HC annuls appointment of temporary V-Cs in two universities
Monday's order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, while dismissing an appeal filed by Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, who is also the Chancellor of the two universities, challenging the single judge's order.
While Mr. Sivaprasad had earlier been working as Professor, Department of Ship Technology, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Ms. Thomas had retired as Senior Joint Director from the Directorate of Technical Education.
The Division Bench said in its judgment that an order of temporary appointment of Vice-Chancellors, issued by the Chancellor in exercise of the powers under Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act or Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act, shall be for a period of not exceeding six months, in the aggregate.
Therefore, the Chancellor has no power to issue notifications appointing a person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the two universities, until further orders, pending regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. In such circumstances, the single judge cannot be found at fault for declaring the notifications as not sustainable in law, the Bench added.
The Bench reminded that the Chancellor and the State Government ought to act proactively to ensure that regular appointment is made to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the universities without any delay. This was after considering the stalemate in the administration of the two universities, which has been continuing for a considerable period, and which harmed their functioning and also the interest of the student community, it said.
Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup submitted that the Chancellor cannot appoint any person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the universities, unless the name was recommended by the government.
Referring to Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act, where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any of the circumstances enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other university or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the technological university or the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, as recommended by the government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a period not exceeding six months in the aggregate.
Likewise, as per Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act, if there was a temporary vacancy in the post of Vice-Chancellor due to any unforeseen reason, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Secretary of the Electronics and Information Technology Department, as recommended by the government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a period not exceeding six months, in the aggregate, the court observed.
Citing observations of the Supreme Court and how universities ought to function in an autonomous manner, the court further said being a leader and head of the institution, the V-C has to play an important role. The V-C functions as a bridge between the executive and academic wings of the university. As per norms, the V-C must be an eminent academician, and excellent administrator and also someone having high moral stature, it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
12 hours ago
- The Hindu
HC issues notice to Delimitation Commission
The Kerala High Court has issued notice to the Delimitation Commission and others concerned in a petition filed by T.K. Ashraf, the chairman of the Kochi Corporation's health standing committee. A Bench of Justice C.S. Dias passed the order in a petition filed by Mr. Ashraf, in which he had mentioned that the names of 31,000 people were missing in Kochi Corporation limits, for the delimitation of wards under the civic agency. Quoting the 2011 Census, he said that there were 6.33 lakh residents in Kochi, but the Delimitation Commission has considered only 6.02 lakh people. In Ward 5, the names of 8,144 people have not been mentioned. As per norms, a ward having 8,000 or more people must be retained, he said, and sought cancellation of the ward's delimitation. The delimitation notification would be subject to the result of the writ petition, the court said.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
Cash recovery case: SC to hear Justice Varma's plea against in-house committee report on July 28
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday, July 28, the appeal filed by Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house committee probe report that indicted him over the recovery of a huge sum of unaccounted cash at his official residence in Delhi. According to the causelist uploaded on the apex court's website, a two-judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih will hear Justice Varma's appeal. The hearing assumes great significance, considering the fact that the impeachment process have already been initiated in Parliament for his alleged misconduct in connection with the recovery of cash. On July 17, Justice Varma filed an appeal before the top court challenging the in-house committee report that found him guilty of misconduct. He contended that the mere recovery of cash from the outhouse of his official residence did not establish his culpability. Subsequently, on July 23, he mentioned the matter before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, seeking an early hearing. The Supreme Court agreed to list the matter. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted before the CJI-led three-judge Bench that the matter involved important constitutional questions. The CJI assured him that an appropriate Bench would be constituted to hear the matter but recused himself, citing his prior involvement in internal discussions related to the case. 'I think it will not be proper for me to take up that matter because I was a part of that conversation,' the CJI said.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Kerala High Court upholds ban on single-use plastic items
The Kerala High Court has upheld the orders that the State government had issued in 2019 imposing a ban on the manufacture, storage, transport, and sale of single-use plastic items in the State from January 1, 2020. A Bench of Justice Viju Abraham upheld the orders while dismissing petitions filed by Kerala Plastic Manufacturers' Association challenging them. The banned plastic items included plastic carry bags of varying thickness, plastic sheets, single-use utensils like cups, plates, dishes, spoons, forks, straws, and bowls, PET bottles less than 300 ml, flags, and non-woven bags. The petitioners questioned the State government's competence to issue the orders without corresponding Central rules. The State contended that the orders were issued under the Environment Protection Act, a power that the Supreme Court had upheld. On the petitioners' challenging fines imposed on them for illegal manufacture and storage of single-use plastic, the High Court said, 'It is for the petitioners to work out their remedy in appropriate proceedings.' The court further added that the government was duty-bound to implement the directions in government orders as well as rules framed by the Centre.
