Setback for Guv as Kerala HC rejects appeals over temporary VC appointments at two varsities
The appeals were filed by the Chancellor and others, against the May 19, 2025 judgment which said the appointments were made without following proper legal procedure.
The controversy began after the Chancellor appointed two persons Ciza Thomas to the Kerala Digital University and K Sivaprasad to the J Abdul Kalam Technological University to the temporary posts of VC through notifications issued on November 27, 2024.
These appointments were made under the respective University Acts, citing powers to fill the post for a maximum of six months in the absence of a regular VC.
However, the state government challenged the appointments, arguing that they did not follow the procedure laid down in the Acts which require a panel of names to be recommended by the government and did not comply with University Grants Commission regulations.
The High Court's Division Bench, comprising Justices Anil K Narendran and P V Balakrishnan, upheld the single judge's ruling, agreeing that the notifications lacked legal backing.
The court observed that although the appointments were temporary, they still required adherence to the statutory process, including the submission of a panel of at least three eligible names by the government.
The judges also emphasised the importance of the VC's role, calling them the "bridge between academic and administrative functions" of a university.
They referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments which stressed that VCs must be selected independently, without political or external pressure, and in the best interest of the university.
While dismissing the appeals, the court noted the ongoing administrative deadlock in both universities and its negative effect on students.
It urged the Chancellor and the state government to act promptly to make regular VC appointments in line with the law and UGC norms.
"Considering the stalemate existing in the administration of the Technological University and the Digital University, which is continuing for a considerably long period, and which had an adverse impact on the functioning of the said universities and the interest of the student community, we are of the view that the Chancellor as well as the State Government will have to act pro-actively, to ensure that regular appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the said Universities are made, without any further delay," the court said.
The court also clarified that the UGC's 2018 regulations regarding qualifications and appointment procedures for university teachers and academic staff would override any conflicting provisions in state legislation.
The verdict has come as a relief for the CPI-led Left government, which has been at odds with the Governor over the administration of universities in the state.
Welcoming the HC order, Higher Education Minister R Bindu said the court had confirmed that the Governor's actions in appointing Vice-Chancellors were unlawful.
She said the High Court's rejection of the Governor's appeal supported what the state government had been saying all along.
"The Governor has powers, but when he crosses the limits, it causes problems," the minister said. She also called the Chancellor's move which she claimed could damage the reputation of universities disgraceful.
General Education and Labour Minister V Sivankutty also welcomed the ruling, calling it a win for the government's efforts to ensure transparency in the education sector.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Elgar Parishad case: Court junks Navlakhas plea seeking to live in Delhi
Mumbai, Aug 5 (PTI) A special NIA court here has refused permission to activist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case, to live in Delhi for a brief period while rebuking him for seeking the same relief repeatedly. In the order passed on August 1, judge C S Baviskar said Navlakha, ordered to stay in Mumbai as part of his bail condition, had ingeniously found the trick to file multiple applications seeking same reliefs. The order copy became available on Tuesday. In November 2024, the special court for National Investigation Agency cases had granted him permission to stay in Delhi for two months. In his latest application, Navlakha relied on this order while seeking permission to live in Delhi again for 45 days. 'It is not at all expected. I recapitulate, the thing you shall not do directly, cannot do even indirectly," the court said in the order. While rejecting the application, it was restraining itself from imposing cost on Navlakha, it added. The earlier permission to live in Delhi for two months did not give him the license to claim the same liberty repeatedly, the court said. The Bombay High Court, while granting Navlakha bail, had laid down that he shall remain in Mumbai considering the seriousness of the offences in this case, the special court said. 'The applicant/accused may show total disregard towards the expectations of the High Court in its order that he should reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. However, the directions of the High Court are happily binding on this Court and this Court has to follow it scrupulously," the order said. Navlakha (72), a permanent resident of Delhi, was arrested in the case in April 2020. He was granted bail in 2024. The case relates to alleged inflammatory speeches made at the Elgar Parishad conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which police claimed triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial near Pune. Sixteen activists were arrested in the case. PTI SP KRK view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Can't give nod ‘every now and then': Court rejects Navlakha's plea to travel to Delhi
A special court rejected a plea filed by activist Gautam Navlakha, arrested in the Elgaar Parishad case, to stay in Delhi for 45 days to visit his 86-year-old sister and for other purposes. In his plea, Navlakha sought permission to stay in Delhi from July 15 to August 30, citing that he had been similarly permitted in November 2024 and had abided with all conditions. Rejecting the plea, the court stated that being allowed to travel and stay once in Delhi, does not mean that 'every now and then', he will be granted permission. Navlakha, a Delhi resident, was granted bail by the Bombay High Court in December 2023, with one of the conditions being that he cannot leave the jurisdiction of the trial court in Mumbai without its permission. In April this year, the 72-year-old Navlakha cited living expenses and increasing finances in Mumbai to seek permission to shift to Delhi, pending trial, which the special court had rejected, stating that the high court set conditions did not permit it. The trial in the case is yet to begin, seven years after the first arrests in 2018. In the latest plea, he submitted that he wants to travel as his sister cannot come to Mumbai due to her health condition. He also submitted that he wants to meet his partner's children and grandchildren who are visiting in August, whom he has not met since his arrest in 2020. He also submitted that he wants to visit his doctor and take care of domestic affairs. Special judge C S Baviskar said that the High Court had in its 'magnanimous humanity', granted permission to Navlakha to travel but with the permission of the trial court. 'While imposing such conditions, the Hon'ble High Court axiomatically expected the accused not to go beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, save for exceptional and extraordinary circumstance and that too, only after prior permission of the trial court ie. this court,' the court said, in its order on July 30, made available this week. The special court said that Navlakha in moving a plea previously rejected, to shift to Delhi had shown 'utter disregard towards intention and objective of the Hon'ble High Court' and called his plea to seek permission now to stay in Delhi for 45 days, a 'trick'. 'Now, perhaps to give go by to the intention and directions of the Hon'ble High Court as above, the applicant/accused ingeniously has found out the trick of moving such application after application with the same prayer on the same grounds to facilitate him to reside at Delhi. It is not at all expected,' the court said.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court reserves judgment on Telangana's domicile policy for medical admissions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 05) categorically said it has no intention to open a Pandora's Box while questioning the domicile policy of Telangana government for medical admissions. The Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, required students to complete classes 9 to 12 in the State to be eligible for admissions to medical and dental colleges under the State quota. The High Court, in a decision last year, had found the rule arbitrary. It had reasoned that the rule excluded students who had left the State, even for a couple of years, to attend preparatory courses ahead of the medical exams, but whose parents were permanently domiciled in the State, from admissions under the State quota. During the hearing of the State's appeal on Tuesday, a Bench of Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Vinod Chandran also focussed on the same aspect, which the High Court had found anomalous in the State domicile policy. 'If students otherwise domiciled in Telangana or whose parents are domiciled in the State choose to study for four years from Class 9 to Class 12 outside Telangana for one or the other reason, may be due to the transfer of a parent, will they not be eligible? You are telling students not to go out of Telangana? We are not opening any Pandora's Box… We will consider the jurisprudence, but at times you will have to consider the ground reality,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate A. M. Singhvi and advocate Sravan Kumar, appearing for Telangana, in a hearing which took the whole morning before reserving the case for orders. The State argued that it possessed the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc. 'But take a student, born and raised in Telangana, who shifts outside after Class 10 to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer whose child studies outside the State for two years. Should such children be disqualified?' the CJI asked. Justice Chandran intervened to ask, 'if a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study does not. Is that not an anomaly?' Mr. Singhvi said the High Court created the term 'permanent resident,' which only the State had the authority to define. 'There may be students who go for a two-year study course, after Class 10, to London or the U.S. or even Delhi and Mumbai… They plan to return to Telangana, do their medical course and start a big hospital in the State. Would you be denying them the chance because their parents may be affluent and can send their children abroad?' Chief Justice Gavai asked. Mr. Singhvi said he was not judging them, but asked why the State should reserve seats for such people under the State quota when they could apply under the NRI quota. He said there were hundreds of poor students waiting for seats in medical colleges. 'Besides, a person who goes out, may not come back. He may see more opportunities abroad,' Mr. Singhvi submitted.
