The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed the notification relating to the reappointment of Kannur University Vice-Chancellor and found that the appointment was vitiated by the interference of the state.
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra set aside the Kerala High Court order and quashed the notification of re-appointing the person as VC of Kannur University.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Premachandran Keezhoth and others. The petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition questioning whether there is any distinction in law in the matter of ‘appointment’ and/or re-appointment to a public office in respect of procedure or eligibility for selection, where a procedure or eligibility for appointment’ has been set out in the university law and the applicable under UGC Regulations.
The petition has been against a Kerala High Court judgement. “It is respectfully submitted that the impugned judgement is ex facie erroneous and contrary to well-settled principles of service jurisprudence because it proceeds on a wrong assumption. That is, the judgement assumes that once an appointment to a post is made through a proper channel, re-appointment of the same person to such office upon expiry of the first term can bypass the original procedure prescribed, including the constitution of a selection committee. While doing so, the High Court has assumed that there is a distinction in the procedure for appointments’ and ‘re-appointments’, whereas there is no such distinction recognised under law.” the petitioner said.
The petitioners, who claimed to be the elected members of the Senate and Academic Council of Kannur University, a statutory university in the State of Kerala, said that they sought a writ of quo-warranto against the vice chancellor because he is continuing as the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent University without any legal entitlement to it.
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned appointment violated no statutory provisions in the “reappointment” of the concerned man as the Vice Chancellor. That single judge’s judgement stands affirmed by the division bench through a judgement dated March 23, 2022.