New Delhi, Nov 30 (PTI) The Supreme Court Thursday quashed the reappointment of Gopinath Ravindran as the vice chancellor of Kannur University, as it came down hard on the Kerala government for its "unwarranted intervention" in facilitating a fresh term for him at the helm of the institution. It also assailed Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, the chancellor, saying he did not independently apply his mind despite not being a mere "titular head".

In its judgement, the top court extensively dealt with the independent powers of the governor as the chancellor of state universities, narrated the sequence of events leading to reappointment of Ravindran and expressed its unhappiness over the handling of the issue by Khan.

Also Read | Pneumonia Outbreak in China Is of Global Concern, India Must Be Prepared: Experts.

“The ...facts make it abundantly clear that there was no independent application of mind or satisfaction or judgment on the part of the Chancellor and the respondent No. 4 (Ravindran) came to be reappointed only at the behest of the State Government,” a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said in its 72-page judgement.

Referring to the law governing the university, it said the chancellor plays a very important role and is not merely a “titular head”.

Also Read | Rapido Auto Driver Sexually Assaults Woman in Bengaluru, Throws Her Out of Moving Vehicle.

“In the selection of the Vice Chancellor, he is the sole judge and his opinion is final in all respects. In reappointing the Vice-Chancellor, the main consideration to prevail upon the Chancellor is the interest of the university.

“The Chancellor was required to discharge his statutory duties in accordance with law and guided by the dictates of his own judgment and not at the behest of anybody else. Law does not recognise any such extra constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion. Any such interference amounts to dictation from political superior and has been condemned by courts on more than one occasion,” Justice Pardiwala, writing the judgement for the bench, said.

The top court, while delivering its judgement on an appeal, set aside the verdicts of a single judge bench and division bench of the Kerala High Court upholding Ravindran's reappointment. The appeal was filed by Dr Premachandran Keezoth and others challenging the high court verdicts.

Reacting to the SC verdict, the Kerala governor accused Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan of pressuring him to reappoint Ravindran as the vice chancellor.

Khan, speaking to reporters in Thiruvananthapuram, said state Higher Education Minister R Bindu was not to be blamed as it was Vijayan who used her for seeking Ravindran's reappointment.

The governors are also ex-officio chancellors of state universities and act independently of the council of ministers in taking decisions on all university matters.

“In the case on hand, we are not concerned with the suitability of respondent No. 4. The 'suitability' of a candidate for appointment to a post is to be judged by the appointing authority and not by the court unless the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules/provisions.

"We have reached to the conclusion that although the notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 to the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations or to put it in other words by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government,” it said.

The bench set aside the impugned judgement passed by the high court on February 23, 2022 and consequently, the notification of November 23, 2021 reappointing Ravindran as the vice chancellor was also quashed.

“It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Act 1996 to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor. No other person, even the Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority and if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on a suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal,” it held.

It is the decision-making process which vitiated the entire process of reappointment of the VC, the court said, adding the present case was not one of mere irregularity.

“We emphasise on the decision-making process because in such a case the exercise of power is amenable to judicial review,” it said.

The verdict dealt with four questions, with the first being whether re-appointment is permissible in “a tenure post”.

“Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of Vice Chancellor as stipulated under sub-section ... is to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor for one more term of four years,” the second issue read.

It also dealt with the question whether the reappointment of the VC has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under the law.

The fourth issue was “Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor”.

The bench answered the first question, holding that reappointment is permissible even in case of a tenure post.

“We are not impressed with the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants that the post of the Vice-Chancellor being a “tenure post” reappointment is not permissible. The statute itself has provided for reappointment with some object in mind..,” it said.

Dealing with the second issue, it held the outer age limit of 60 years provided for under the 1996 Act of the University will not apply in case of reappointment of a VC.

“We hold that it is not necessary to follow the procedure of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of the Act 1996 for the purpose of reappointment,” it said while dealing with the third issue.

The verdict elaborately dealt with the final issue of whether the chancellor abdicated or surrendered his statutory powers while reappointing the vice chancellor in the present case.

Referring to Khan's affidavit, it said, “We are quite perplexed with the stance of the Chancellor. The Chancellor wants this Court to allow the appeal and declare that the reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor is not sustainable in law. The Chancellor says so because according to him the reappointment of respondent No. 4 is in conflict with the UGC Regulations.”

Referring to the relevant law and court verdicts, the bench said the governor is the ex-officio Chancellor of the University, therefore, by virtue of his office, he was not bound to act under the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

It concluded that Khan did not apply his mind and the reappointment took place “only at the behest of the State Government”.

The bench, in its judgement, referred to a press release of the Kerala Raj Bhavan which stated that the process of re-appointment was initiated by the chief minister and the higher education minister.

On February 23 last year, a division bench of the Kerala High Court had dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the reappointment of Ravindran. It was done in accordance with law and he was not "an usurper to the post", it said.

The plea had sought quashing of the reappointment on the ground that a person can hold office of the vice chancellor only till the age of 60 and Ravindran, born on December 19, 1960, was overage at the time of his second appointment.

Ravindran was appointed as the vice chancellor in 2017 and his tenure ended in 2022.

When steps were in progress for selecting his successor, the notification calling for eligible candidates was withdrawn and the selection panel dissolved.

The chancellor then notified Ravindran's reappointment as the vice chancellor for another four years.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)