Read Time: 06 minutes
"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 recognise any such extra constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion. Any such interference amounts to dictation from political superior and has been condemned by courts on more than one occasions", the judgment notes.
The Supreme Court today set aside the re-appointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University.
"We have reached to the conclusion that although the notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 to the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations or to put it in other words by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government", a bench of CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra has held.
Court has noted that it is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Kannur University Act, 1996 to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor.
"No other person even the Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority and if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on a suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. Thus, it is the decision-making process, which vitiated the entire process of reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor. The case on hand is not one of mere irregularity. We emphasise on the decision-making process because in such a case the exercise of power is amenable to judicial review", the judgment notes.
In the instant case, after the tenure of Dr Ravindran was coming to an end, the Minister for Higher Education and Social Justice in her capacity as the Pro-Chancellor had addressed a letter to the Governor/Chancellor recommending reappointment of Ravindran for a second term as the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
"All of a sudden, the Minister for Higher Education and Social Justice in his capacity as the Pro-Chancellor addressed a letter to the Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment of the respondent No. 4 herein for a second term as Vice-Chancellor. It is also pertinent to note that on 22.11.2021 itself the notification inviting application from the eligible candidates was withdrawn. On the same date, the Minister addressed one another letter to the Chancellor stating that the respondent No. 4 be reappointed as Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. On the very same day i.e., on 23.11.2021, the notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor was issued.", Court noted.
Relying on these facts, court held it to be abundantly clear that there was no independent application of mind or satisfaction or judgment on the part of the Chancellor and Dr. Ravindran came to be reappointed only at the behest of the State Government.
Court further noted that under the scheme of the Act 1996 and the statutes, the Chancellor plays a very important role. "He is not merely a titular head. In the selection of the Vice-Chancellor, he is the sole judge and his opinion is final in all respects. In reappointing the Vice-Chancellor, the main consideration to prevail upon the Chancellor is the interest of the university", the bench said.
Case Title: DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. vs. THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY & ORS
Please Login or Register
