Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji, Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court: Matter Of Concern That 12 Out Of 13 State Universities Are Functioning Without VCs, Litigation At Every Stage Of Appointment Weakening Quality Of Higher Education
|The Kerala High Court dismissed a Writ Petition questioning the temporary arrangement made by the Chancellor of the University of Kerala, who directed the VC of the Kerala University of Health Sciences to also discharge the duties of VC of University of Kerala.
The Kerala High Court observed that it is a matter of serious concern that twelve out of thirteen Universities in the State are currently functioning without regularly appointed Vice-Chancellors (VCs).
The Court observed thus in a Writ Petition filed by an Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, seeking to question the temporary arrangement made by the Chancellor of the University of Kerala, who directed the VC of the Kerala University of Health Sciences to also discharge the duties of VC of the University of Kerala.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji remarked, “It is a matter of serious concern that twelve out of thirteen universities in Kerala are currently functioning without regularly appointed Vice-Chancellors, and that petitions are being filed in this court at nearly every stage of the appointment process and even over temporary arrangements. This situation risks weakening the quality of higher education in the State. We sincerely hope that appropriate steps are taken without delay to resolve the issues.”
The Bench said that the course of action taken by the Chancellor is consistent with administrative necessity and institutional continuity.
Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J. appeared for the Petitioners, while State Attorney N. Manoj Kumar appeared for the State, Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar for the Chancellor and Advocate Binny Thomas for the current acting VC.
Brief Facts
It has been nearly three years since the University of Kerala, a prestigious institution in the State, has been without a regular Vice Chancellor due to differences between stakeholders. The Governor of Kerala being the ex-officio Chancellor of the University of Kerala under the Kerala University Act, 1974 read with the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, is empowered to appoint a Vice-Chancellor to the University of Kerala. After the term of the previous VC ended, the Chancellor initiated the process for regular appointment by constituting a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
Pending finalisation of the appointment, the Chancellor directed the Respondent i.e., VC of Kerala University of Health Sciences, to also discharge the duties of Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala. Challenging this arrangement, the Petitioners, members of the Senate of the University of Kerala, filed the Writ Petition before the High Court. They sought a Writ of Quo Warranto against the said VC, requiring him to show the authority under which he is holding the said office, and a Writ of Mandamus restraining him from exercising the powers of VC of the University of Kerala.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974 does not provide any guidelines with respect to the temporary arrangement. Assuming both options for making an arrangement were open to the Chancellor, that is, one, professors from affiliated colleges who possess academic qualifications, and second, a serving Vice-Chancellor of another University, section 10(19) of the Act of 1974 does not impose any bar prohibiting the vice chancellor of another university from being asked to perform the duties of the vice-chancellor as an arrangement. Unless there is a legal bar or statutory prohibition against this arrangement, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued.”
The Court added that if the contention of the Petitioners that there is only one option with the Chancellor, that is, to appoint the senior-most Professor, is accepted, it would create a right in favour of a senior-most Professor, when the statute does not confer any such right, and it would amount to rewriting the statute.
“Also disputes may arise regarding seniority, which may defeat the purpose of an effective temporary arrangement. The post of vice chancellor of the University of Kerala is not promotional. To insist that even interim arrangements must follow the full regular appointment process would defeat the very purpose of the flexibility intended by the statute in specifically using two different terms”, it further observed.
The Court also noted that the bio-data of the Respondent shows that he has served as a Professor for a period of ten years and holds the qualifications of a Master's degree and a Doctorate and was appointed as a Professor in 2006 before the UGC Regulations prescribed Ph.D as a regular qualification for the post, which indicates that he obtained his M.D. degree in 1991 and has held various positions, including membership in the Indian Medical Council and serving as the State President of the Kerala Government Medical College Teachers’ Association.
“He has guided and completed 19 research projects. In the year 2016, he was conferred with the Best Doctor Award and the State Award. He has also published several papers in international journals. Respondent No.4 was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University of Health Sciences on 26 October 2019. Respondent No.4 has been discharging the additional responsibilities pending the finalisation of the selection process. Nothing is placed before us that the institutional interest of the University has suffered due to this arrangement. Therefore, this is not a case where the exercise of power is entirely arbitrary”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the fact remains that the Petitioners are members of the Senate, and it is due to the disagreement between the Senate and the Chancellor that the arrangement, which is otherwise intended to address a short-term contingency, has continued.
“It may be that for various reasons, the regular selection process has not been completed, and now questions are being raised about the temporary arrangements made in its place. However, this approach is not in the best interest of higher education, which must remain the primary concern of all those involved in university administration”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Dr. Sivaprasad A. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:46149)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Elvin Peter P.J., Advocates K.R. Ganesh, Gouri Balagopal, Sreelakshmi A.S., and Anamika M.J.
Respondents: State Attorney N. Manoj Kumar, Senior Advocate P. Sreekumar, Standing Counsel Thomas Abraham, Advocates Binny Thomas, Girija K. Gopal, K.N. Vigy, and Soorya Mariya Kurian.