PALAKKAD: Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday said that the cancellation of the re-appointment of Prof Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-chancellor of the Kannur University by the Supreme Court was not an indictment or a “blow” to the state government.
Addressing mediapersons at Shoranur on Friday, Pinarayi Vijayan said the Supreme Court had considered three legal issues about the reappointment of Prof Ravindran as vice chancellor of Kannur University.
"The first issue was since the post of vice chancellor was for a fixed period (tenure post) whether a reappointment could be done to it. The SC has stated it can be done," the CM said, citing paragraphs 46 and 47 of the SC verdict.
"Secondly, when Prof Ravindran was being reappointed as the V-C of the Kannur University, whether the age limit of 60 years as prescribed in 10 (9) of the Kannur University Act of 1996 was applicable or not. It was not applicable, said the Supreme Court In Paragraph 50 of the judgment," the CM said.
The third question was as in the case of the initial appointment whether a search (selection) committee should be constituted for reappointment. The SC said that it need not be done for reappointment purposes in paragraph 66.
Therefore, it is understood that the SC has agreed with the single and division bench verdicts of the High Court that the reappointment of Prof. Gopinath as the vice chancellor of Kannur University was as per law and statute.
The Opposition and a section of the media were questioning the reappointment of Prof. Gopinath Ravindran as the vice-chancellor. This argument against the reappointment was not accepted by the Supreme Court or any other court, said Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
In the petition filed before the Supreme Court, Governor Arif Mohammed Khan who is the chancellor of the University was the first respondent. The Governor had filed an affidavit before the court.
One of the statements filed by the Governor before the court was that the appointment of Prof. Gopinath Raveendran was a violation of the guidelines of the UGC. This argument was also not accepted by the court.
The Supreme Court has found that about the reappointment, the court has found that none of the guidelines have been flouted. The actions of the Chancellor have astonished us, said the judgment (Page 58, para 67).
Governor Khan who is the chancellor and appointing authority of the Vice-chancellor has gone to court and said that the appointment of Gopinath Ravindran was against the UGC rules. This argument has also been corrected by the Supreme Court. But even after the judgment has been pronounced, Governor Arif Mohammed Khan said to the media that the reappointment of the vice chancellor is a violation of the rules, said Pinarayi Vijayan.
As per the rules of the Kannur University, it is the Ex-officio Pro-Chancellor who is the Higher Education Minister of the State. It is the letter written by the Pro Vice-chancellor to the Governor which is being represented as “outside pressure”.
How is that the letter written by one of the two persons who hold positions as per the University rules to the other be construed as “Outside pressure”, asked the Chief Minister?
In the judgment of the Supreme court, the adverse comments related to the actions of the appointing authority who is the Governor. When the Minister for Higher education expressed an opinion, the Chancellor said that because of it he had to do an act which was against the rules of the UGC. Is such a statement befitting of a person who holds this high office, asked the Chief Minister. Therefore, the “outside pressure” repeated by the Chancellor even after the judgment of the Supreme Court, will only make the public believe that these statements were being made due to “outside pressure” by someone, said the Chief Minister.
The statement that the legal opinion of the Advocate General was sent from the office of the Chief Minister to the Chancellor was also not correct. The legal opinion of the advocate general was received by the Additional chief secretary of the Higher education department. It is the office of the higher education department which sent the opinion to the Chancellor.
Earlier as per the request of the Chancellor, the officials from the Chief minister's office explained the rules of the University. It is the chancellor who himself orally demanded the legal opinion, said the Chief Minister.
The state government has not done anything to prevent the right of the chancellor to act independently. Therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court was against the Chancellor who tried to falsely convey that there was “outside pressure” in the reappointment.
Prof. Gopinath Ravindran was a noted historian who has immensely contributed to higher education. Therefore there may be “outside pressure” on those holding constitutional posts to remove him.