Kerala Governor Moves Supreme Court Against HC Ruling on Vice-Chancellor Appointments
The petitioner has argued that any temporary appointment beyond the six-month limit under Section 13(7) is legally untenable and in conflict with the binding nature of UGC norms under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;
Kerala's Governor as the Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, has approached the Supreme Court challenging High Court judgment that upheld the State Government’s intervention in the appointment of a temporary Vice Chancellor.
The Special Leave Petition has been filed against the High Court order dated July 14, 2025, which dismissed two appeals affirming the single judge’s view on the Chancellor’s powers under the University’s governing law.
The dispute relates to the interpretation of the Chancellor’s authority to appoint a Vice Chancellor (VC) and the legal weight of Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015.
The provision permits the State to appoint a temporary VC for a maximum period of six months in case of vacancy.
The Governor’s petition contends that this provision is merely directory and cannot be invoked repeatedly or indefinitely, especially when the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, which is binding on all universities, prescribe a detailed procedure for VC appointments.
According to the petition, while both the single judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court accepted that VC appointments must comply with the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018, they failed to adequately consider the consequences of the State’s interference in overriding these norms.
The Chancellor asserts that the State is attempting to sidestep UGC directives by relying on a statutory provision to make ad hoc appointments beyond the legally permissible term, undermining the regulatory architecture established to ensure academic standards and institutional autonomy.
The petitioner has argued that any temporary appointment beyond the six-month limit under Section 13(7) is legally untenable and in conflict with the binding nature of UGC norms under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
The plea seeks restoration of the Chancellor’s exclusive authority to appoint the Vice Chancellor in accordance with UGC norms, without State interference.
Case Title: Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.