logo
Setback for Guv as Kerala HC rejects appeals over temporary VC appointments at two varsities

Setback for Guv as Kerala HC rejects appeals over temporary VC appointments at two varsities

Hindustan Times14-07-2025
Kochi, In a setback to the Kerala Governor, who also serves as the Chancellor of major universities in the state, the High Court on Monday dismissed writ petitions challenging a single judge's verdict that declared the temporary appointments of Vice-Chancellors at J Abdul Kalam Technological University and Kerala Digital University as unsustainable. 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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Maharashtra moves Supreme Court challenging acquittal of 2006 Mumbai blasts accused
Maharashtra moves Supreme Court challenging acquittal of 2006 Mumbai blasts accused

Scroll.in

time3 hours ago

  • Scroll.in

Maharashtra moves Supreme Court challenging acquittal of 2006 Mumbai blasts accused

The Maharashtra government has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court order acquitting all 12 persons accused in the 2006 Mumbai local train blasts case, the Hindustan Times reported on Tuesday. The Supreme Court has listed the petition for hearing on Thursday. On Monday, the High Court acquitted the 12 men accused in the case, holding that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' in establishing their guilt. This came nearly 10 years after a special court had sentenced five of them to death and others to life imprisonment. The case pertains to the serial blasts that took place on July 11, 2006, in which seven bombs exploded in suburban trains on Mumbai's Western Railway line, killing 189 persons and injuring 824. Following a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, a special court had in October 2015 convicted the 12 persons. The five persons who had been sentenced to death by the trial court are Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan. All had been held guilty of planting the bombs. Kamal Ansari died in 2021 due to Covid-19 while in the Nagpur Central Jail. The seven others who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court are Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Mohammed Majid Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh. On Monday, a special High Court bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandar overturned the convictions stating that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It ordered the accused men to be released from jail if they were not required in any other case. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had described the verdict as 'shocking' and said that the state government would challenge it in the Supreme Court, the Hindustan Times reported.

Madras High Court orders reissue of NTK leader Seeman's lost passport
Madras High Court orders reissue of NTK leader Seeman's lost passport

The Hindu

time5 hours ago

  • The Hindu

Madras High Court orders reissue of NTK leader Seeman's lost passport

Observing that politicians would naturally have criminal cases pending against them and that, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny passport, the Madras High Court on Monday (July 21, 2025) directed the Regional Passport Officer in Chennai to reissue the lost passport of Naam Tamilar Katchi (NTK) leader S. Seeman within four weeks. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh allowed a writ petition filed by the party leader and quashed an order passed by the RPO refusing to reissue the passport. He pointed out that a Division Bench of the High Court had already held that the permission of criminal courts is not required to seek the renewal/reissuance of passports. Individuals facing criminal cases would have to obtain the permission of the criminal court concerned only when they intend to travel abroad, the judge said and directed the RPO to process the petitioner's application and reissue the passport within a month if the application was in order otherwise. In his affidavit, Mr. Seeman stated he had been facing motivated criminal cases since 2008 and yet, he had been visiting many foreign countries to meet the Tamil diaspora. When the RPO refused to reissue his passport with additional pages in 2013, he had approached the High Court and obtained a favourable order. However, when he planned to visit some neighbouring countries in September 2024, he found that he had lost his passport. Immediately, a police complaint was lodged and a Lost Document Report (LDR) was obtained on October 10, 2024. Thereafter, he applied for the reissuance of the passport in November 2024. The RPO on January 31, 2025, refused to reissue the passport, the petitioner complained and contended he was not facing any serious charges and there was no likelihood of him absconding or evading the course of justice. Mere pendency of a few 'motivated criminal cases' could not be a reason to deny passport, he argued.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store