A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra quashed the notification reappointing Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the vice-chancellor of the Kannur University, Kerala for being vitiated by what the court described as “the influence of extraneous considerations or, to put it in other words, by the unwarranted intervention of the state government”.
—
ON Thursday, the Supreme Court quashed the notification reappointing Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the vice-chancellor of the Kannur University, Kerala for being vitiated by what the court described as “the influence of extraneous considerations or, to put it in other words, by the unwarranted intervention of the state government”.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed a ruling to this effect and quashed a notification issued by chancellor-cum-governor on November 23, 2021, reappointing Ravindran as vice chancellor.
The Bench noted that the process of selection of the vice-chancellor was initiated through a notification on October 27, 2021, but it came to an end consequent to the request from the minister of higher education and the opinion of the Advocate General, State of Kerala which, in turn, led to the reappointment of Ravindran as the vice-chancellor.
The Bench said it showed a complete absence of independent mind on the part of the chancellor who 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.
In this case, the Kerala government issued a notification on November 1, 2021, inviting applications from eligible candidates. On November 22, 2021, the minister of higher education and social justice, in his capacity as the pro-chancellor, addressed a letter to the chancellor recommending the reappointment of Ravindran for a second term as the vice-chancellor.
On the same day, the notification inviting applications was withdrawn and the minister addressed another letter to the chancellor stating that Ravindran be reappointed as the vice-chancellor of Kannur University.
Consequently, on November 23, 2021, the chancellor issued a notification reappointing Ravindran as the vice-chancellor.
Dr Premachandran Keezhoth and Shino P. Jose, respectively member of the senate and member of the academic council of Kannur University, unsuccessfully challenged the reappointment of Ravindran before a single-judge and then a division Bench of the high court.
Before the high court, they contended: “Firstly, in view of Section 10(9) of the Kannur University Act, 1996, no person who is more than sixty years of age can be appointed as the vice-chancellor.
“In other words, the outer age limit for being appointed as the vice-chancellor of the university is sixty years. Ravindran could not have been reappointed as the vice-chancellor having crossed the age of sixty years.
“Secondly, even for the purpose of reappointment, the entire procedure necessary for being appointed as the vice-chancellor for the first time should have been undertaken. In other words, the procedure prescribed in Section 10 of the Act 1996 ought to have been followed even at the time of reappointment.”
The Supreme Court Bench formulated four questions for determination:
(i) Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post?
(ii) Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of the vice-chancellor as stipulated under Section 10(9) of the 1996 Act is to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the vice-chancellor for one more term of four years?
(iii) Whether the reappointment of the vice-chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under Section 10(1) of the Act 1996?
(iv) Did the chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the vice-chancellor?
Answering the first question, the Bench rejected the argument of the petitioner that the reappointment of the vice-chancellor could not be made as a tenure post. The Bench held that the statute itself had provided for reappointment with some object in mind.
“The ordinary meaning that can be ascribed to the term ‘reappointment’ is the act or process of deciding essentially that someone should continue in a particular job.
“Ordinarily, the object behind providing for reappointment is twofold. First is ‘retention’, i.e., where the incumbent to the office or post during his term is found to be extraordinary and has established himself or herself to be an asset to the institution, then in such circumstances, such a person is retained with a view to allow him to continue on the same post for one more term.
“Secondly, having regard to the nature of the post the organisation or institution may not be in a position to fill up the post in a time-bound manner and in such circumstances, the provision for reappointment may enable the organization or institution to relieve itself of the tedium of going through the entire selection process afresh every time the post becomes vacant,” the Bench held.
On the second question, the Bench ruled that the outer limit of sixty years of age is not applicable in case of re-appointment. It held that Section 10(9) of the 1996 Act deals with a situation prior to or leading up to the appointment of the vice-chancellor whereas Section 10(10) contemplates a situation after the appointment of the vice-chancellor has been made.
“This is discernible from a very fine but pertinent distinction between the language of the two provisions. Sub-section (9), which provides the outer age limit for the appointment uses the word ‘person’.
“This connotes that the vice-chancellor is yet to be appointed whereas sub-section (10) uses the word ‘vice-chancellor’, which connotes that it is applicable to the incumbent holding the office of vice-chancellor or simpliciter the vice-chancellor after having been appointed,” the Bench opined.
The Bench also held that if it were to hold that the outer age limit provided in Section 10(9) would apply even to reappointment, then the same would effectively mean that only those persons who are appointed as vice chancellor at the age of fifty-five or below could be considered for reappointment.
Such an interpretation, the Bench held, would result in conditions being read into Section 10(10) which have not been prescribed by the legislature.
“Had the intent of the legislature been otherwise, sub-section (10) or the words ‘shall be eligible for re-appointment’ would have been specifically qualified by or made subject to the words ‘sub-section (9)’ or ‘provisions of this section’,” the Bench held.
The Bench also held that if the outer limit of sixty years of age is made applicable even on reappointment, then it would inhibit a vice-chancellor who has already held office and proven himself to be a valuable asset during his tenure from being reappointed if he happens to be of more than sixty years of age.
“This would frustrate the very purpose of ‘reappointment’ which given the nature of the post of the vice-chancellor is all the more important as it is the vice-chancellor who is responsible for the day-to-day functioning as well as the overall performance of the university, its faculty, students, etc.,” the Bench ruled.
On the third question, the Bench ruled there was no requirement to follow the selection process inviting applications from candidates in case of reappointment of the vice-chancellor.
“Where the appointment is to be made for the first time or where the same person is being appointed as a vice-chancellor for the second time, but not in the continuation of the first term, the procedure provided under Section 10 of the Act 1996 must be gone through.
“However, in case of reappointment immediately upon the tenure of the first term coming to an end, there is no requirement to initiate the entire process of appointment as provided under Section 10 of the Act 1996,” the Bench held.
On the question of whether the chancellor abdicated or surrendered his statutory power of reappointment of the vice-chancellor, the Bench ruled in the affirmative on the facts of the case.
The Bench ruled that the governor, being the chancellor of the university, acts only in his personal capacity; therefore, the powers and duties exercised and performed by him under a statute related to the university have absolutely no relation to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties by him while he holds office as the governor of the state.
In other words, in his capacity as chancellor, the governor does not act on the advice of the state cabinet.
Click here to read the order.
