HC annuls appointment of temporary V-Cs in two universities
Monday's order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan, while dismissing an appeal filed by Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, who is also the Chancellor of the two universities, challenging the single judge's order.
While Mr. Sivaprasad had earlier been working as Professor, Department of Ship Technology, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Ms. Thomas had retired as Senior Joint Director from the Directorate of Technical Education.
The Division Bench said in its judgment that an order of temporary appointment of Vice-Chancellors, issued by the Chancellor in exercise of the powers under Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act or Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act, shall be for a period of not exceeding six months, in the aggregate.
Therefore, the Chancellor has no power to issue notifications appointing a person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the two universities, until further orders, pending regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. In such circumstances, the single judge cannot be found at fault for declaring the notifications as not sustainable in law, the Bench added.
The Bench reminded that the Chancellor and the State Government ought to act proactively to ensure that regular appointment is made to the post of Vice-Chancellor in the universities without any delay. This was after considering the stalemate in the administration of the two universities, which has been continuing for a considerable period, and which harmed their functioning and also the interest of the student community, it said.
Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup submitted that the Chancellor cannot appoint any person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the universities, unless the name was recommended by the government.
Referring to Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act, where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any of the circumstances enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other university or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the technological university or the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, as recommended by the government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a period not exceeding six months in the aggregate.
Likewise, as per Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act, if there was a temporary vacancy in the post of Vice-Chancellor due to any unforeseen reason, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Secretary of the Electronics and Information Technology Department, as recommended by the government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a period not exceeding six months, in the aggregate, the court observed.
Citing observations of the Supreme Court and how universities ought to function in an autonomous manner, the court further said being a leader and head of the institution, the V-C has to play an important role. The V-C functions as a bridge between the executive and academic wings of the university. As per norms, the V-C must be an eminent academician, and excellent administrator and also someone having high moral stature, it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Award for The Kerala Story invites a storm of criticism
The National Film Award jury's decision to bestow two awards, including the best director award to Sudipto Sen, for the film The Kerala Story has invited a storm of criticism in Kerala. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, in a statement marking his protest, said the jury insulted the noble tradition of Indian cinema that stood for religious brotherhood and national integration by awarding a film that was built on lies to defame Kerala and spread communalism. 'By honouring a film that spreads blatant misinformation with the clear intent of tarnishing Kerala's image and sowing seeds of communal hatred, the jury has lent legitimacy to a narrative rooted in the divisive ideology of the Sangh Parivar. Kerala, a land that has always stood as a beacon of harmony and resistance against communal forces, has been gravely insulted by this decision. It is not just Malayalis but everyone who believes in democracy must raise their voice in defence of truth and the constitutional values we hold dear,' he posted in X. General Education Minister V. Sivankutty said recognising The Kerala Story, a film that spreads hate and baseless allegations, devalued all the other awards. 'It is extremely regrettable that a national award is being given to a film that is full of baseless allegations and hate propaganda. This is a recognition of attempts to create divisions in society. Such trends do not augur well for the pluralism of our country,' he said. Social media platforms were abuzz with posts criticising the National Film Award jury for awarding the film. Ahead of the film's release two years ago, various organisations from Kerala had moved the Supreme Court calling for a ban. Though the Supreme Court and the Kerala High Court refused to stay the film's release, the makers of the film had to remove its teaser after their claim about '32,000 women' from Kerala joining the IS. They also altered the trailer to say that it was a 'compilation of the true stories of three young girls.' They also added a statement to the film which said that it was a work of fiction. The ruling Left Democratic Front and the Opposition United Democratic Front were united in their opposition to the film, with much of the civil society too calling it an attempt to malign the State. Only the Bharatiya Janata Party openly endorsed the film in Kerala. The film also led to a flurry of social media posts and videos titled 'The Real Kerala Story,' portraying stories of communal amity from the State. Documentary filmmaker Sanu Kummil made the documentary The Unknown Kerala Stories portraying six stories of communal harmony from different corners of Kerala.
Hans India
8 hours ago
- Hans India
'HP may vanish from map': SC tells Centre, state that 'earning revenue is not everything'
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has told the Centre and the Himachal Pradesh government that "earning revenue is not everything", warning that if the current trajectory of ecological degradation continues, "the entire State of HP may vanish into thin air from the map of the country". Adding grimly that "God forbid this doesn't happen", a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said revenue generation cannot come at the cost of environmental and ecological destruction. The Justice Pardiwala-led Bench not only dismissed a private hotel company's plea challenging the Himachal Pradesh government's notification declaring Shri Tara Mata Hill a "green area", but also pulled up both the state and Union governments for failing to protect the fragile Himalayan ecology. The petitioner – M/s Pristine Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. – had challenged a June 6, 2025, notification restricting new private construction on Tara Mata Hill, arguing that the restrictions were imposed in contravention of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. After the Himachal Pradesh High Court had rejected the petition on the grounds that the company could not be said to be an aggrieved person as it did not have land ownership or permission to purchase land in the state, Pristine Hotels and Resorts moved a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, the apex court refused to intervene. "We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court," the apex court said, while turning the spotlight on the numerous environmental issues being faced by Himachal Pradesh. It observed that while the move to notify green areas was "laudable", it had come too late. "The situation in the state of Himachal Pradesh has gone from bad to worse. The severe ecological imbalance and other environmental conditions have led to serious natural calamities over a period of years," the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said, citing repeated floods, landslides, and large-scale destruction of life and property. "It is not right to blame only nature for the disaster in Himachal Pradesh. Humans, not nature, are responsible for phenomena such as continuous land sliding of mountains, collapsing of houses and buildings, subsidence of roads, etc.," the Supreme Court added. The top court attributed the environmental degradation to hydro power projects, unregulated road construction, deforestation, and unchecked tourism. "Unrelenting building, tunnel, and road construction, frequently done without sufficient environmental planning, has increased the area's susceptibility to natural disasters and the effects of climate change," it said. Further, the apex court raised alarm over unchecked tourism, poor solid waste management, illegal mining, and the rapid pace of infrastructure development. "The uncontrolled growth of tourism has strained the state's environment. [H]ill towns often struggle with waste disposal and water shortages during tourist seasons…If left unchecked, the pressure from tourism could severely undermine the ecological and social fabric of the State." In the larger public interest, the Supreme Court ordered its registry to register a fresh suo motu writ petition to monitor environmental conditions in Himachal Pradesh. "We call upon the state of Himachal Pradesh to file its response to what has fallen from us, more particularly the issues which we have discussed in the preceding parts of this order," it said, asking the state government to submit a detailed action plan within four weeks. Fixing the next date of hearing on August 25, the apex court issued notices to the Chief Secretary of Himachal Pradesh and the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
Submit status report on applications filed under Sakala scheme: HC
The High Court of Karnataka has directed the State government to file a status report on the applications received under the Sakala Services Act, 2011, for various services, and the number of applications pending with the authorities. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Joshi issued the direction on a petition filed by Gowrishankar S, a resident of Bengaluru. The Bench also directed the government to provide details of date of receipt of applications and time required for disposal of pending applications in the status report. The petitioner had complained that the authorities were not implementing the provisions of the Sakala Act properly as applications were not disposed of within time limit prescribed in the Act, which provided for guarantee of services to citizens in the State within the stipulated time limit.
