Supreme Court Quashes Reappointment of Kannur University Vice-Chancellor

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling in Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. vs. The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors., addressing the legality of the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. The Court quashed the reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor, holding that the decision-making process was vitiated by undue influence from the State Government, thereby rendering the appointment unlawful.

Background of the Case

The controversy arose when the tenure of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran, initially appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University on November 24, 2017, was nearing completion. In accordance with statutory procedures, the Chancellor initiated steps for the selection and appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor. The process began with the constitution of a Selection Committee on October 27, 2021, followed by a public notification on November 1, 2021, inviting applications for the post.

However, before the selection process could be completed, the Minister for Higher Education (Pro-Chancellor) wrote to the Governor/Chancellor on November 22, 2021, recommending the reappointment of Dr. Ravindran for a second term. On the same day, the State Government withdrew the earlier notification inviting applications and instead issued a fresh order reappointing Dr. Ravindran as Vice-Chancellor, bypassing the ongoing selection process.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners contended that:

The reappointment violated Section 10 of the Kannur University Act, 1996, which mandates a selection process even for reappointment.
The outer age limit of 60 years for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor should apply even in the case of reappointment.
The Chancellor had abdicated his independent statutory authority by acting under pressure from the State Government.
The withdrawal of the selection notification was a deliberate move to favor Dr. Ravindran, bypassing the proper selection mechanism.
The decision violated the principles of fairness and transparency in appointments to high public offices.

Arguments by the Respondents

The State Government and the University defended the reappointment, arguing:

Reappointment does not require following the entire selection process again, as per the statutory framework.
The UGC Regulations do not explicitly prohibit the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor beyond the age of 60.
The Chancellor had exercised his discretion in making the appointment, which was within the legal framework.
Dr. Ravindran’s tenure had brought significant improvements to the university, justifying his continuation for a second term.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the procedural lapses and legal inconsistencies in the reappointment process. Key observations included:

On the Applicability of the Age Limit: The Court held that the statutory upper age limit of 60 years applies only at the time of initial appointment, not for reappointment.
On the Need for a Selection Process: The Court ruled that even reappointments should follow a due selection process and not be based on arbitrary executive decisions.
On Executive Interference: The Court found that the Chancellor had acted under undue influence from the State Government, thereby failing to exercise independent discretion.

Key Excerpt from the Judgment

“The Chancellor was required to discharge his statutory duties in accordance with law and guided by the dictates of his own judgment and not at the behest of anybody else. Law does not recognize any such extra-constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion.”

The Court emphasized that appointments to high offices such as the Vice-Chancellor of a university must be made in a fair, transparent, and lawful manner, free from political influence.

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court ruled:

The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside.
The notification reappointing Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as Vice-Chancellor was quashed.
The University and the Chancellor were directed to initiate a fresh selection process for the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the law.
The Court reaffirmed the importance of ensuring merit-based and transparent appointments in public institutions.

This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law in public appointments and preventing undue political influence in the governance of educational institutions.

Petitioner Name: Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr..
Respondent Name: The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra.
Place Of Incident: Kannur, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 30-11-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: dr.-premachandran-ke-vs-the-chancellor-kannu-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-30-11-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by Manoj Misra
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category