Whether the outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is applicable in the case of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor? We are tempted to preface our judgment with the aforesaid observations of Lord Watson in Soloman (supra), as we need to keep in mind the principle of law as explained therein for the purpose of interpretation of Section 10(9) and Section 10(10) respectively of the Kannur University Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act 1996”). The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court by filing the Writ Appeal No 1698 of 2021. The Notification dated 27.10.2021 reads thus: “No.G53 1283/2021 Governors Secretariat Kerala Raj Bhavan Thiruvananthapuram 27 October 2021 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10, read with sub sections (1)(2) and (3) of the Kannur University Act, 1996, the Chancellor of the University is pleased to constitute a Selection Committee comprising of the following members to make recommendation (s) towards the selection and appointment of a new Vice Chancellor in the said University.
Thereafter, Notification dated 01.11.2021 was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, State of Kerala inviting applications from eligible candidates. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19(1) (2) and (3) of the Kannur University Act,1996, the Chancellor, Kannur University has constituted a Selection Committee to make recommendations for the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor, in the Kannur University. Venu, IAS Additional Chief Secretary Higher Education, Environment Archaeology, Archives & Museum Departments.” It appears that in the meantime, the Minister for Higher Education and Social Justice in her capacity as the Pro-Chancellor addressed a letter to the Governor/Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment of the respondent No 4 herein for a second term as the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
He was instrumental in digitizing the University by introducing Digital Document Filling System (DDFS) and enthusiastically directed the University to amend its status in tune with UGC Regulations, 2018. Its continuation will immensely benefit Kannur University Section 10 (10) of Kannur University Act provides for the reappointment of incumbent Vice Chancellor for a second term and does not stipulate any restriction on age. The Notification dated 22.11.2021 recalling the earlier Notification dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications from the eligible candidates reads thus: “ NOTIFICATION DATED: 22.11.2021 The notification no. Higher Education Department.” On 22.11.2021, the Pro-Chancellor/Minister for Higher Education addressed one another letter to the Chancellor which reads thus: “ D.O. Bindu Pro-Chancellor, Kannur University Minister for Higher Education Sri Arif Mohammed Khan His Excellency, The Governor of Kerala Chancellor, Kannur University.”
Ultimately the final notification came to be issued dated 23.11.2021 by order of the Governor/Chancellor reappointing the respondent No 4 herein as Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University for a period of four years w.e.f. The Notification dated 23.01.2021 reads thus: “GOVERNMENT’S SECRETARIAT KERALA RAJ BHAVAN NOTIFICATION No.GS3.1283/2021(3)
In exercise of the powers conferred under the Kannur University Act, 1996 and the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Chancellor of the University is pleased to re-appoint Dr. In other words, the outer age limit for being appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University being sixty years, the respondent No 4 could not have been reappointed as the Vice-Chancellor having crossed the age of sixty years. University is not precluded to unanimously recommend the name of only one person and in that process, Chancellor shall appoint that person to be Vice- Chancellor, but, it may submit a panel of three names within the period and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed from among the persons in the panel.
At the time of the initial appointment, in the year 2007, all the parameters were considered for appointment as per the procedure laid down therein but for re-appointment as per proviso to sub-Section (10) there is no requirement for undertaking the task of constitution of a Selection Committee as was done during the initial appointment. It is also an admitted fact that the eligibility and qualification of the 4 respondent at the initial stage of appointment is undoubted. But, when it comes to sub-Section 10 of Section 10, it is made explicit that the Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for re-appointment. Therefore, after assimilating the factual and legal situations and understanding the issues, we are of the considered opinion that in the matter of re-appointment, the age bar prescribed under Section 10(9) for appointment of the Vice Chancellor would not come into play, because the Vice Chancellor who has appointed before attaining the age of 60 years, is entitled to continue for a term of four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment. Even though various contentions were advanced and several judgments were cited by the respective Senior Counsel in regard to the intricacies of issuance of a writ of quo warranto, we are not inclined to go into that question, since we find that the re- appointment of the 4 respondent was made in accordance with law, and therefore he can never be said to be an usurper to the post. Be that as it may, it is clearly specified in the Press Release that on 23rd November, 2021, Kerala Raj Bhavan issued a notification re-appointing the 4 respondent as the Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)
Mr. If the impugned judgment is to be upheld, then for reappointment as a Vice-Chancellor under the proviso to Section 10(10) of the Kannur University Act, there is no requirement for undertaking the exercise of forming and consulting the Selection Committee as mandated under the UGC Regulations and as was done during the initial appointment.
On the date of reappointment i.e., 24.11.2021, the respondent No 4 had crossed the age of 60 years which is the outer age limit for being appointed to the post of Vice-Chancellor under Section 10(9) of the Kannur University Act. Section 10(10) of the Kannur University Act contemplates reappointment and not an extension of the term of the Vice-Chancellor. The reliance placed by the High Court on the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court and Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in its impugned judgment is not correct as the two High Courts had failed to take into consideration the UGC Regulations which provides for the method and procedure for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. The initial appointment of the respondent No 4 as the Vice-Chancellor was also contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations 2010 more particularly Clause 7.3, which stipulates that the appointment shall be made after following the due process of identification of 3 to 5 names by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179, (v) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Kerala made the following submissions: a. The UGC Regulations make express provisions for the manner in which a selection has to be made for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor through a Search-cum-Selection Committee consisting of persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and who are not connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. The real effect of this statement of the law is that Article 254 of the Constitution would have to be read as – where a law made by Parliament as well as the regulations or rules made under any Central Act is repugnant to the provisions of a law made by the legislature of a State, the law made by Parliament as well as the regulations or rules made under any Central Act will prevail.
It is possible, as in the case of the UGC Act, that many of the provisions made in the rules or regulations may not find a place in the body of the Act, and, the only provision, which could be possibly invoked would be the main provision of sub- section (1) of the rule making section, in which it would be stated that the regulations or rules may be made for the purposes of the Act. Additionally, the procedure and method of making regulations or rules which have to be laid before the House is contained in Rule 235 of “the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha”, which states: “The Speaker shall, in consultation with the Leader of the House, fix a day or days or part of a day as the Speaker may think fit for the consideration and passing of an amendment to such regulation, rule, sub-rule, bye-law etc., of which notice may be given by a member:” i. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12, U.P. Union of India, (2007) 10 SCC 306, and State of T.N. Gadhvi (supra) and Anindya Sundar Das (supra) are sub silentio and would not have any binding precedent, as great violence is being done to the Constitution, far beyond the intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution.
The High Court has rightly observed that the age bar prescribed under Section 10(9) for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor would not be applicable at the time of reappointment as the Vice-Chancellor who was appointed before attaining the age of 60 years, is entitled to continue for a term of four years and shall be eligible for reappointment under Section 10(10) of the Act 1996. Therefore, the statute would explicitly specify the age limit in case of reappointments and when the statue does not provide for it, the age limit prescribed for appointment cannot be applied even in the case of reappointments. The High Court proceeded on the correct premise that Section 10(10) read with Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations only prescribes the procedure for the initial appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor. Neither Section 10(10) nor the UGC Regulation prescribe for any limitation on reappointment of a person as Vice-Chancellor. Section 10 (9) only specifies that no person shall be ‘appointed’ as Vice- Chancellor above the age of 60.
The Regulations further mandate that one of the members of the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be nominated by the UGC for selection of Vice-Chancellor of State. The Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala had also issued a notification dated 01.11.2021 on behalf of the Selection Committee to invite the applications to the post of the Vice Chancellor. Raveendranath, Legal Adviser to Chief Minister, met Hon’ble Governor at Kerala Raj Bhavan at 11.30 am. She also requested Hon’ble Chancellor’s “pleasure in cancelling the notification dated 01.11.2021 and in re-appointing Dr Gopinath Ravindran for a continuous second term as Vice Chancellor of Kannur University”. Mohan, Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister and the Legal Advisor to Chief Minister had met the Hon’ble Governor, repeated their request and in support, submitted the signed legal opinion of the Advocate General which was addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department.
At 04.30 pm, Principal Secretary to Governor wrote to Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, conveying the decision of the Hon’ble Chancellor “to withdraw the Notification dated 27.10.2021 and subsequent Corrigendum dated 03.11.2021” and “to permit the State Government to submit necessary proposal for the reappointment of the present incumbent in the post of Vice Chancellor Kannur University”. In brief, the process of selection of Vice Chancellor, Kannur University which was set in motion vide Kerala Raj Bhavan notification dated 27.10.2021 came to an end consequent to the request from the Minister Higher Education, OSD to Chief Minister and Legal Advisor to the Chief Minister duly supported by the legal opinion of the Advocate General, Kerala, culminated in the reappointment of Dr. Section 10 of the Kannur University Act reads thus: “(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of a committee appointed by him for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the committee).
In the case the committee is unable to recommend a name unanimously, it may submit a panel of three names to the Chancellor within the period specified in or under sub-section (4) and the Chancellor shall appoint one of the persons in the panel to be the Vice- Chancellor. No person who is more than sixty years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
Case Title: DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH Vs. THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY
Case Number: C.A. No.-007700-007700 / 2023
