Kerala High Court rejects Governor's appeal on Vice Chancellor appointments
The division bench observed that the University Grants Commission Regulations of 2010 and 2018 do not address temporary VC appointments pending regular ones. It referred to Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act and Section 11(10) of the Kerala Digital University Act, which allow the Chancellor to appoint a temporary VC only for up to six months, and only with the state government's recommendation.The court held that the Chancellor had no authority to appoint anyone as VC 'until further orders,' as was done in these cases without the required recommendation. It upheld the single judge's decision to strike down those appointments, saying there was no reason to interfere with the May 19, 2025, judgment. The writ appeals were dismissed.The High Court also noted that the prolonged absence of regular VCs had harmed the functioning of both universities and affected students. It urged the Chancellor and the state government to act promptly and appoint full-time VCs without delay.The case involved two writ appeals: One challenged the annulment of Ciza Thomas's appointment as VC of Kerala Digital University. The court noted her appointment violated the 2021 Act, which requires state government recommendation. However, it did not remove her, as her six-month term was ending on May 27.The second related to K Sivaprasad's temporary appointment as VC of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The court found that the Chancellor had not followed Section 13(7) of the 2015 Act, which also requires a government recommendation. As his tenure was nearly over, the court did not intervene. - Ends
IN THIS STORY#Kerala
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Pleas of GSECL staff to retain jobs after invalid caste certificates junked
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has rejected a petition filed by 18 employees of the Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd (GSECL) seeking to retain their jobs despite their caste certificates being declared invalid. The petitioners argued that they had served as Vidyut Sahayaks for 15 years and requested not to be terminated, but to instead be accommodated in the general category. They were originally appointed under the Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) category, claiming to belong to the Sindha community. However, their services were terminated after a scrutiny committee found their SEBC certificates to be invalid. While dismissing the petition, Justice Sandeep Bhatt stated, "The petitioners are continued on the posts on which they were appointed on the basis of the caste certificates, which were held to be illegal by the scrutiny committee, because of which, the rights of the genuinely deserving persons of the said community were infringed. The persons who are possessing genuine caste certificates have been waiting for their turn to be appointed but due to the petitioners, whose caste certificates are held illegal, being continued, they could not be given a chance to be appointed i.e. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo the wrong are given the benefit and the right are deprived of the benefit." You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad The high court did not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the govt's decision to terminate the petitioners' services. Notably, the petitioners' SEBC caste certificates were found invalid as early as 2012—two years after they joined service. There were multiple rounds of litigation, up to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of these legal proceedings, the petitioners were allowed to continue in their jobs. At one stage, a division bench of the high court suggested the govt consider accommodating them under the general category, but the administration found this unfeasible. The employees then filed a fresh petition earlier this year seeking continuation of service. In this regard, Justice Bhatt observed, "This plea is not available to the petitioners, as—actually speaking—deducting the period of litigation, they effectively worked only two years. For the rest of the years, they have been working on sympathy only."
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
High court disposes of writ petition against UP govt's decision to merge primary schools
1 2 Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Uttar Pradesh govt's order to merge small primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 enrolled students into larger nearby schools, saying that the matter has already been decided by the HC's Lucknow bench. Disposing of the writ petition filed by Shashi and four others, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed, "The order passed by the Lucknow bench on July 7 has been placed before this court. On perusal of the said order, it reflects that the controversy has already been settled by the Lucknow bench." "Taking into consideration the submissions made by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and the judgment and order passed by a coordinate bench of this court, the writ petition is disposed of," the court said in its order dated July 10. The Uttar Pradesh govt had on June 16 announced that it plans to merge small primary and upper primary schools with fewer than 50 students into larger nearby schools. This decision aims to improve education quality and optimise resource utilisation, citing issues of underutilisation and inefficiency in these small schools. However, the stand of the petitioners in the writ petition was that the merger violated the right to education (RTE) Act and could hinder children's access to education by forcing them to travel further to new schools. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like An engineer reveals: One simple trick to get internet without a subscription Techno Mag Learn More Undo Besides, the decision could disproportionately affect girls and lead to increased dropout rates, added the writ petition. Pronouncing the verdict, the Lucknow bench had on July 7 said that the state govt is bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by it. It had observed, "On a complete analysis of Rule 4(1), Rule 4(2) and Rule 4(3) read conjointly of the Right to Education Act, it is clear that the state govt is bound to establish school on the nearest possible place from a habitation and in the absence thereof, it is obliged to ensure transportation facilities etc., and in conjunction thereof identifying the neighbourhood schools, whether they are government schools or otherwise. " Considering the National Education Policy 2020 framed by the central govt, the bench had said, "The policy in itself is laudable and prescriptions have been given with regard to the steps to be taken to ensure that education is imparted at the initial level to all the citizens and the children of the country."
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
HC orders special meeting to consider no-confidence motion against Karaikudi mayor
Madurai: Madras high court on Tuesday directed the Karaikudi corporation commissioner to convene a special council meeting to decide on the representation made by councillors to consider a no-confidence motion against mayor S Muthudurai of DMK. Justice C Saravanan passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by V Ramkumar, the AIADMK councillor of ward 22. The petitioner stated that out of the 36 councillors in the corporation, one councillor had resigned. Among them, he along with 22 councillors made a representation for initiating a no-confidence motion against the mayor, due to administrative inefficiency, public dissatisfaction, and failure to discharge duties in accordance with the law, on July 10. Despite the representation with the required quorum as per the statute, no action has been taken to convene the special meeting or process the same, he added. The petitioner stated that the inaction of the authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and Rule 161 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules. Hence, the petitioner moved court.
