LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor requires adherence to the same selection procedures as a fresh appointment and whether the age limit applies to reappointments.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Writ of Quo Warranto
Case Name: Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. vs. The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors.
Judgment Date: 30 November 2023
Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1032
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala, J., Manoj Misra, J.
Can a Vice-Chancellor be reappointed without following the same rigorous selection process as a new appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning Kannur University. The core issue revolved around whether the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor should adhere to the same procedures as a fresh appointment, particularly concerning the age limit and the constitution of a selection committee. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, held that the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor was invalid due to procedural lapses and the Chancellor’s abdication of his statutory powers.
Case Background
The case originated from the reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. Dr. Ravindran was initially appointed as Vice-Chancellor on 24 November 2017 for a four-year term. As his term was nearing its end, the Chancellor of Kannur University initiated the process for selecting a new Vice-Chancellor. This process included the constitution of a Selection Committee on 27 October 2021 and the issuance of a notification on 1 November 2021, inviting applications from eligible candidates. However, on 22 November 2021, the Minister for Higher Education, acting as Pro-Chancellor, recommended the reappointment of Dr. Ravindran for a second term. Subsequently, the earlier notification for new applications was withdrawn, and Dr. Ravindran was reappointed on 23 November 2021.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 24 November 2017 | Dr. Gopinath Ravindran appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. |
| 27 October 2021 | Selection Committee constituted for the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor. |
| 1 November 2021 | Notification issued inviting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor. |
| 22 November 2021 | Minister for Higher Education recommends reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran. Notification inviting applications withdrawn. |
| 23 November 2021 | Dr. Gopinath Ravindran reappointed as Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. |
| 15 December 2021 | Single Judge of the High Court dismisses the writ petition challenging the reappointment. |
| 23 February 2022 | Division Bench of the High Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the single judge’s decision. |
| 30 November 2023 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s judgment and quashes the reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants, members of the Kannur University Senate and Academic Council, challenged Dr. Ravindran’s reappointment through a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. The primary grounds for the challenge were that Dr. Ravindran had crossed the age of 60, which is the upper age limit for appointment as Vice-Chancellor under Section 10(9) of the Kannur University Act, 1996, and that the reappointment did not follow the procedure required for a fresh appointment. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the age bar did not apply to reappointments and that the procedure for initial appointments need not be followed for reappointments. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court, which also dismissed the appeal.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 10 of the Kannur University Act, 1996, and the University Grants Commission (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 (UGC Regulations).
Section 10 of the Kannur University Act, 1996 outlines the process for appointing the Vice-Chancellor:
- Section 10(1) states that the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation of a committee.
- Section 10(9) specifies that no person over 60 years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
- Section 10(10) states that the Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years and shall be eligible for reappointment, provided that a person shall not be appointed for more than two terms.
Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribes the qualifications and selection process for the Vice-Chancellor:
- It mandates that the selection should be through a Search-cum-Selection Committee, with members of eminence in higher education and not connected with the university.
- It requires the committee to give weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system, and administrative experience.
Arguments
Appellants’ Submissions:
- The appellants argued that the High Court erred in distinguishing between ‘appointment’ and ‘reappointment.’ They contended that the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor should follow the same selection procedure as a fresh appointment, including the constitution of a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
- They asserted that on the date of his reappointment, Dr. Ravindran had crossed the age of 60, making him ineligible under Section 10(9) of the Kannur University Act.
- The appellants further contended that the withdrawal of the notification for fresh applications was done to bypass the age limit and the prescribed procedure.
- They argued that Section 10(10) only provides an opportunity for consideration for a fresh appointment and does not exempt candidates from eligibility criteria.
State of Kerala’s Submissions:
- The State argued that the UGC Regulations, being subordinate legislation, form part of the UGC Act, 1956, and should prevail over state laws in case of conflict.
- They highlighted that the UGC Regulations prescribe a specific procedure for selecting a Vice-Chancellor through a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
- They contended that the regulations should be read as part of the Act, and any repugnancy with state law would render the state law void.
Kannur University’s Submissions:
- The University argued that the age bar under Section 10(9) does not apply to reappointments under Section 10(10).
- They contended that Section 10(10) should be read conjunctively, allowing for the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor who was initially appointed before the age of 60.
Vice-Chancellor’s Submissions:
- The Vice-Chancellor argued that reappointment does not require the same procedural formalities as an initial appointment.
- He contended that Section 10(10) and Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations prescribe procedures only for initial appointments and not for reappointments.
- He asserted that since he fulfilled the eligibility criteria at the time of his initial appointment, he continued to fulfill them at the time of reappointment.
Chancellor’s Submissions:
- The Chancellor argued that the selection of the Vice-Chancellor should be through a proper scrutiny of merit by a panel of 3 to 5 persons, as per the UGC Regulations.
- He contended that the UGC Regulations prevail over state legislation, and the reappointment should be cancelled for non-compliance with these regulations.
- He highlighted that the reappointment was based on the State Government’s request and not on an independent evaluation.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Reappointment Procedure | Reappointment requires same procedure as fresh appointment | Appellants |
| Reappointment does not require the same procedure as fresh appointment | Kannur University, Vice-Chancellor | |
| Reappointment should follow UGC guidelines | Chancellor | |
| Age Limit | Age limit of 60 years applies to reappointment | Appellants |
| Age limit does not apply to reappointment | Kannur University, Vice-Chancellor | |
| UGC Regulations | UGC regulations form part of the Act and prevail over state law | State of Kerala, Chancellor |
| UGC Regulations do not apply to reappointment | Kannur University, Vice-Chancellor | |
| State Government’s Role | Reappointment was based on State Government’s request | Chancellor |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post?
- Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996, is to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor for one more term of four years?
- 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?
- Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether reappointment is permissible for a tenure post? | Yes | The statute itself provides for reappointment. The object behind reappointment is retention of a valuable asset and to avoid the tedium of the entire selection process. |
| Whether the age limit applies to reappointment? | No | Section 10(9) applies only at the stage of appointment, not reappointment. Section 10(10) uses the term “Vice-Chancellor” implying the person already appointed and eligible for reappointment. |
| Whether reappointment requires the same process as a fresh appointment? | No | Section 10(10) provides for reappointment without specifying the need to follow the procedure of fresh appointment. The UGC Regulations are also silent on the procedure for reappointment. |
| Did the Chancellor abdicate his statutory power? | Yes | The Chancellor did not exercise independent judgment but acted at the behest of the State Government. The decision-making process was vitiated by extraneous considerations. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered various authorities, including case laws and legal provisions, to arrive at its decision. These authorities were used to interpret the provisions of the Kannur University Act, 1996, and the UGC Regulations, 2018, and to determine the legality of the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the judiciary has the power to control the Executive from making appointments against the law. |
| State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1382 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the distinction between ‘appointment’ and ‘reappointment’ and that the latter does not require the same procedural formalities. |
| State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 351 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the appointment must be made as per the procedure laid down in the statute. |
| Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that UGC Regulations form part of the UGC Act, 1956, and prevail over state laws. |
| Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the importance of following the prescribed procedure for appointments. |
| Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 526 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the definition of a tenure post and the conditions of holding such a post. |
| Dept. of Commerce v. US House of Representatives, 1999 SCC OnLine US SC 10 | Supreme Court of the United States | Cited for the principle that the intention of the legislature must be derived from the enacted provisions. |
| The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr., (1964) 4 SCR 575 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the scope and purpose of a writ of quo warranto. |
| High Court of Gujarat and Another v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 712 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto. |
| B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn., (2006) 11 SCC 731 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the government in the choice of the person to be appointed. |
| Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 161 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the limited scope of a writ of quo warranto and that it can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules. |
| Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 162 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for reiterating the limitations of the writ of quo warranto. |
| Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, (2004) 2 SCC 590 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principles governing the exercise of discretionary power by statutory functionaries. |
| Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, (2004) 8 SCC 524 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that discretionary jurisdiction must be exercised within the four corners of the statute. |
| Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and Others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 435 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the authority conferred with competence under the statute alone can pass the order. |
| Hardwari Lal, Rohtak v. G.D. Tapase, Chandigarh and others, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 439 (Full Bench) | Punjab and Haryana High Court | Cited for the powers of the Governor as Chancellor and the distinction between the Chancellor and the State Government. |
| Bhuri Nath and Others v. State of J &K and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 745 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principle that the Governor as Chancellor acts independently of the State Government. |
| Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 1 WLR 1155 | House of Lords | Cited for the principle that judicial review is a review of the manner in which the decision was made, not an appeal from the decision. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | Reappointment requires same procedure as fresh appointment and age limit applies. | Partially accepted. Court held that the age limit does not apply to reappointment but that the Chancellor abdicated his power. |
| State of Kerala | UGC regulations prevail over state law. | Accepted in principle but not applicable to the facts of the case as there was no conflict between the State law and UGC Regulations. |
| Kannur University | Age limit does not apply to reappointment. | Accepted. |
| Vice-Chancellor | Reappointment does not require same procedure as fresh appointment. | Accepted. |
| Chancellor | UGC guidelines were not followed and reappointment was based on State Government’s request. | Accepted. The Court held that the Chancellor had abdicated his powers. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87*: The Court used this case to reinforce the judiciary’s role in ensuring lawful appointments.
- State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1382*: This case was crucial in establishing the distinction between appointment and reappointment, and that the latter does not require the same procedural formalities.
- Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 526*: The Court relied on this case to define a tenure post, clarifying that a person appointed to such a post continues until the term is complete.
- Hardwari Lal, Rohtak v. G.D. Tapase, Chandigarh and others, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 439*: This case was used to highlight the distinction between the Governor acting as Chancellor and the Governor acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Other cases were used to emphasize the limited scope of the writ of quo warranto, the importance of statutory procedures, and the need for independent judgment by statutory authorities.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors, primarily the procedural lapses in the reappointment process and the Chancellor’s failure to exercise independent judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and ensuring that statutory authorities exercise their powers without external influence. The Court also focused on the distinction between appointment and reappointment, and the specific language used in the Kannur University Act, 1996, to determine the applicability of the age limit.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Lapses | 40% |
| Abdication of Statutory Power | 30% |
| Interpretation of Statute | 20% |
| Upholding Statutory Authority | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations, such as the interpretation of the Kannur University Act, 1996, and the principles of administrative law, with less emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.
Logical Reasoning:
The Court’s reasoning followed a clear logical path, addressing each issue systematically and providing a rationale based on statutory interpretation and administrative law principles.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following:
- The Court held that the term “reappointment” in Section 10(10) of the Kannur University Act, 1996, implies that the incumbent Vice-Chancellor is eligible for another term without undergoing the fresh selection process.
- The Court clarified that the age bar in Section 10(9) applies only to initial appointments and not to reappointments.
- The Court emphasized that the Chancellor must exercise his power independently and not at the behest of the State Government.
- The Court underscored the importance of adhering to statutory procedures in making appointments to public office.
- The Court noted that the UGC Regulations are silent on the procedure for reappointment, and hence the provisions of the Kannur University Act, 1996, would apply.
The Court also considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, stating that the language of the statute was clear and that the legislative intent was to allow reappointment without the need for a fresh selection process. The court emphasized that the Chancellor’s decision was vitiated by the influence of the State Government, which amounted to an abdication of his statutory power.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “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.”
- “The language of sub -section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is plain and simple. The provision does not confer right to seek reappointment.”
- “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.”
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring in the final judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.
Key Takeaways
- Reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor does not require the same selection process as a fresh appointment.
- The age limit of 60 years does not apply to the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor.
- The Chancellor must exercise independent judgment and cannot act at the behest of the State Government.
- Statutory authorities must adhere to the procedures laid down in the law while making appointments.
- This judgment clarifies the scope of the writ of quo warranto in cases of appointments to public office.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the notification reappointing Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor does not require the same selection procedure as a fresh appointment, and the age limit of 60 years does not apply to reappointments. However, the Chancellor must exercise independent judgment and cannot act under the influence of the State Government. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and ensuring that statutory authorities exercise their powers without external interference. This case also clarifies the distinction between the powers of the Governor as Chancellor and the Governor acting on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. vs. The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors. quashed the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University, emphasizing that while reappointment does not require the same selection process as a fresh appointment, the Chancellor must exercise independent judgment and adhere to statutory procedures. The Court clarified that the age limit does not apply to reappointments, but the decision-making process must be free from external influence. This ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining the autonomy of universities and upholding the rule of law in appointments to public office.
Category
✓ Education Law
✓ University Appointments
✓ Writ of Quo Warranto
✓ Kannur University Act, 1996
✓ Section 10, Kannur University Act, 1996
✓ UGC Regulations, 2018
FAQ
Q: Does the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor require the same process as a fresh appointment?
A: No, the Supreme Court clarified that reappointment does not require the same selection process as a fresh appointment.
Q: Does the age limit of 60 years apply to the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor?
A: No, the age limit applies only to initial appointments and not to reappointments.
Q: Can the State Government influence the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor?
A: No, the Chancellor must exercise independent judgment and cannot act at the behest of the State Government.
Q: What is a writ of quo warranto?
A: A writ of quo warranto is a legal remedy used to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.
Q: What are the UGC Regulations?
A: The UGC Regulations are the University Grants Commission (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.