the procedure laid down in the Acts -- which require a panel of names to be recommended by the government -- and did not comply with University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations.
The High Court's Division Bench, comprising Justices Anil K Narendran and P V Balakrishnan, upheld the single judge's ruling, agreeing that the notifications lacked legal backing.
The court observed that although the appointments were temporary, they still required adherence to the statutory process, including the submission of a panel of at least three eligible names by the government.
The judges also emphasised the importance of the VC's role, calling them the "bridge between academic and administrative functions" of a university.
They referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments which stressed that VCs must be selected independently, without political or external pressure, and in the best interest of the university.
While dismissing the appeals, the court noted the ongoing administrative deadlock in both universities and its negative effect on students.
It urged the Chancellor and the state government to act promptly to make regular VC appointments in line with the law and UGC norms.
"Considering the stalemate existing in the administration of the Technological University and the Digital University, which is continuing for a considerably long period, and which had an adverse impact on the functioning of the said universities and the interest of the student community, we are of the view that the Chancellor as well as the State Government will have to act pro-actively, to ensure that regular appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the said Universities are made, without any further delay," the court said.
The court also clarified that the UGC's 2018 regulations regarding qualifications and appointment procedures for university teachers and academic staff would override any conflicting provisions in state legislation.
The verdict has come as a relief for the CPI(M)-led Left government, which has been at odds with the Governor over the administration of universities in the state.
Welcoming the HC order, Higher Education Minister R Bindu said the court had confirmed that the Governor's actions in appointing Vice-Chancellors were unlawful.
She said the High Court's rejection of the Governor's appeal supported what the state government had been saying all along.
"The Governor has powers, but when he crosses the limits, it causes problems," the minister said. She also called the Chancellor's move --which she claimed could damage the reputation of universities --disgraceful.
General Education and Labour Minister V Sivankutty also welcomed the ruling, calling it a win for the government's efforts to ensure transparency in the education sector.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Remarks against Col Sofiya Qureshi: SC questions MP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for not tendering public apology
The Supreme Court on Monday irked with MP minister Kunwar Vijay Shah for failing to tender a proper apology for his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi, who had briefed the media about Operation Sindoor against Pakistan. Earlier, the top court had granted an interim order on stay on Shah's arrest for his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. When a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked the minister's advocate if he had issued a proper public apology as directed earlier or not, Shah's counsel told the top court that he has tendered an online apology. Irked with the Shah for not tendering a proper apology, Justice Kant said, "What do you mean by an apology like this? This man has been testing our patience... This was the statement he made on the first date... Where is it on record? That (online apology) shows his intentions, which makes us more suspicious of his bona fides..." The bench asked the SIT member about the time period required to complete the investigation. The SIT member present in court said that the investigation would be completed within the statutory limit of 90 days, which is set to expire on August 13. He also apprised the bench that SIT has recorded statements of 27 persons and examined certain video clips. The bench then listed the matter for hearing on August 18. Earlier, the top court had granted an interim order on stay on Shah's arrest for his remarks against Colonel Sofiya Qureshi. It had closed the suo motu proceedings initiated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Shah's remarks as the apex court is seized of the matter. The apex court had slammed Shah for his remarks against Colonel Qureshi and ordered the constitution of a SIT of three IPS officers to probe the matter. It had ordered the setting up of an SIT comprising three senior IPS officers of Madhya Pradesh cadre, who do not belong to the state, and one of whom would be a woman officer to probe. The bench had termed the minister's remarks as "filthy, crass and shameful" and rejected the public apology offered by him as insincere. "The nation is ashamed of you (Shah). Redemption is yours to seek," Justice Kant had said. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Shah challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's suo motu order for registration of an FIR against him for his remarks against Colonel Qureshi. On May 14, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had ordered registration of an FIR against him for his remarks on Qureshi. The High Court took suo motu cognisance of the controversial statement of the minister and ordered police to register an FIR against the minister. Taking suo motu cognisance of the controversial statement of the minister, the High Court on May 14 ordered police to register an FIR against him. An FIR was registered against him under sections 152, 196(1) (b), and 197(1) (c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after the High Court order. The High Court said that if the FIR is not registered by May 14 evening, the court may contemplate proceeding against the Director General of Police of the State for contempt of the order. On May 15, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had slammed the police over the FIR registered against Shah while terming it "gross subterfuge" on the state's part. It had said that it would monitor the case without interfering in the investigation and posted it for hearing on June 16. The controversy arose after a video clip of Shah's speech went viral on social media. In his clarification, Shah had said his comments were taken out of context and were meant to praise Colonel Qureshi's bravery.
Scroll.in
4 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order blocking new OBC list in West Bengal
The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Calcutta High Court order blocking the implementation of a West Bengal government notification classifying 140 communities as Other Backward Classes, verbally observing that it seemed to be 'prima facie erroneous', Live Law reported. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria expressed surprise at the High Court's reasoning that only the legislature could approve the OBC list, and not the executive. 'How can the High Court stay like this?' Live Law quoted the Supreme Court as saying. 'Reservation is part of the executive functions. This is the settled law... Executive instructions are enough for providing reservations and legislation is not necessary.' The matter pertains to a notification issued by the West Bengal government earlier in June that added 76 sub-castes to the OBC category, taking the total number of communities in the grouping to 140. Out of these, 80 communities are from among Muslims, while 60 are non-Muslims, The Indian Express reported. Muslims comprise 57.1% of the population included in the OBC category. The state government's previous list of OBCs had 113 sub-groups, of which 77 were Muslims and 36 non-Muslims. However, the High Court had in May 2024 struck down the list, and had reduced OBC reservations from 17% to 7%. The new list would allow the state government to restore OBC reservations to 17%. The High Court's May 2024 decision was expected to affect nearly five lakh certificates. The state government's challenge to the verdict was also pending before the Supreme Court. On June 17, the High Court stayed the implementation of the new list and told the state government not to take steps based on it till July 31, when the case will be heard next. At the hearing on Monday, Gavai also disagreed with the High Court's observation that the state should have placed the reports and bills before the legislature for amendments and introductions to the 2012 Act's schedule. Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the respondents, told the bench that the list had to be approved by the legislature as per the law enacted by the state government. Advocate Guru Krishnakumar, representing the other respondents, also claimed that the list had been prepared without any data, Live Law reported. Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, said the new list was based on a fresh survey and report by the State Backward Classes Commission. Sibal also argued that even the High Court had not held that the commission failed to conduct the exercise. Gavai then told the respondents that the bench could ask the High Court to form a different bench to hear the matter. 'If you are willing, we will direct the HC to hear the matter in stipulated timeline, till then status quo will maintain,' Live Law quoted the Supreme Court said. 'We will ask the chief justice to constitute another bench to hear.'
NDTV
4 hours ago
- NDTV
Supreme Court Relief For Mamata Banerjee On High Court's "Suprising" OBC Order
New Delhi: The Calcutta High Court interim stay on notifications issued by the West Bengal government - with regard to reservations for Other Backward Classes, or OBCs - was "surprising" and "prima facie erroneous", the Supreme Court said Monday morning. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court order and issued a notice on Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's government's plea, and said it would hear the matter after two weeks. "This is surprising. We will issue notice in this. How can the High Court order a stay? Reservation is a part of the functions of the Executive. Since Indira Sawhney (referring to the landmark 1992 case that focused on reservations for OBCs) the Supreme Court has said this." At first the bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai considered placing this hearing before a different bench of the Calcutta High Court, but ultimately listed matter after two weeks. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Bengal government, mentioned this matter before Chief Justice Gavai. "A writ petition was filed... challenging the new list, saying we have to legislate it, which is contrary to all judgements," he said. To this the Chief Justice stressed that "right from (the Indira Sawhney judgement) the position is that the Executive can do (this)". Mr Sibal also asked for a contempt petition that had been filed in the High Court be stayed. "Let the matter get listed," the Chief Justice said. Mamata Banerjee's government had moved the top court against the High Court's order last month staying the new list of OBCs. A division bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Rajasekhar Mantha, in an interim stay till July 31, directed that executive notifications between May 8 and June 13 with regard to OBC categories made by the state government will not be given effect to till that date. All the parties in the matter were directed by the court to file their affidavits in the meantime on their contentions with regard to the challenge over new benchmark surveys for the purpose of inclusion under OBC categories in a PIL and the notifications. The state government has included 49 subsections under the OBC-A and 91 under the OBC-B categories vide the executive notifications. It has been stated that while more backward sections of people have been included under OBC-A, the less backward people come under OBC-B. The Calcutta High Court had in May 2024 struck down the OBC status of several classes in West Bengal granted since 2010, finding such reservations to vacancies in services and posts in the state are illegal. The court struck down 77 classes of reservation given between April 2010 and September 2010, and 37 classes were created based on the state's Reservation Act of 2012. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the West Bengal government and the matter is pending there.
