Kerala HC dismisses appeal against Kannur VC re-appointment

PTI, Feb 23, 2022, 5:50 PM IST

Kochi:  The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the re-appointment of Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice Chancellor (VC) of Kannur University, saying it was done in accordance with the law and that he was not ”an usurper to the post”.

A bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly rejected the plea moved by a member each from the varsity’s Senate and Academic Council against the single judge’s order of December 15 last year, saying it found no reason to interfere with that decision.

Reacting to the high court’s decision, state Minister for Higher Education R Bindu in a Facebook post said it has again become clear that allegations of UDF opposition regarding the VC’s re-appointment are ”baseless”.

She urged the opposition not to downplay the government’s efforts in the field of higher education for ”partisan purposes”.

The appellants had sought quashing of the re-appointment on the ground that a person can hold office of VC only till the age of 60 years and Ravindran, born on December 19, 1960, was overage at the time of his second appointment.

They had also contended that after the expiry of the four-year term of a VC, there was no clause for extension and the only option was appointment.

Rejecting the contentions, the bench said that in the matter of re-appointment, the age bar prescribed under Section 10(9) of the Kannur University Act for appointment of the VC would not come into play, as someone who has been appointed to the post before attaining the age of 60 years, was entitled to continue for a term of four years and was also eligible for re-appointment.

It further said the statute itself has made it clear that the VC who holds the office for a term of four years consequent to the initial appointment, shall be eligible for re-appointment.

The court also said if there were any shortcomings on the VC’s part or any moral issues, then it would have been different.

”But, this is a case where the appellants have not raised any sort of such allegations against the 4th respondent (Ravindran). Merely because a notification was issued to conduct a selection, that by itself will not dissuade the Government/Chancellor to recommend and re-appoint the existing VC,” the bench said.

”… we find that the re-appointment of the 4th respondent (Ravindran) was made in accordance with law, and therefore he can never be said to be an usurper to the post.

”Taking into account all the above intrinsic aspects with regard to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, eligibility, qualification etc., and also the relevant inputs of the UGC Regulations, 2018, we have no hesitation to hold that the single judge was right in dismissing the writ petition,” the court said.

”Upshot of the above discussion is that the writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed,” it added.

The appeal was opposed by the state, represented by Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup and senior government pleaders V Manu and S Kannan, which had contended that the age limit of 60 years was only applicable at the time of appointment.

The December 15, 2021 order had come on the same petitioners’ plea seeking quashing of a November 23, 2021 notification by which Ravindran was re-appointed as the VC.

While rejecting the plea, the single judge had said there was no violation of any statutory provision in the re-appointment of Ravindran as the VC.

The single judge, in the December 15 order, had said re-appointment was different from appointment and the procedure adopted for the latter need not be followed when re-appointing someone.

The petitioners, had contended before the single judge, that a person can hold office of VC only till the age of 60 years and Ravindran, born on December 19, 1960, was overage at the time of his second appointment.

The petitioners had also contended that after the expiry of the four-year term of a VC, there was no clause for extension and the only option was appointment.

The single judge had rejected the contentions.