KOCHI: Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by the state government challenging the order of Governor Arif Mohammad Khan, in his capacity as chancellor of universities, appointing Ciza Thomas, senior joint director of the directorate of technical education, as vice-chancellor in charge of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU). “Ciza Thomas qualified as per the UGC regulations and has been chosen solely on her credential and seniority. So one cannot find fault in the decision of the chancellor. She is also one of the senior-most professors in the government engineering colleges and the only one serving in Thiruvananthapuram,” pointed out the court.
There was no allegation that the Chancellor has acted with bias or mala fide in appointing Ciza Thomas.
The counsel for KTU submitted that the VC in-charge has not cleared the files so far related to the functioning of the university. “All the files which are to be checked and signed by Ciza Thomas have been forwarded to her, but then she has not chosen to open it or to act upon it,” he added. The court directed the chancellor to look into the issue and take appropriate action.
While dismissing the government’s petition, Justice Devan Ramachandran held that the appointment of a new VC should be done within two or three months taking into account the future of students. The court requested the university, the chancellor, and the UGC to immediately act in unison to have the selection committee constituted and appoint a VC at the earliest.
Expressing concern over the fight between the governor and the state government about appointments, the court said: “Litigants as a rule would always believe that their position is right. However, when it comes to top constitutional public functionaries, the purpose of any litigation ought not to obtain a will, but to ensure that the law is complied with and the constitutional imperatives are supported and achieved.”
The Covid pandemic scenario showed how important universities are, with Oxford University at the forefront of developing a vaccine in record time and Washington University being able to produce a nasal vaccine for the first time in the world. The importance of a university and its purpose can never be lost sight. The reputation of a university once lost would be very difficult to redeem and “I would have expected the stakeholders to be fully aware of this while any litigation or disputes are brought out into the public forum.”
When a temporary vacancy arises at the office of the vice-chancellor, the chancellor on the recommendation of the government must appoint one among the choices therein namely the VC of another university in Kerala, the pro vice-chancellor of the university in question, and the principal secretary, higher education department, Kerala. However, the chancellor asserted that all three choices are incompetent. Hence he appointed Ciza, who is among the senior professors in the government engineering colleges. The governor has issued show-cause notice in the wake of the Supreme Court insisting to follow UGC Regulations.
The court noted that the initial recommendation to the chancellor was in favour of Saji Gopinath, VC of the Digital Technological University. The office of the chancellor replied to this stating that Saji is also suspected to have been appointed as a VC in conflict with the UGC regulations. Later a notice was issued asking him to show cause why he shall not be removed. Pertinently the government accepted the reply without assailing it and recommended the principal secretary of the Higher Education Department. This is peremptorily unacceptable and the chancellor rightly chose to disregard it.
The government never made a recommendation favouring Dr S Ayoob, Pro-VC of the university except for the argument of the Advocate General that, had the chancellor given a reply to the recommendation, the government may have done this. The court pointed out that in the wake of the Supreme Court order quashing the appointment of the VC, the pro-vice-chancellor, who was appointed by that VC, cannot continue in the post. “Hence, I cannot find fault with the chancellor in having done so,” said the court.
The UGC said that any appointment to the post is subject to the satisfaction of the qualification and experience prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2018. Therefore, the argument of the government that even a person without the imperative qualification under the UGC Regulation can be appointed under the University Act without merit and deserving only to be repelled. The governor’s counsel submitted that the government cannot be allowed any role in the affairs of the universities.