Kerala High Court
The Chancellor, Apj Abdul Kalam … vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The … on 14 July, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.1165 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN WP(C)NO.42637 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC:
THE CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF DIGITAL
SCIENCES INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY,
KERALA RAJ BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695099
BY ADV SHRI.S. PRASANTH, SC, CHANCELLOR OF
UNIVERSITIES OF KERALA
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF DIGITAL SCIENCES INNOVATION
AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
TECHNOPARK PHASE IV, PALLIPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695317
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 2
3 DR. CIZA THOMAS,
KP 7/240A, EASWARAN THAMPI NAGAR, KALLAYAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.V.MANU, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.NOS.1160 OF 2025, 1180 OF 2025 AND
1181 of 2025, THE COURT ON 14.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.1160 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN WP(C)NO.42527 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
THE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695099
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
OF KERALA
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695016
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 4
3 DR. K. SIVAPRASAD, PROFESSOR,
3.DEPARTMENT OF SHIP TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682022
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.V.MANU, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.NOS.1165 OF 2025, 1180 OF 2025 AND
1181 of 2025, THE COURT ON 14.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.1180 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.42637 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
DR. CIZA THOMAS,
AGED 57 YEARS
KP 7/240A, EASWARAN THAMPI NAGAR, KALLAYAM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
SMT.SILPA SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 6
2 THE CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF DIGITAL
SCIENCES INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY,
KERALA RAJ BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695099
3 KERALA UNIVERSITY OF DIGITAL SCIENCES INNOVATION
AND TECHNOLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
TECHNOPARK PHASE IV, PALLIPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695317
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
OF KERALA
SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.V.MANU, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.NOS.1160 OF 2025, 1165 OF 2025 AND
1181 of 2025, THE COURT ON 14.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO.1181 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.42527 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
DR. K. SIVAPRASAD, PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF SHIP TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI, PIN - 682022
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
SMT.SILPA SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINT
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CHANCELLOR, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY, KERALA RAJ BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695099
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 8
3 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CET CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695016
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES
OF KERALA
SHRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.V.MANU, SPL.G.P. TO A.G.
SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.06.2025, ALONG WITH WA.NOS.1160 OF 2025, 1180 OF 2025 AND
1165 of 2025, THE COURT ON 14.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 9
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
These writ appeals filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958, arise out of the judgment dated 19.05.2025 of
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 and that
dated 19.05.2025 in W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024. The appellant in
W.A.No.1160 of 2025 is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.42527 of
2024 and the appellant in W.A.No.1181 of 2025 is the 3rd
respondent in that writ petition. The appellant in W.A.No.1165 of
2025 is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024 and the
appellant in W.A.No.1180 of 2025 is the 3rd respondent in that writ
petition.
2. W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 was filed by the State of
Kerala, the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.1160 of 2025 and 1181 of
2025, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
Ext.P9 notification dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent
in that writ petition (the appellant in W.A.No.1160 of 2025),
namely, the Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of APJ Abdul
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 10
Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, read with University
Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of
Standards in Higher Education, 2018. By Ext.P9 notification it was
ordered that, pending the appointment of a person as Vice-
Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, on regular
basis, the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 (the
appellant in W.A.No.1180 of 2025), who was working as Professor,
Department of Ship Technology, Cochin University of Science and
Technology, shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of
the Vice-Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
with immediate effect, until further orders. In W.P.(C)No.42527 of
2024, the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Ext.P9
notification dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent
Chancellor ordering the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers and
functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University
is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the statutory mandate of
Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act,
2015; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 11
Chancellor to make appointment to exercise the powers and
discharge the functions of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, till a regular Vice-Chancellor takes charge, from the
panel forwarded by the State Government as per Ext.P4 letter
dated 09.10.2024 to the Additional Chief Secretary to the
Governor of Kerala, in accordance with Section 13(7) of APJ Abdul
Kalam Technological University Act, 2015.
2.1. In W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024, a counter affidavit dated
17.02.2025 has been placed on record on behalf of the 1 st
respondent Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
(the appellant in W.A.No.1160 of 2025), opposing the reliefs
sought for, producing therewith Exts.R1A to R1E documents. On
behalf of the writ petitioner, a written submission dated
01.04.2025 was placed on record by the learned Special
Government Pleader. On behalf of the 1st respondent Chancellor,
an argument note dated 08.04.2025 was placed on record by the
learned Standing Counsel for APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University.
2.2. After considering the pleadings and materials on record
and also the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 12
Judge, by the judgment dated 19.05.2025, disposed of
W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024, with the directions contained in the last
paragraph of that judgment, which reads thus;
“A reading of the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13
of the 2015 Act indicates that the appointment is only for a
period of six months. Ext.P9 notification was issued on
27.11.2024, and the term of appointment of the 3 rd
respondent is said to expire by 27.5.2025. Taking into
consideration the above and also taking into consideration
the observations of the Supreme Court regarding the
importance of the post of Vice-Chancellor in Gambhirdan K.
Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179], I am of the view that this Court
need not at present interfere with the appointment of the
3rd respondent as temporary Vice-Chancellor of the
University as frequent changes in the person holding that
office (even on temporary basis) may not be conducive to
the interest of the University and its students. It is settled
that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is discretionary. In the light of the
above findings, the writ petition will stand disposed of as
follows:-
(i) It is declared that Ext.P9 notification is not
sustainable in law for the reason that it is not issued
in accordance with the procedure contemplated by
Section 13(7) of the 2015 Act. However, this
declaration will not have the effect of dislodging the
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 133rd respondent from office, as the tenure of the 3rd
respondent is set to expire by 27.05.2025;
(ii) The petitioner shall, forthwith, take steps to
recommend to the 1st respondent the names of
persons possessing the qualifications prescribed
(through regulations) by the UGC, who can be
appointed as a temporary Vice-Chancellor of the
University pending the selection of a Vice-Chancellor
on regular basis;
(iii) The petitioner shall, also simultaneously and if
there are no interdicting orders by this Court or the
Supreme Court, take steps to fill up the post of Vice-
Chancellor of the University in terms of the provisions
contained in Section 13 of the 2015 Act on regular
basis keeping in mind the provisions of the UGC
Regulation on Minimum Qualification for appointment
of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018;
(iv) It is clarified that the UGC Regulation on Minimum
Qualification for appointment of Teachers in
Universities and Colleges, 2018 will govern the
method of appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the
University, notwithstanding any contrary provision in
the 2015 Act. In other words, it is clarified that the
provisions of Section 13 of the 2015 Act shall apply
only to the extent that it is in conformity with the UGC
Regulation on Minimum Qualification for appointment
of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018 both in
the matter of qualification for appointment and the
procedure for appointment.”
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 14
2.3. The judgment dated 19.05.2025 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 is under challenge in
W.A.Nos.1160 of 2025 and 1181 of 2025. Along with I.A.No.1 of
2025 in W.A.No.1160 of 2025 filed by the 1st respondent State, a
copy of I.A.No.1 of 2024 filed by the Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University, seeking clarification of Ext.P3 judgment
of the Division Bench dated 16.02.2023 in W.A.No.1847 of 2022,
is placed on record.
3. W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024 was filed by the State of
Kerala, the 1st respondent in W.A.Nos.1165 of 2025 and 1180 of
2025, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 notification dated
27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent in that writ petition (the
appellant in W.A.No.1165 of 2025), namely, the Chancellor, Kerala
University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, in
exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of Kerala
University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act,
2021, read with University Grants Commission Regulations on
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (for
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 15
brevity ‘the UGC Regulations, 2018’). By Ext.P4 notification it was
ordered that, pending the appointment of a person as Vice-
Chancellor of Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and
Technology, on regular basis, the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C)No.
42637 of 2024 (the appellant in W.A.No.1181 of 2025), Senior
Joint Director (Rtd.), Directorate of Technical Education,
Thiruvananthapuram, and former Vice-Chancellor (In-Charge),
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, shall exercise the
powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor, Kerala
University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology, with
immediate effect, until further orders. In W.P.(C)No.42637 of
2024, the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Ext.P4
notification dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent
Chancellor ordering the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers and
functions of the Vice-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University
is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the statutory mandate of
Section 11(10) of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences,
Innovation and Technology Act, 2021; and a writ of mandamus
commanding the 1st respondent Chancellor to make appointment
to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Vice-
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 16
Chancellor of the 2nd respondent University, till a regular Vice-
Chancellor takes charge, from the panel forwarded by the State
Government as per Ext.P3 letter dated 25.10.2024 to the
Additional Chief Secretary to the Governor of Kerala, in accordance
with Section 11(10) of Kerala University of Digital Sciences,
Innovation and Technology Act, 2021.
3.1. In W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024, a counter affidavit dated
17.02.2025 has been placed on record on behalf of the 1 st
respondent Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences,
Innovation and Technology (the appellant in W.A.No.1165 of
2025), opposing the reliefs sought for. On behalf of the writ
petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader has filed a
memo dated 02.04.2025 to adopt the written submissions dated
01.04.2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 as that of the writ
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024.
3.2. After considering and pleadings and materials on record
and also the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single
Judge, by the judgment dated 19.05.2025, disposed of
W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024, based on the findings rendered in the
judgment dated 19.05.2025 in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024, with the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 17
directions contained in the last paragraph of that judgment, which
reads thus;
“Therefore, this writ petition will stand disposed on the basis
of the findings rendered in the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.42527 of 2024 and directing that, if the post of Vice-
Chancellor of the University is being filled up on temporary
basis or on a regular basis, the same shall be done in
accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the 2021 Act
read along with the provisions of the UGC Regulations. In
case of any conflict, the UGC Regulations will prevail over
the provisions of the Statute. Taking into consideration the
importance of the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University;
as observed by the Supreme Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi
v. State of Gujarat [(2022) 5 SCC 179] which was quoted
with approval by the Supreme Court in Dr. Sreejith [(2023)
17 SCC 338], I also direct that the steps shall be taken to
fill up the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University on a
regular basis without undue delay, unless the proceedings
have been interdicted by any order of this Court or the
Supreme Court. Thus, the writ petition will stand disposed
of as follows:-
(i) It is declared that Ext.P4 notification is not
sustainable in law for the reason that it is not issued
in accordance with the procedure contemplated by
Section 11(10) of the 2021 Act. However, this
declaration will not have the effect of dislodging the
3rd respondent from office, as the tenure of the 3rd
respondent is set to expire by 27.05.2025;
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 18
(ii) The petitioner shall, forthwith, take steps to
recommend to the 1st respondent the names of
persons possessing the qualifications prescribed
(through regulations) by the UGC, who can be
appointed as a temporary Vice-Chancellor of the
University pending the selection of a Vice-Chancellor
on regular basis;
(iii) The petitioner shall, also simultaneously and if
there are no interdicting orders by this Court or the
Supreme Court, take steps to fill up the post of Vice-
Chancellor of the University in terms of the provisions
contained in Section 11 of the 2021 Act on regular
basis keeping in mind the provisions of the UGC
Regulations on Minimum Qualification for appointment
of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018;
(iv) It is clarified that the UGC Regulations on
Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers in
Universities and Colleges, 2018 will govern the
method of appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the
University, notwithstanding any contrary provision in
the 2021 Act. In other words, it is clarified that the
provisions of Section 11 of the 2021 Act shall apply
only to the extent that it is in conformity with the UGC
Regulations on Minimum Qualification for appointment
of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018 both in
the matter of qualification for appointment and the
procedure for appointment.”
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 19
3.3. The judgment dated 19.05.2025 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.42637 of 2024 is under challenge in
W.A.Nos.1165 of 2025 and 1180 of 2025.
4. On 27.05.2025, when W.A.Nos.1160 of 2025, 1165 of
2025, 1180 of 2025 and 1181 of 2025 came up for admission, we
heard arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
in W.A.Nos.1160 of 2025 and 1165 of 2025 and also the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.1180 of 2025 and
1181 of 2025. We also heard arguments of the learned Advocate
General in part. While posting writ appeals on 29.05.2025 at 02.00
p.m. for further arguments, it was ordered that the status quo as
on 27.05.2025 in respect of Vice-Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University and Kerala University of Digital Sciences,
Innovation and Technology, shall be maintained till 30.05.2025. In
the said order, it was made clear that the Vice-Chancellors
concerned shall not take any policy decision based on any
recommendations made by the General Council/Executive
Council/Board of Governors of the respective University.
Thereafter, further arguments were heard on 30.05.2025 and
03.06.2025, and the order of status quo granted on 27.05.2025
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 20
was also extended. On 04.06.2025, Registry was directed to list
the writ appeals on 16.06.2025 at 02.00 p.m., by constituting a
Special Bench, after obtaining orders from the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice, since one among us [P.V. Balakrishnan, J.], is sitting in
another Division Bench. By that order, the order of status quo was
extended by two weeks. After obtaining the orders of the Hon’ble
the Chief Justice, the writ appeals were listed for further
arguments on 16.06.2025. Further arguments of the learned
Advocate General and also the arguments in reply by the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.1165 of 2025 and
1160 of 2025 and also the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
in W.A.Nos.1180 of 2025 and 1181 of 2025 were heard on
16.06.2025. While reserving the writ appeals for judgment, the
order of status quo granted on 27.05.2025 was extended by three
weeks. Thereafter, the writ appeals were listed again on
01.07.2025 based on the submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1165 and 1160 of 2025, to
point out the judgment dated 26.06.2025 of a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(C)No.43059 of 2024. We heard further
arguments, and the writ appeals were ordered to be listed on
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 21
08.07.2025 at 1.30 p.m. for judgment. The order of status quo
was extended till then. On 08.07.2025, the order of status quo
was extended till this date, and the writ appeals were directed to
be listed at 4.30 p.m. for judgment.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in
W.A.Nos.1160 of 2025 and 1165 of 2025 and also the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1180 of 2025 and
1181 of 2025 would contend that in the impugned judgment the
learned Single Judge has not taken into account the impact of the
judgment of the Apex Court in Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth v.
Chancellor Kannur University [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592]
on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of
Kerala v. Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the purpose of Section
13(7) of the Technological University Act and Section 11(10) of
the Digital University Act has not been considered by the learned
Single Judge in a proper perspective. The importance of the post
of Vice-Chancellor of the University has been elaborately
considered by the Apex Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State
of Gujarat [(2022) 5 SCC 179] and Sreejith P.S. v. Rajasree
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 22
M.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338]. In Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth
[2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592] the Apex Court considered
elaborately the role of the Chancellor in the matter of appointment
of Vice-Chancellor of a University. The law laid down in the above
decisions was not properly appreciated by the learned Single
Judge. The provisions contained in Section 13(7) of the
Technological University Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital
University Act are in conflict with the provisions contained in
Clause 7.3. of the UGC Regulations, 2018. The said aspect was
not considered in a proper perspective by the Division Bench in
Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
[2023 KHC OnLine 9027]. The contentions raised by the
appellants on the above aspect were also not considered by the
learned Single Judge in a proper perspective, while rendering the
impugned judgment. Ext.P9 notification dated 27.11.2024 in
W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024 and Ext.P4 notification dated
27.11.2024 in W.P.(C)No.43637 of 2024 were issued by the
Chancellor, in order to avoid any vacuum in the office of the Vice-
Chancellor of the Technological University and the Digital
University, since such a vacuum in the office of the Vice-Chancellor
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 23
would not be in the best interest of the said Universities. The
regular appointment of Vice-Chancellors of the Universities in the
State, including Technological University and Digital University, is
the subject matter in W.P.(C)No.42548 of 2023 and connected
matters pending before the Division Bench of this Court. The
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1180 of 2025
and 1181 of 2025 would point out the pendency of a writ petition
pending before this Court in which the statutory provisions relating
to temporary appointment of Vice-Chancellors is also under
challenge in a writ petition pending before this Court, on the
ground that it is in violation of the provisions under the UGC
Regulations.
6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General would
contend that the provisions contained in Section 13(7) of the
Technological University Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital
University Act are not violative of the provisions contained in the
UGC Regulations, 2010 or the UGC Regulations, 2018. The UGC
Regulations are silent regarding the appointment of temporary
Vice-Chancellors, on a stop-gap arrangement, in the
circumstances enumerated in Section 13(7) of the Technological
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 24
University Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act.
Therefore, the principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254
of the Constitution of India is not attracted. The learned Single
Judge, after considering the relevant statutory provisions and the
law on the point arrived at a conclusion that under Section 13(7)
of the Technological University Act or Section 11(10) of the Digital
University Act, the Chancellor has no power to issue notifications
like Ext.P9 notification dated 27.11.2024 in W.P.(C)No.42527 of
2024 and Ext.P4 notification dated 27.11.2024 in
W.P.(C)No.43637 of 2024 appointing a person to exercise the
powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of
Technological University or Digital University, until further orders,
pending regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. The said
finding of the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be either
perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference in these
writ appeals. The learned Advocate General would also point out
the order dated 26.11.2024 of the Division Bench in I.A.No.1 of
2024 in W.A.No.1847 of 2022, which is placed on record as Ext.P8
in W.P.(C)No.42527 of 2024, whereby an application for
clarification filed by the Chancellor in the light of the judgment of
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 25
the Apex Court in Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1592] was closed with the observations contained
therein.
7. APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (for
brevity, ‘the Technological University Act‘) was enacted by the
State Legislature to establish and incorporate a university for the
promotion of technical education in the State of Kerala and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 13 of
the Act, which deals with the Vice-Chancellor, reads thus;
“13. The Vice-Chancellor.- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be
the principal executive and academic officer of the
University. He shall be the ex officio Chairman of the
Syndicate and of the Academic Council.
(2) The first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government and
thereafter the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor from among a panel of names recommended by
a Search Committee consisting of the following members,
namely:-
(i) one member elected by the Board of Governors;
(ii) one member nominated by the AICTE;
(iii) the Chief Secretary of the State, who shall be the
Convenor of the Committee.
(3) The process of preparing a panel shall begin at least
three months before the probable date of occurrence of the
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 26vacancy of the Vice-Chancellor and shall be completed
within the time-limit fixed by the Chancellor. The
Chancellor, however, may extend such time-limit, if, in the
exigency of the circumstances, it is necessary to do so.
However, the process of preparation of the panel shall be
completed within a period of three months, including the
period so extended.
(4) The Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel
of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the
eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences. The
names shall be in English alphabetical order. The report shall
be accompanied by a detailed write-up on the suitability of
each person included in the panel. In case the Committee
fails to make a unanimous recommendation as provided,
each member of the Committee may submit the name of
one person each to the Chancellor. The non-submission of
the name by any member of the Committee shall not
invalidate the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
(5) No person who is more than sixty one years of age shall
be appointed as Vice-Chancellor and after the appointment,
he shall, subject to the terms and conditions of his
appointment, hold office for a period of four years from the
date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the
age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier.
(6) The persons appointed as Vice-Chancellor will be eligible
for re-appointment provided he has not attained the
maximum age mentioned in sub-section (5).
(7) Where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any of
the following circumstances, the Chancellor may appoint the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 27
Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Pro-Vice
Chancellor of this University or the Secretary to
Government, Higher Education Department, recommended
by the Government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a period
of not exceeding six months in the aggregate, namely:
(i) where the committee appointed under sub-section (1) is
unable to recommend any name within the time-limit
specified by the Chancellor;
(ii) where vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice-Chancellor
because of death, resignation or otherwise and it cannot be
filled up-conveniently and expeditiously in accordance with
the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (5);
(iii) where the vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor
arises temporarily because of leave, illness or of any other
causes;
(iv) where the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor expires;
or
(v) where there is any other emergency;
Provided that the person so appointed shall cease to hold
such office on the date on which the Vice-Chancellor
resumes office.
(8) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time salaried
officer of the University.
(9) The remuneration payable to, and other conditions of
service of, the Vice-Chancellor shall be such as may be
prescribed by Statutes.
(10) Such sumptuary allowance as the Government may
approve from time to time or as prescribed by Statutes,
shall be placed at the disposal of the Vice-Chancellor.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 28
(11) The Vice-Chancellor may, by writing under his hand
addressed to the Chancellor, after giving one month’s
notice, resign from his office and shall cease to hold that
office on the acceptance of the resignation by the Chancellor
or on the date of expiry of the said notice period, whichever
is earlier.
(12) The Vice-Chancellor may be removed from the office if
the Chancellor is satisfied that he,-
(i) has become insane and stands so declared by a
competent authority;
(ii) has been convicted by a Court for any offence involving
moral turpitude;
(iii) has become an undischarged insolvent and stands so
declared by a competent authority;
(iv) has become physically unfit and incapable of
discharging functions due to protracted illness or physical
disability;
(v) where the Government is satisfied that there is misuse
of power as against this Act, Rules, Statues and Regulations
or causing administrative stalemate due to the activities
violating the prescribed jurisdiction, the Government shall
have the power to recommend to the Chancellor to remove
the Vice-Chancellor from the positions:
Provided that before taking steps for removal of the
incumbent Vice-Chancellor under Clause (iv), a reasonable
opportunity to show-cause shall be given to him.”
8. As per Section 13(2) of the Technological University
Act, the first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 29
on the recommendation of the Government and thereafter the
Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from among
a panel of names recommended by a Search Committee consisting
of the members enumerated in clauses (i) to (iii). As per Section
13(7), where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any of the
circumstances enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), the Chancellor
may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the
Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Technological University or the
Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department,
recommended by the Government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a
period of not exceeding six months in the aggregate.
9. Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and
Technology, 2021 (for brevity, ‘the Digital University Act’) was
enacted by the State Legislature to establish and incorporate a
non-affiliating research and teaching University in the State of
Kerala to facilitate and promote studies, research, incubation and
knowledge extension work in Digital Technologies and its
application domains and also to achieve excellence in the said
fields and allied areas. Section 11 of the Act, which deals with the
Vice-Chancellor, reads thus;
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 30
“11. The Vice-Chancellor.- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be
a scholar of eminence in the area of Technology or Science
or Engineering or Management and having administrative
experience in an institution of higher learning. He shall be a
person having a minimum of ten years of experience as
Professor in a University or experience of equivalent position
in a reputed research or academic or administrative
organisation.
(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal academic and
the chief executive officer of the University and shall
exercise supervision and control over the affairs of the
University by or under this Act.
(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor
on the recommendation of the Search-cum-Selection
Committee appointed by him, consisting of the following
members, namely:- (a) Chief Secretary to State, he shall be
the Convener of the committee;
(b) one expert member from Electronics and Information
Technology Industry;
(c) one expert member from Academia selected by the
Board of Governors;
(d) one nominee of the University Grants Commission; and
(e) one nominee of the State Government.
(4) The process of preparing the panel shall begin at least
three months before the probable date of occurrence of the
vacancy of the Vice-Chancellor and shall be completed
within the time-limit fixed by the Chancellor. The Chancellor,
may however extend such time limit, if, in the exigency of
the circumstances, it is necessary to do so. However, the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 31
process of preparation of the panel shall be completed within
a period of three months, including the period so extended.
In case the search-cum-selection committee fails to make a
unanimous recommendation as provided, each member of
the committee may submit the name of one person each to
the Chancellor. The non-submission of the name by any
member of the Committee shall not invalidate the
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the
regulations, the first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by
the Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government
on such terms and conditions as may be specified.
(6) No person who is more than sixty one years of age shall
be appointed as Vice-Chancellor and after the appointment,
he shall, subject to the terms and conditions of his
appointment, hold office for a period of four years from the
date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the
age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier.
(7) The Vice-Chancellor may, if he is of the opinion that
immediate action is necessary on any matter, exercise any
power conferred on any authority of the University by or
under this Act and shall report the authority concerned, the
action taken by him on such matter, for ratification:
Provided that any person in the service of the University who
is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor
under this sub-section, shall have the right to appeal against
such action to the Chancellor within ninety days from the
date on which such action is communicated to him and
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 32thereupon the Chancellor may confirm or reverse or modify
the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor.
(8) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers
and perform such other functions as may be prescribed by
the Statutes and the Regulations.
(9) The Chancellor shall have the power to remove the Vice-
Chancellor, from his office, on the satisfaction of the
Chancellor, by an order in writing on charges of
misappropriation of fund of the University and misconduct:
Provided that, such charges are proved by an enquiry
conducted by a person who is or has been a judge of the
High Court appointed by the Chancellor for the purpose:
Provided further that the Vice-Chancellor, shall not be
removed under this section unless he has been given a
reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action
proposed to be taken against him.
(10) In the event that a temporary vacancy occurs in the
post of Vice- Chancellor due to any unforeseen or casual
reason or if the Vice-Chancellor has to be temporarily
abstained himself from the said position, the Chancellor may
appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the
Secretary of Electronics and Information Technology
Department, as recommended by the Government, to be
the Vice-Chancellor, for a period of not exceeding six
months, in the aggregate.
(11) Where any matter is required to be regulated by
Statutes or Regulations but no Statutes or Regulations have
been made in that behalf, the Vice-Chancellor shall, for the
time being, regulate the matter by issuing such directions
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 33as he thinks necessary, and shall, as soon as may be, submit
them before the Board of Governors or other authority or
the body concerned for approval.
10. As per the provisions of Section 11(3) of the Digital
University Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor on the recommendation of the Search-cum-Selection
Committee appointed by him, consisting of the members
enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). As per Section 11(5),
notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or the
regulations, the first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government on such
terms and conditions as may be specified. As per Section 11(10),
in the event that a temporary vacancy occurs in the post of Vice-
Chancellor due to any unforeseen or casual reason or if the Vice-
Chancellor has to be temporarily abstained himself from the said
position, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any
other University or the Secretary of Electronics and Information
Technology Department, as recommended by the Government, to
be the Vice-Chancellor, for a period of not exceeding six months,
in the aggregate.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 34
11. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section
26(1)(e) and (g), read with Section 14 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 and in supersession of the University
Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education 2010 together with all amendments made
therein from time to time, the University Grants Commission, vide
notification dated 18.07.2028, made the University Grants
Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of
Standards in Higher Education, 2018 (for brevity ‘the UGC
Regulations, 2018’). The UGC Regulations, 2018, came into force
with effect from 18.07.2018, as provided under Clause 1.3. As per
Clause 1.1, the Regulations shall apply to every University
established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial
Act or a State Act, every institution including a constituent or an
affiliated college recognised by the Commission, in consultation
with the University concerned under Section 2(i) of the University
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 35
Grants Commission Act, 1956 and every Institution deemed to be
a University under Section 3 of the said Act.
12. As per Clause 2 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the
minimum qualifications for appointment and other service
conditions of University and College teachers, Librarians, and
Directors of Physical Education and Sports as a measure for the
maintenance of standards in higher education, shall be as
provided in the Annexure to the Regulations. As per Clause 3, if
any University contravenes the provisions of these Regulations,
the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any,
shown by the University for such failure or contravention, may
withhold from the University, the grants proposed to be made out
of the Fund of the Commission.
13. Clause 7.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 deals with the
selection of Pro-Vice Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities.
Clause 7.3, which deals with Vice-Chancellor, reads thus;
“7.3. Vice-Chancellor:
(i) A person possessing the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be
appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed as
a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician,
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 36with a minimum of ten years’ of experience as Professor in
a University or ten years’ of experience in a reputed
research and/or academic administrative organisation with
proof of having demonstrated academic leadership.
(ii) The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be
through proper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a
Search-cum-Selection-Committee, through a public
notification or nomination or a talent search process or a
combination thereof. The members of such Search-cum-
Selection Committee shall be persons’ of eminence in the
sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in
any manner with the University concerned or its colleges.
While preparing the panel, the Search-cum-Selection
Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic
excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the
country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic
and administrative governance, to be given in writing along
with the panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. One
member of the Search cum Selection Committee shall be
nominated by the Chairman, University Grants Commission,
for selection of Vice Chancellors of State, Private and
Deemed to be Universities.
(iii) The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor
out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search-
cum-Selection Committee.
(iv) The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part
of the service period of the incumbent, making him/her
eligible for all service-related benefits.”
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 37
14. Clause 7.3(i) of the UGC Regulations, 2018 deals with
the qualifications for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of
Universities. Clause 7.3(ii) deals with the process of selection by
a Search-cum-Section Committee. Clause 7.3(iii) deals with the
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor by the Visitor/Chancellor, out
of the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Section
Committee. Clause 7.3(iii) deals with the term of office of the Vice-
Chancellor.
15. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat
[(2022) 5 SCC 179] the Apex Court was dealing with a writ
petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking
a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of the 4th
respondent therein as the Vice-Chancellor of the 2nd respondent
Sardar Patel University and to quash the notification dated
29.08.2019 issued by the 1st respondent State of Gujarat,
appointing the 4th respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of the said
University. It was the case of the petitioner that ignoring Clause
7.3.0 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 38
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (for brevity,
‘the UGC Regulations, 2010’), a Search Committee was
constituted under Section 10(2)(b) of the Sardar Patel University
Act, 1955 with no nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. According
to the petitioner, even as per Section 10(2)(b), the Search
Committee has only the authority to recommend a panel of
suitable candidates. The Search Committee exceeded its
jurisdiction and prescribed its own eligibility criteria for the post of
Vice-Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in the
UGC Regulations, 2010, which, inter alia, prescribe in Regulation
7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching experience as
a Professor in the University system. Clause 7.3.0 also provides
for the constitution of a Search Committee consisting of a nominee
of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC
and a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the
University. The Search Committee has to recommend the names
of suitable candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the
University. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent does not
have teaching experience as a Professor for a period of ten years,
which is mandatory as per the UGC Regulations, 2010.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 39
15.1. The earlier appointment of the 4th respondent as Vice-
Chancellor of Sardar Patel University by a Search Committee
constituted on 29.07.2016 with no nominee of the Chairman of
the UGC was under challenge in SCA No.18922 of 2017 before the
High Court of Gujarat. In the said Special Civil Application it was
contended, inter alia, that, the 4th respondent was not having
teaching experience as a Professor for a period of ten years, which
is mandatory as per the UGC Regulations, 2010. The Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the SCA upholding the
appointment of the 4th respondent. The Division Bench referred to
Section 10 of the Sardar Patel University Act, which does not
provide for any qualification for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor. The Division Bench observed that such a position
would lead to a lot of arbitrariness in the matter of selection of
persons for the appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Though the UGC
Regulations, 2010 provide for certain qualifications, the same are
not binding unless the State legislation is appropriately amended.
Challenging the judgment of the Division Bench upholding the
appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of Vice-Chancellor
of Sardar Patel University, the petitioner filed SLP(C)No.21792 of
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 40
2018, which came up for consideration before the Apex Court for
final hearing on 30.07.2019. By the time the said SLP could be
heard, only one month remained in the first term of the 4th
respondent, therefore, the Apex Court did not interfere with the
appointment of the 4th respondent and the SLP was disposed of by
the order dated 30.07.2019, after specifically observing that all
questions of law are left open. In such circumstances, the
petitioner challenged the second appointment of the 4 th
respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University, by
seeking a writ of quo warranto in W.P.(C)No.1525 of 2019 filed
before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
and to set aside the notification dated 29.08.2019 issued by the
1st respondent State of Gujarat appointing the 4th respondent as
Vice-Chancellor.
15.2. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179],
before the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the appointment of the 4th respondent as Vice-
Chancellor of Sardar Patel University is absolutely illegal and
contrary to the statutory guidelines issued by the UGC. The
appointment of the 4th respondent is by a Search Committee not
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 41
legally constituted as per the guidelines issued by the UGC. At the
relevant time when the 4th respondent was appointed as Vice-
Chancellor, he was not having ten years teaching experience as
Professor, which was a mandatory requirement as per the
guidelines issued by the UGC as well as the eligibility criteria fixed
by the Search Committee. A nominee of the Chairman of the UGC
was not a member of the Search Committee. The learned counsel
for UGC supported the case of the petitioner by submitting that
one of the members of the Search Committee shall be a nominee
of the Chairman of the UGC and that the UGC Regulations, 2010
and also the subsequent regulations, i.e., the UGC Regulations,
2018 are binding on all States and Universities. On the other hand,
the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent Sardar Patel
University opposed the reliefs sought for in the writ petition by
contenting that the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the subsequent
UGC Regulations, 2018 have not been adopted by the State
Government and therefore, the UGC Regulations are not binding
on the State of Gujarat and also Sardar Patel University. The
appointment of the 4th respondent is governed by the provisions
of Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 and the Search Committee
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 42
was constituted by the State Government under the provisions of
the said Act. Section 10 of the said Act does not provide for any
specific eligibility criteria/minimum eligibility criteria for the post
of Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, the Search Committee itself
prescribed the eligibility criteria. Based on the recommendation
made by the Search Committee, the 4th respondent has been
appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. The learned
counsel for the 4th respondent adopted the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the University. It was pointed out that the
appointment of the 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor for the
second term was governed by the provisions contained in the UGC
Regulations, 2018. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent
State of Gujarat has also opposed the reliefs sought for in the writ
petition. When a pointed question was asked, the learned counsel
could not point out any amendment made in the State legislation
providing for the minimum eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-
Chancellor, on par with the UGC Regulations, as observed by the
High Court in the judgment dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of
2017, the earlier round of litigation.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 43
15.3. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179],
after considering the law laid down in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand
Lal Jaiswal [(2013) 1 SCC 501] and Armed Forces Medical
Association v. Union of India [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (1)]
regarding the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo
warranto, the Apex Court found that the factual and legal
controversy in the writ petition requires consideration, since there
cannot be any dispute that the 4th respondent as the Vice-
Chancellor of a University is holding a post of public office. The
next question considered by the Apex Court was whether the
appointment of the 4th respondent as the Vice-Chancellor of
Sardar Patel University can be said to be contrary to any statutory
provisions and whether it can be said that the 4th respondent
fulfills the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The
Apex Court considered the question in the light of the relevant
provisions under the UGC Regulations, 2010, made in the exercise
of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section
(1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
and the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 44
15.4. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179],
after referring to the provisions contained in Clause 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2010, which deals with the post of Vice-
Chancellor, the Apex Court noticed that Clause 7.4.0 mandates
that the Universities/State Governments shall modify or amend
the relevant Acts/Statutes of the Universities concerned within six
months of adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2010. UGC
Regulations, 2010, inter alia, prescribe in Clause 7.3.0 that a
person shall have ten years of teaching experience as a Professor
in a University system. It also provides for the constitution of a
Search Committee consisting of a nominee of the
Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a
nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the University and
the Search Committee has to recommend the name of the
successful candidate. Prior to the enactment of UGC Regulations,
2010, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government
of India, laid down a Scheme of Revision of Pay of Teachers and
Equivalent Cadres in the University following the 6th Central Pay
Commission, which provides that the payment of Central
assistance for implementing the Scheme is subject to the condition
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 45
that the entire Scheme of revision of pay scales together with all
the conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations
and other guidelines shall be implemented by the State
Governments and Universities thereunder without any
modification. After considering the rival contentions, the Apex
Court found that the 1st respondent State of Gujarat and the
Universities under the State, including the 2nd respondent Sardar
Patel University, are bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and
UGC Regulations, 2018. Paragraphs 25 to 29 of the said decision
of the Apex Court read thus;
“25. Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/State
Governments shall modify or amend the relevant
Acts/Statutes of the universities concerned within six
months of adoption of these Regulations.
26. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter alia, prescribe in
Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of
teaching work experience as a Professor in a university
system. It also provides for constitution of a Search
Committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor,
a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the
Syndicate/Executive Council of the University and the
Search Committee has to recommend the names of the
successful candidates.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 46
27. Prior to enactment of the UGC Regulations, 2010, the
Union Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down
a scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent
cadres in the universities following the 6th Central Pay
Commission. The Scheme provides a fixed pay of
Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs 5000 per
month to the Vice-Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said
Scheme provides that it is extended to universities, colleges
and other higher educational institutions coming under the
purview of the State Legislature provided the State
Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme with
certain conditions, inter alia, financial assistance from the
Central Government to the extent of 80% of the
maintenance expenditure and remaining 20% shall be met
by the State Government. It further provides that payment
of Central assistance for implementing the Scheme is
subject to the condition that the entire Scheme of revision
of pay scales together with all the conditions to be laid down
by the UGC by way of regulations and other guidelines shall
be implemented by the State Governments and the
universities thereunder without any modification.
28. In the present case, the State of Gujarat has adopted
the said Scheme dated 31.12.2008 by a Resolution dated
11.11.2009 with effect from 01.01.2006 subject to the
conditions mentioned in the said resolution. Even in the said
resolution, condition No.13 provides that the State
Government will publish the educational qualifications as
per the UGC instructions published from time to time and
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 47quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms, instructions,
resolutions will have to be implemented.
29. It is not in dispute that the SP University is receiving
Central financial assistance under the Scheme and it is
included in the State Universities receiving Central financial
assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956.
Therefore, having adopted the UGC Scheme and
implemented the same and getting Central financial
assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance
expenditure, the State Government and the SP University
are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC
Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the UGC Regulations,
2018. However, the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-
Chancellor and the constitution of the Search Committee for
appointment of a Vice-Chancellor remains the same.
Therefore, the State of Gujarat and the universities
thereunder including the SP University are bound to follow
UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations, 2018.”
15.5. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179],
after referring to the provisions under Section 10 of the Sardar
Patel University Act, 1955, which deals with the post of Vice-
Chancellor, the Apex Court noticed that as per Section 10 the
Search Committee shall consist of two members (not being
persons connected with the University or with any affiliated college
or recognised institution) out of whom, one shall be a person
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 48
nominated in the manner prescribed by the Statutes by the
Syndicate and the Academic Council jointly and the other shall be
a person nominated in the manner prescribed by the Statutes, by
the Vice-Chancellor of the Universities established by law in the
State of Gujarat and the third member shall be a person
nominated by the Chancellor. Therefore, Section 10 of the Sardar
Patel University Act does not provide any qualification whatsoever
for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor. Even the eligibility
criteria to be prescribed is left to the Search Committee. There are
no guidelines whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to be prescribed
by the Search Committee. On the other hand, the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and the UGC Regulations, 2018 specifically
prescribe the qualification/eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-
Chancellor and it also provides for the constitution of the Search
Committee. After considering the rival contentions, the Apex Court
concluded that the provisions of the Sardar Patel University
Act/the provisions under the State legislation are just contrary to
the UGC Regulations, 2010/the UGC Regulations, 2018, which are
binding on the State and the Universities thereunder. The Apex
Court noticed that, even the State Government has not bothered
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 49
to amend the State legislation to put it on par with the UGC
Regulations, 2010/the UGC Regulations, 2018 and continued the
appointment in the Universities de horse the UGC Regulations.
Paragraphs 31 to 34 of the decision of the Apex Court read thus;
“31. As per Section 10 of the 1955 Act the Search
Committee shall consist of two members (not being persons
connected with the respondent University or with any
affiliated college or recognised institution) out of whom, one
shall be a person nominated in the manner prescribed by
the Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic Council
jointly and the other shall be a person nominated in the
manner prescribed by the Statutes by the Vice-Chancellor
of all the Universities established by law in the State of
Gujarat and the third member to be nominated by the
Chancellor.
32. Section 10 of the SPU Act does not provide any
qualification whatsoever for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor. Even the eligibility criteria to be prescribed is left
to the Search Committee. There are no guidelines
whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to be prescribed by the
Search Committee. On the other hand, the UGC Regulations
2010/2018 specifically prescribes the qualification/eligibility
criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor. It also provides for
the constitution of the Search Committee.
33. As observed hereinabove as per Regulation 7.3.0 a
person shall have ten years of teaching work experience as
a Professor in the university system and it also provides for
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 50constitution of a Search Committee consisting of a nominee
of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the
UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the
University. But Respondent 4 did not/does not fulfil the
eligibility criteria prescribed under the UGC Regulations
2010/2018. He was/is not having ten years of teaching work
experience as a Professor in the university system.
Moreover, his name was not recommended by the legally
constituted Search Committee, constituted as per the UGC
Regulations 2010/2018. Also, the Search Committee has
prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-
Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in the
UGC Regulations 2010/2018.
34. Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act, 1955/provisions
under the State legislation are just contrary to the UGC
Regulations 2010/2018, which, as observed hereinabove,
are binding on the State Government and the universities
thereunder. Even the State Government has not bothered to
amend the State legislation – to put it a on a par with the
UGC Regulations 2010/2018 and has continued the
appointment in the universities dehors the UGC
Regulations.”
15.6. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179],
after referring to the UGC communication dated 11.08.2014 and
the communication dated 30.08.2014 from the office of the
Secretary to the Governor of Gujarat, the Apex Court noticed that
despite clear instructions from the office of the Governor of
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 51
Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of all the Universities, the State
legislation has not been amended and the appointments to the
post of Vice-Chancellor in the Universities in the State are being
made contrary to the UGC guidelines and Regulations. After
considering the rival contentions, the Apex Court found that the
appointment of the 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Sardar
Patel University was contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and
that the 4th respondent had been selected by a Search Committee
not constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. Further, 4th
respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criteria of ten years of
teaching experience as a Professor, as per the UGC Regulations of
2018. By adopting the Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and
equivalent cadres in the Universities following the 6th Central Pay
Commission, and having accepted 80% of the maintenance
expenditure from the Central Government and when the 4th
respondent was paid a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a
special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is prescribed as
per the said Scheme of 2008, the State and the Universities
thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations, 2010, including the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 52
UGC Regulations, 2018. Paragraphs 41 to 44 of the said decision
of the Apex Court read thus;
“41. Thus, despite the communication by the UGC dated
11.08.2014 and thereafter, the communication by the H.E.
the Governor of Gujarat dated 30.08.2014 and even the
observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court
in SCC OnLine Guj para 35 in its judgment and order dated
05.07.2018 in Gambhirdan Kanubhai Gadhavi v. State of
Gujarat [2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3125], reproduced
hereinabove, it is unfortunate that even as on today, no
further steps have been taken by the State Government, to
amend the State legislation and to put the same on a par
with the UGC Regulations, and the State and the universities
thereunder have continued to make the appointments of
Vice-Chancellors just contrary to the UGC Regulations,
which as observed hereinabove are binding.
42. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per
Section 9 of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. the Governor of Gujarat
is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue of
his office, be the head of the University and the President of
the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University,
his advice was/is binding upon the University and therefore,
the State ought to have taken the necessary steps at the
Government level as requested in the communication dated
30.08.2014. Even the request made by the H.E. the
Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of the
University, ought not to have been taken very lightly. The
State ought to have taken the corrective measures by
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 53suitably amending the State legislation on a par with the
UGC Regulations.
43. The submissions made by Shri Navare, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent 2 SP University
that as the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner herein,
in which the appointment of Respondent 4 herein as the
Vice-Chancellor, was under challenge came to be dismissed
and the High Court refused to issue a writ of quo warranto
and the judgment and order passed by the High Court
in Gambhirdan Kanubhai Gadhavi v. State of Gujarat [2018
SCC OnLine Guj 3125] was not disturbed by this Court and
therefore, the controversy stands concluded and it is not
open for the petitioner to raise the same issue again is
concerned, the aforesaid submissions is noted only to be
rejected. This Court did not opine anything on the merits of
the judgment and order Gambhirdan Kanubhai Gadhavi
v. State of Gujarat [2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3125] passed by
the High Court. This Court refused to entertain the special
leave petition solely on the ground that by the time the
same was taken up for hearing the tenure of Respondent 4
herein as a Vice-Chancellor was coming to an end. Even
while dismissing the same on the aforesaid ground alone,
this Court specifically observed that all the questions of law
are left open.
44. Thus, we find that the appointment of Respondent 4 is
contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, Respondent 4
has been appointed by a Search Committee, not constituted
as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. Moreover, Respondent 4
does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the UGC
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 54Regulations, 2018, namely, having ten years of teaching
work experience as a Professor in the university system. As
observed hereinabove, by adopting the Scheme and having
accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure from the
Central Government and when Respondent 4 is paid a fixed
pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs 5000
per month, which is prescribed as per the Scheme of 2008,
the State and the universities thereunder are bound by the
UGC Regulations, 2010 including the UGC Regulations,
2018.”
15.7. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179], the
Apex Court found that the appointment of the 4 th respondent as
Vice-Chancellor of Sardar Patel University was contrary to the UGC
Regulations, 2018, which is having the statutory force and
therefore the case at hand is a fit case to issue a writ of quo
warranto to quash the appointment of the 4th respondent as Vice-
Chancellor of the said University. The Apex Court noticed that the
UGC Regulations are enacted in exercise of the powers under
clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956, as per which every rule
and regulation made thereunder shall be laid before each house
of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, the UGC
Regulations become part of the UGC Act. In case of any conflict
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 55
between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the
Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of
repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution of
India as the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List (List III)
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any
appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory
provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto. Since the
appointment of the 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor of Sardar
Patel University was contrary to the provisions in the UGC
Regulations, 2018, the Apex Court issued a writ of quo warranto
quashing and setting aside the said appointment. Paragraphs 45
to 51 of the said decision of the Apex Court read thus;
“45. The appointment of Respondent 4 is even otherwise not
as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Search
Committee, which is as under:
“1. Persons of the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and institutional commitment.
2. Person should be a distinguished academician
with proven leadership qualities shall be satisfying
anyone of the following:
10 years’ experience of teaching and research as
Professor; or
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 56Vice-Chancellor/Pro Vice-Chancellor of any
university including former Vice-Chancellor/Pro
Vice-Chancellor; or
Director/Principal of a college/institution/Research
Organisation with 15 years of teaching/research/
administration.”
46. In fact, in the instant case, H.E. the Governor of Gujarat
who is also the Chancellor of all the universities in the said
State had through his Principal Secretary directed that the
communication from the Secretary, University Grants
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi dated
11.08.2014 be complied with and appropriate steps be
taken in that regard.
47. We have referred to the aforesaid letter dated
30.08.2014. The letter of the Secretary of the UGC dated
11.08.2014 to H.E. the Governor of Gujarat informing about
the Regulations titled “Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance
of Standards in Higher Education, 2010” has also been
extracted above in the said letter. It has been clearly stated
that the UGC has prescribed minimum qualifications for the
appointment of a Vice-Chancellor and therefore, such an
appointment must be in accordance with the provisions laid
down in the aforementioned regulations of the UGC.
48. It is clear that the respondent State of Gujarat has failed
to take note of the communication from the UGC and instead
the respondent University has left it to the sweet will of the
Search Committee to prescribe eligibility criteria for the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 57
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The
eligibility criteria when once fixed by the UGC under its
regulations would in our view apply to all the universities
which are aided by the UGC to be bound by the said
regulations even in the absence of the same being
incorporated under the respective universities Act of the
respective States.
49. Therefore, when the appointment of Respondent 4 is
found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the
UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, we are of
the opinion that this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo
warranto and to quash and set aside the appointment of
Respondent 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the SP University.
50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are
enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections
26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per
the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said
Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations
becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the
State legislation and the Central legislation, Central
legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of
repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution
as the subject “education” is in the Concurrent List (List III)
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any
appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions
of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the
statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.
51. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 58
stated above, the appointment of Respondent 4 as Vice-
Chancellor of the SP University – Respondent 2 herein, is
contrary to the UGC provisions, namely, UGC Regulations,
2018. We hence allow the present writ petition and issue a
writ of quo warranto quashing and setting aside the
appointment of Respondent 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of SP
University. The present petition is accordingly, allowed.”
15.8. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179], the
Apex Court noticed that the post of Vice-Chancellor of the
University is a very important post so far as the University is
concerned. Being a leader and head of the institution, the Vice-
Chancellor of the University has to play a very important role.
While academic qualifications, administrative experience, research
credentials and track record could be considered as basic eligibility
requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice-Chancellor would be
one who is a true leader and a passionate visionary. A Vice-
Chancellor functions as a bridge between the executive and
academic wings of the University as he is the head of both a
‘teacher’ and an ‘administrator’. In the decision, the Apex Court
referred to some of the significant commission reports concerning
the personality and the role of a Vice-Chancellor of a University,
as well as the UGC handbook titled ‘Governance in Higher
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 59
Education: Handbook for Vice-Chancellors’ published in 2019.
Paragraphs 53 to 55 of the said decision of the Apex Court read
thus;
“53. It is to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor of the
university is a very important post so far as the university
is concerned. Being a leader and head of the institution, the
Vice-Chancellor of the university has to play very important
role. While academic qualifications, administrative
experience, research credentials and track record could be
considered as basic eligibility requirements, the greater
qualities of a Vice-Chancellor would be one who is a true
leader and a passionate visionary. A Vice-Chancellor needs
to be one who understands and handles the affairs of the
university as ethical business and maintains a pellucidity in
his conduct towards the betterment of the university as well
as the students therein. A Vice-Chancellor should be one
who can inspire students and guarantee entry of high quality
teachers into the university system. A Vice-Chancellor
functions as a bridge between the executive and academic
wings of a university as he is the head of both a “teacher”
and an “administrator”.
54. We may refer to some of the significant Commission
Reports concerning the personality and role of a Vice-
Chancellor of a university as under:
54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated that
originally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian university
was regarded as an honorary post to be filled by a prominent
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 60man in his leisure time. But now the position has changed,
there is enough work to justify a full-time appointment and
the universities should have full-time paid Vice-Chancellors.
While discussing the duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the
Commission stated that a Vice-Chancellor must be the chief
liaison between the university and the public and must be a
keeper of the university’s conscience, both setting the
highest standard by example and dealing firmly and
promptly with indiscipline and malpractice of any kind.
He/she must have the strength of character to resist
unflinchingly the many forms of pressure. Being a full-time
task, it needs an exceptional man (or woman) to undertake
it. The Commission rejected the proposal of selecting the
Vice-Chancellor by an external body and recommended that
the Chancellor should appoint the Vice-Chancellor upon the
recommendation of the executive.
54.2. The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governance of
Universities and Colleges by the University Grants
Commission chaired by Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, former
Chief Justice of India while reiterating the recommendations
and observations made by the aforesaid commissions also
stated that the selection of a Vice-Chancellor is the single
most important decision that the governing body of the
university may be called upon to make. While the Chancellor
of a university may be a high dignitary of the State of the
Union of India or an eminent scholar or eminent person in
public life of the State, the appointment of Vice-Chancellor,
being the important functionary of the university is most
strategic. The powers of proper maintenance of discipline
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 61
and a healthy environment for both teachers and students
in the university is vested with the Vice-Chancellor along
with all the other powers vested in him/her by various
Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations. The Commission also
stated that appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is made in
most of the universities out of a panel of at least three
names by the Chancellor in case of State Universities and
by the Visitor in case of Central Universities. The panel of
names is prepared by a Search Committee constituted in
accordance with the provisions of the Act/Statute. Since it
was difficult to have a uniform system of forming a
committee in all the States, the alternatives to constitute
the Search Committee were also provided in the Report.
54.3. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards New
Educational Management by Professor A. Gnanam (also
called as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990)
accentuated the role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating that the
Vice-Chancellor should be a person with vision and qualities
of academic leadership and with a flair for administration
because what the universities need is a sensitive, efficient,
fair and bold administrator. The Vice-Chancellor should be a
distinguished educationist from the higher education
system, having the highest level of competence, integrity,
morals and self-respect.
54.4. The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented that the
universities need distinguished and dignified persons as
Vice-Chancellors and it is necessary to ensure that they are
treated with dignity and regard, which the office merits.
54.5. The University Grants Commission in its handbook
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 62
titled Governance in Higher Education: Handbook for Vice-
Chancellors published in 2019 has penned down the role of
Vice-Chancellor of Indian universities having gained a
paramount importance in the recent times. In the words of
Prof. D.P. Singh, the then Chairman of University Grants
Commission and former Director of National Assessment
and Accreditation Council (“NAAC”):
“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads of Universities,
the Vice-Chancellors are expected to be efficient and
effective in terms of:
(a) Implementation of National Higher Education Policy and
programmes,
(b) Institutional change in tune with the national reforms
package,
(c) Quality and innovation enhancement and their
sustainability,
(d) Productive engagement with ‘communities of scholars’
from within their universities and from national and
international domains,
(e) Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation Ecosystem’ and
translation of deliverables to society and economy,
(f) Adoption of international best practices of ‘Good
Governance’.”
“The Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of a
symphony of orchestra with the attributes of:
(a) Developing teams and teamwork, building partnerships
and collaborations delicately interwoven by collegiality,
friendship and intellectual engagement;
(b) Devising a strategy and action plan with defined
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 63milestones and deliverables;
(c) Ensuring primary accountabilities of self and the
abovementioned university governing bodies; and
(d) Steering an institutional monitoring and evaluation
mechanism on university performance built on principles of
transparency.”
55. Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle of
governance as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra –
“Yatha Raja Tatha Praja”, the sense of morality must begin
from the door of the leader who preaches it.”
15.9. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179], the
Apex Court noticed that the Universities are autonomous and the
Vice-Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As
per the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician, an
excellent administrator and also someone who has a high moral
stature. The Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of a University’s system
and a keeper of the University’s conscience. Paragraphs 56 to 58
of the said decision of the Apex Court read thus;
“56. Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-
Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As
per the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician,
excellent administrator and also someone who has a high
moral stature. The aforesaid reports of the Radhakrishnan
Commission, Kothari Commission, Gnanam Committee and
Ramlal Parikh Committee have highlighted the importance
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 64of the role of Vice-Chancellor in maintaining the quality and
relevance of universities, in addition to its growth and
development, keeping in view, the much needed changes
from time to time. Further, these committees have also
made suggestions and recommendations for identifying the
right person for the said position. At this stage, it is correct
to say that a Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of a university’s
system and a keeper of the university’s conscience.
57. Further, in our view, the Search/Selection Committee
plays a vital and significant role in the selection of the Vice-
Chancellor; yet the selected Vice-Chancellor’s performance
in the universities vary from university to university.
Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are
given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting
names for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor are directly
or indirectly responsible for the achievement of the
university. Commitment to the quality and the objectives of
the universities in particular and higher education system in
general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting the
right person.
58. We are sure and we hope and trust that while making a
fresh appointment of Vice-Chancellor in the State and the
universities thereunder, the aforesaid aspects shall be kept
in mind by the State and the universities concerned. With
this hope and trust we leave the matter there.”
16. In Sreejith P.S. v. Rajasree M.S. [(2023) 17 SCC
338] the Apex Court was dealing with Civil Appeals arising out of
the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 02.08.2021
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 65
in W.A.No.514 of 2021 and order dated 24.09.2021 in R.P.No.634
of 2021. The writ appeal was filed challenging the judgment dated
12.02.2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.33004 of
2019 refusing to issue a writ of quo warranto to declare the
appointment of the 1st respondent as Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul
Kalam Technological University as void ab initio. The petitioner
contended that the appointment of the 1st respondent was dehors
the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010; that the composition
of the Search Committee was not in accordance with the UGC
Regulations; even the recommendation and appointment of the 1st
respondent as Vice-Chancellor was not in accordance with the UGC
Guidelines; the Search Committee was required to recommend a
panel of three to five names to the Chancellor, however, only one
name was recommended to the Chancellor, which was contrary to
the UGC Regulations; the provisions of the University Act to the
extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations shall not be binding
and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall prevail over the
said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with the UGC
Regulations.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 66
16.1. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents
contending, inter alia, that unless the UGC Regulations are
adopted by the State Government, the University Act enacted by
the State shall prevail; and that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are
directory for the Universities and colleges and for the other higher
educational institutions under the provisions of the State
Legislature, as the matter has been left to the State Government
to adopt and implement the scheme. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decision of the Apex
Court in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj [(2015) 6 SCC
363] by observing that unless the UGC Regulations are
specifically adopted by the State Government, the State legislation
shall prevail. Therefore, the learned Single Judge opined that once
the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 13 of the
University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of the 1st
respondent can be said to be by a duly constituted Search
Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be
illegal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.A.No.514 of 2021
before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, while dismissing
the appeal, has observed that as the amendment to the UGC
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 67
Regulations has not been adopted, the same shall not be
applicable and/or binding while appointing the 1st respondent. The
Division Bench relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Kalyani
Mathivanan [(2015) 6 SCC 363]. R.P.No.634 of 2021 was filed
seeking review, which was also dismissed on 24.09.2021.
16.2. In Sreejith P.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338], before the
Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
contended that the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court are contrary to the decision in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi
[(2022) 5 SCC 179] as well as State of West Bengal
v. Anindya Sundar Das [(2022) 16 SCC 318]. As observed
and held in the said two decisions, the provisions of the UGC
Regulations shall be applicable and prevail. Therefore, any
provision of the State Act (the University Act and the Regulations),
which are in conflict with the UGC Regulations, shall be repugnant
and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall have to be applied.
The UGC Regulations, 2010, were adopted by the State
Government vide the order dated 10.12.2010. However, the High
Court has erroneously observed and held that the UGC Regulations
shall not be applicable, as the subsequent amendment to the UGC
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 68
Regulations dated 13.06.2013 has not been specifically adopted
by the State Government. Therefore, any appointment on the post
of Vice-Chancellor of the University contrary to the UGC
Regulations shall be void ab initio, and hence the High Court ought
to have issued a writ of quo warranto. Further, the Search
Committee constituted to recommend the appointment of the 1st
respondent as Vice-Chancellor was not a duly constituted
committee as required under the provisions of the UGC
Regulations. Even otherwise, as per Section 13 of the University
Act, the Search Committee was required to recommend a panel of
not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent
persons in the field of engineering sciences. The Search
Committee recommended the name of 1st respondent alone, which
was sent to the Chancellor. Therefore, the appointment of the 1st
respondent can be said to be contrary to Section 13(4) of the
University Act, 2015.
16.3. On the other hand, relying upon the decision in
Kalyani Mathivanan [(2015) 6 SCC 363], the State contended
that, as observed and held by the Apex Court, unless the UGC
Regulations are specifically adopted by the State, the State is not
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 69
bound by the UGC Regulations. Therefore, the High Court has
rightly refused to issue a writ of quo warranto, relying on the
decision in Kalyani Mathivanan [(2015) 6 SCC 363]. The
learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that, even
assuming that the UGC Regulations, 2013 shall be applicable, in
that case also, even considering the relevant provisions of the UGC
Regulations, 2013, the Search Committee constituted in the
present case cannot be said to be contrary to the UGC Regulations.
The Search Committee consisted of one member nominated
by AICTE and the Chief Secretary of the State. The member
nominated by AICTE can be said to be a person of eminence in the
sphere of higher education. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
Search Committee constituted to recommend the name of the 1st
respondent was an illegally constituted Search Committee.
16.4. In Sreejith P.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338], the Apex
Court noticed that, the questions posed for consideration of the
Court are whether while making the appointment of the 1st
respondent as Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, the appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC
Regulations or the provisions of the State Act (University Act,
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 70
2015), and whether the Search Committee constituted to
recommend the name of the 1st respondent as Vice-Chancellor of
the University can be said to be a duly constituted Committee.
After formulating the above questions, the Apex Court noticed that
on the issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail vis-à-vis
the State legislation/State Act, an identical question came to be
considered by the Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5
SCC 179]. While considering the appointment of Vice-Chancellor
in the Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, it was specifically observed
and held by the Court that the appointment of Vice-Chancellor
cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations, even if
the State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis-
à-vis the criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC Regulations. It
was further observed and held by the Court in the said decision
that the State Act, if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must
be amended to bring it on a par with the applicable UGC
Regulations, and until then, it is the applicable UGC Regulations
that shall prevail. It was further observed and held that, being a
subordinate legislation, the UGC Regulations become part of the
Act. It was further observed and held that in case of any conflict
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 71
between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the
Central legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall
prevail by applying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254
of the Constitution as the subject ‘education’ is contained in the
Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Having found
that the appointment of Vice-Chancellor in Sardar Patel University
was contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2010, the Court issued the
writ of quo warranto. The decision in Kalyani Mathivanan
[(2015) 6 SCC 363] was also pointed out by the Court. Even in
Kalyani Mathivanan [(2015) 6 SCC 363], it was observed in
para 53 that to the extent the State legislation is in conflict with
the Central legislation, including subordinate legislation made by
the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the
same shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be
inoperative. The Apex Court noticed that, in Kalyani
Mathivanan [(2015) 6 SCC 363], the Court was considering the
UGC Regulations, 2010, which were silent in regard to the post of
Vice-Chancellor.
16.5. In Sreejith P.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338], the Apex
Court held that in view of the two binding decisions in
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 72
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179] and Kalyani
Mathivanan [(2015) 6 SCC 363], any appointment as a Vice-
Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search
Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict
between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union
law shall prevail, even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of
India, to the extent the provision of the State legislation is
repugnant. On the facts of the case at hand, the Apex Court
noticed that, vide the order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC
Regulations have been specifically adopted by the State
Government. In the order dated 27.03.2010, while adopting/
accepting the UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in para
5 that all the universities shall incorporate the UGC Regulations in
their statutes and Regulations within one month from the date of
the said order and the Government will initiate steps to amend the
Acts of the universities, if required to implement the Regulations.
It is further mentioned in para 5 that the Government will also
take the steps to amend the Special Rules to give effect to the
stipulations of the UGC Regulations. Merely because the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 73
subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted/
accepted by the State cannot be a ground for the State to contend
that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the
State/State’s Universities. Therefore, the UGC Regulations were
applicable for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor in the respective
universities in the State, and the appointment of the Vice-
Chancellor shall always be as per the relevant provisions of the
UGC Regulations, amended from time to time. Paragraphs 24 to
26 of the said decision read thus;
“24. The decision of this Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi
[(2022) 5 SCC 179] has been subsequently followed in the
recent decision of this Court in State of West Bengal
v. Anindya Sundar Das [(2022) 16 SCC 318] while
considering the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of
Calcutta University. In the said decision, it is also observed
and held in para 56 that in view of the decision in
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179], even if the
provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the
Vice-Chancellor by the State Government, it would have to
be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice-
Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void
ab initio. It is further observed that the UGC Regulations
shall become part of the statute framed by Parliament and,
therefore, shall prevail.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 74
25. In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court,
any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor made on the
recommendation of the Search Committee, which is
constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC
Regulations shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict
between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the
Union law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the
Constitution of India to the extent the provision of the State
legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the submission on behalf
of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically
adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be
applicable and the State legislation shall prevail unless the
UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State
cannot be accepted.
26. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the
present case, as such vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC
Regulations have been specifically adopted by the State
Government. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in
the order dated 27.03.2010, while adopting/accepting the
UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in para 5 that all
the universities shall incorporate the UGC Regulations in
their statutes and Regulations within one month from the
date of the said order and the Government will initiate steps
to amend the Acts of the universities, if required to
implement the Regulations. It is further mentioned in para
5 that the Government will also take the steps to amend the
Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations of the UGC
Regulations. Merely because the subsequent amendment
has not been specifically adopted/accepted by the State
2025:KER:51557W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 75cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the
amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the
State/State’s Universities. Therefore, also, the UGC
Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment
of Vice-Chancellor in the respective universities in the State
and the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor shall always be
as per the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations,
amended from time to time.”
16.6. In Sreejith P.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338], the next
question considered by the Apex Court was whether the Search
Committee constituted to recommend the name of 1st respondent
as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
can be said to be a duly constituted Search Committee. After
referring to Clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2013 and Section
13 of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015,
relating to the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, the Apex Court
held that as per the UGC Regulations, 2013, Clause 7.3.0, the
selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper
identification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and
the members of the Search Committee shall be persons of
eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be
connected in any manner with the university concerned or its
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 76
colleges. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the names recommended by
the Search Committee. Therefore, the recommendation for
appointment as a Vice-Chancellor should be sent by the Search
Committee, duly constituted and the Search Committee has to
recommend the names and, thereafter, the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of names
recommended by the Search Committee. While preparing the
panel, the Search Committee must give proper weightage to the
academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in
the country and abroad and adequate experience in academic and
administrative governance. In para 29 of the decision, the Apex
Court has referred to paras 53, 54, 54.1 to 54.5, 55 and 56 of the
decision in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179] where
the importance of the post of the Vice-Chancellor has been
elaborately observed and considered by the Court. In para 30 of
the decision, the Apex Court has referred to para 57 of the decision
in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179] on the role of
the Search Committee/Selection Committee. The Apex Court
noticed that even as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015,
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 77
the Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less
than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons in
the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before the
Visitor/Chancellor. In the case at hand, admittedly, the name of
the 1st respondent alone was recommended to the Chancellor. As
per the UGC Regulations, the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the
Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the
Search Committee. When only one name was recommended and
the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no
option to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore,
the appointment of the 1st respondent can be said to be dehors
and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well
as to the University Act, 2015. The appointment of the 1st
respondent based on the recommendations made by the Search
Committee, which was not a duly constituted as per the UGC
Regulations and when only one name alone was recommended, in
spite of a panel of suitable candidates [3-5 suitable persons as
required under Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015], the
appointment of the 1st respondent can be said to be illegal and
void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo warranto was
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 78
required to be issued. In view of the above, the Apex Court set
aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court as well as that of the learned Single Judge dismissing
the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ of quo warranto
declaring the appointment of the 1st respondent as Vice-Chancellor
of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University as bad in law and/or
illegal and void ab initio. The writ petition was allowed by issuing
a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the 1st
respondent as Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University as void ab initio. Consequently, the appointment of the
1st respondent as Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University was quashed and set aside by the Apex
Court.
17. In State of Kerala v. Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University and others [2023 KHC OnLine
9027], a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a writ
appeal, the subject matter of which relates to the appointment of
the Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
in terms of Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University Act, 2015. The incumbent Vice-Chancellor, consequent
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 79
upon the Apex Court upholding the challenge made to her
appointment, vacated the office on 21.10.2022. Section 13(7) of
the Act permits the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor for a period
not exceeding six months in the aggregate till the regular Vice-
Chancellor assumes office. The Chancellor of the University, who
is the Governor of the State, appointed the 3rd respondent therein
(Dr.Ciza Thomas), without there being a recommendation of the
State Government, as contemplated under Section 13(7) of the
Act. Challenging her appointment as above for the interregnum,
the State Government filed W.P.(C)No.35646 of 2022 seeking quo
warranto, writ of certiorari, etc. The learned Single Judge, by the
judgment dated 16.02.2023, refused to issue quo warranto. The
other reliefs sought for by the State Government were also not
allowed. However, the learned Single Judge issued certain
directions in the matter of selection of a regular Vice Chancellor,
though the challenge in the writ petition was only against the
appointment under Section 13(7) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State filed
W.A.No.1847 of 2022, under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court
Act.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 80
17.1. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the Division Bench
noticed that there is no UGC Regulation governing the
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor temporarily, till a regular
appointment is made. After referring to Section 13(7) of the Act,
the Division Bench observed that Section 13(7) has three parts.
The first part refers to the recommendation, the authority of the
Government to recommend names; the second part refers to the
nature of the persons, who can be recommended for appointment
as a Vice-Chancellor, by virtue of their office; the third part refers
to the power of the Chancellor to appoint the Vice-Chancellor. The
Division Bench noticed that the power of the State Government,
as referred to under the statutory provisions to recommend
names, cannot be doubted since the State has legislative
competence under Entry 25 to List III Concurrent List to the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The phrase
‘recommendation’ in the context of Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul
Kalam Technological University Act means the authority to initiate
the process to make an appointment and choose the candidate.
This being a temporary appointment, the field of choice is limited
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 81
to a certain category of officials.
17.2. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the Division Bench
noticed that the second part of Section 13(7) of the Act, which is
the most important part, is about the category of officers who can
be suggested for appointment. The UGC Regulations, 2010 has
been replaced by the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance
of Standards in Higher Education, 2018, i.e., the UGC Regulations,
2018, which prescribes the qualifications and eligibility to be
appointed as a Vice-Chancellor. The power of UGC is traceable
under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution of India. If the UGC
has prescribed any qualification to be appointed as a Vice-
Chancellor, any legislation or regulation made by the State would
be subject to such UGC Regulations. Therefore, the State
Government can only recommend such officers who possess the
necessary qualifications as prescribed by the UGC. The
prescription of qualifications in the UGC Regulations would be
deemed to have been incorporated as part of Section 13(7) of the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 82
Act. Thus, while the Government recommends any name for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor, the Government can only
recommend the names of candidates who possess the necessary
qualifications as prescribed by the UGC. If any of the categories
of the officers, as referred to under Section 13(7) of the Act, are
not meeting the said requirement, their names cannot be
recommended to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
17.3. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the Division Bench found
that the second part of Section 13(7) of the Act has to be
understood in light of the prescription of the qualification by the
UGC, as the same is deemed to have been incorporated as part of
the legislation being occupied by the UGC Regulations. If the
category of persons referred to under 13(7) of the Act is not
available for want of qualifications, the statutory provision will not
become otiose. The statutory provision, conferring authority on
the Government, will survive to appoint any person who has
prescribed qualifications under the UGC Regulations, as the UGC
Regulations with regard to qualified persons have to be read as
part of Section 13(7) of the Act.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 83
17.4. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the Division Bench found
that the third part of Section 13(7) of the Act is related to the
authority of the Chancellor to make appointments. Undoubtedly,
the Chancellor has been conferred with the power to appoint the
persons who possess the necessary qualifications as prescribed
by the UGC, as Vice-Chancellor. The Chancellor, in that process,
cannot overlook the authority of the State Government to
recommend the name of any qualified person for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, be
it directory or mandatory, that has to be followed for such an
appointment and cannot be disregarded while making such an
appointment. Therefore, the Division Bench held that the
procedure that has to be followed must be in accordance with the
statutory provisions as referred to under Section 13(7) of the Act.
17.5. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], on the question related
to the issuance of quo warranto, the Division Bench noticed that
it is only in total disregard to the procedure established under law,
a public office is usurped by an incumbent, then the Court would
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 84
be compelled to issue a writ of quo warranto. Therefore, the Court
will have to analyse the particular circumstances under which a
public office is occupied by a person. On the facts of the case at
hand, the Division Bench noticed that the Chancellor did not
disregard the authority of the State Government in appointing a
qualified person. The State Government suggested the name of
Dr.Saji Gopinath, Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University of
Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology. Since the Chancellor
apparently was not satisfied with the qualification of Dr.Saji
Gopinath, his name was returned with an opinion that his
appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the Digital University is under
a cloud. Thereafter, the Government sent the name of the
Secretary to the Government, Higher Education Department. The
Chancellor did not respond to the request, apparently for the
reason that he is only a bureaucrat without any academic
qualifications. Then the Chancellor, taking note of the situation
prevailing in the University, and to break the stalemate, appointed
the 3rd respondent (Dr.Ciza Thomas), who possessed the
qualifications as per the UGC Regulations.
17.6. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 85
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the Division Bench then
considered the question as to whether quo warranto needs to be
issued in the aforesaid circumstances. The Division Bench was of
the firm view that when the Chancellor is holding an office of high
dignity, there is always a presumption that any act done by such
office is done in bona fide. See: Municipal Corporation of
Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta [(2007) 7 SCC 309 at para 17]. The
Chancellor, in particular circumstances, noting that delay would
frustrate the administration of the University and also to avoid
chaos due to the vacuum in the office of the Vice-chancellor, being
the appointing authority and the head of the University, to end
the stalemate, stepped in and appointed a qualified person as per
the UGC Regulations. Mere procedural lapse, if any, cannot result
in the issuance of quo warranto. As noted, quo warranto is related
to the public interest, and it is only when such an appointment is
adverse to the larger public interest that the Court needs to
issue quo warranto. Quo warranto cannot be issued for mere
procedural lapse or error, but can be issued only when the usurper
is found to have no semblance of right to remain in the public
office. The Division Bench found that the particular circumstances
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 86
in which the Chancellor acted warrant no relief of quo warranto.
17.7. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the Division Bench
noticed that the appointment, as referable under Section 13(7) of
the Act, is for a maximum period aggregating to six months. That
does not mean that a right is conferred on an appointee to
continue until the expiration of the period of six months as a
matter of right. In the case of appointment to a fortuitous post,
without there being a selection, based on a choice of the
appointing authority as a stop-gap arrangement, the appointee
cannot claim any right to continue for a fixed term or till regular
hand is replaced. The appointment, being a stop-gap
arrangement, it is always open for the recommending authority to
recommend any other name to replace such an appointee. It is in
the domain of the recommending authority to decide whether
such an appointee is to be replaced or not. There is no legal right
for an appointee to continue for a fixed period. The appointment
being a fortuitous post, the Division Bench viewed that it is for the
State Government to decide whether any other name is to be
recommended to replace the 3rd respondent or not. It is purely
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 87
within the realm of the Government to adopt such a course. It is
appropriate for the State Government, while recommending such
names, to follow the procedure of sending a panel of a minimum
of three names, in light of the UGC Regulation as far as the regular
appointment is concerned. Though it is not related to temporary
appointments, the very objective of the UGC Regulations is to
eschew arbitrariness and to ensure fair play while recommending
such names. Therefore, the Division Bench observed that the
Government is free to suggest a panel of a minimum of three
other names to the Chancellor to replace the 3rd respondent.
17.8. In Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University [2023 KHC OnLine 9027], the Division Bench
noticed that in the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2022 in
W.P.(C)No.35656 of 2022 – State of Kerala v. Chancellor APJ
Abdul Kalam Technological University [2023 (1) KLT 485]
– the learned Single Judge had issued certain other directions in
the matter for the selection of a regular Vice-Chancellor. The writ
petition was filed only challenging the appointment of the
3rd respondent and the authority of the Chancellor in making such
an appointment, disregarding the authority of the Government to
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 88
make recommendations as provided under Section 13(7) of the
Act and not an appointment as provided under Section 13(2).
Therefore, the Division Bench set aside all other directions in the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, as such directions are
unwarranted in the case.
18. As noticed by the Apex Court in Gambhirdan K.
Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179], being a leader and head of the
institution, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has to play a very
important role. While academic qualifications, administrative
experience, research credentials and track record could be
considered as basic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities
of a Vice-Chancellor would be one who is a true leader and a
passionate visionary. A Vice-Chancellor functions as a bridge
between the executive and academic wings of the University as
he is the head of both a ‘teacher’ and an ‘administrator’. The
Universities are autonomous, and the Vice-Chancellor is the
leader of a higher education institution. As per the norm, he/she
should be an eminent academician, an excellent administrator and
also someone who has a high moral stature. The Vice-Chancellor
is the kingpin of a University’s system and a keeper of the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 89
University’s conscience. In Sreejith P.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338],
the Apex Court has referred to the decision in Gambhirdan K.
Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179], where the importance of the post
of the Vice-Chancellor has been elaborately considered by the said
Court.
19. In Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor
Kannur University [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592 : AIR 2024
SC 135], in the context of the provisions contained in Section
10(10) of the Kannur University Act, 1996, which deals with the
reappointment of Vice-Chancellor, the Apex Court held that, under
the scheme of the said Act 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 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 law does not recognise any such extra-
constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 90
Any such interference amounts to dictation from a political
superior and has been condemned by courts on more than one
occasion.
19.1. In Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1592], one of the contentions raised before the Apex
Court was that the reappointment under Section 10(10) of the
Kannur University Act was based on the request of the State
Government and not on any independent evaluation by the
Chancellor. Such a request was wholly unwarranted as the State
Government has no say in the appointment or reappointment of
the Vice-Chancellor. The Apex Court noticed that Section 10 of the
Act envisages distinct situations namely: (a) Appointment of a
Vice-Chancellor by the Chancellor out of a panel of three names
recommended by the search committee constituted by the State
Government; (b) No person above sixty years of age is eligible to
be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor; (c) Reappointment in respect
of which, the power is vested in the Chancellor under Section
10(10); and (d) The proviso attached to sub-section (10) of the
Section 10 stipulating that a person shall not be appointed as
Vice-Chancellor for more than two terms. One of the questions
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 91
formulated by the Apex Court was as follows: Did the Chancellor
abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the
Vice-Chancellor? The Apex Court noticed that the Chancellor had
already initiated the steps for appointment of a new Vice-
Chancellor, which is evident by the fact that a Selection
Committee was constituted vide notification dated 27.10.2021. At
that point of time, reappointment of the 4th respondent as Vice-
Chancellor, in accordance with Section 10(10) of the Act, was not
in the mind of the Chancellor. The State of Kerala issued a
notification dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications from eligible
candidates. All of a sudden, the Minister for Higher Education and
Social Justice, in his capacity as the Pro-Chancellor, addressed a
letter dated 22.11.2021 to the Chancellor recommending
reappointment of the 4th respondent for a second term as Vice-
Chancellor. On 22.11.2021 itself, the notification inviting
applications from the eligible candidates was withdrawn. On the
same date, the Minister addressed another letter to the Chancellor
stating that the 4th respondent be reappointed as Vice-Chancellor
of Kannur University. On the very same day, i.e., on 23.11.2021,
the notification reappointing the 4th respondent as Vice-Chancellor
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 92
was issued.
19.2. In Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1592], the Apex Court noticed that, as it appears
from the press release issued by the Kerala Raj Bhavan dated
03.02.2022, the opinion of the Advocate General was also sought
for in connection with the reappointment of the 4th respondent as
Vice-Chancellor. The very first para of the press release states that
“Kerala Raj Bhavan strongly refutes the claim in some news
reports that it was on the direction of Hon’ble Governor that the
name of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran was suggested for reappointment
as Vice Chancellor, Kannur University. The truth is that the same
was initiated by the Chief Minister and the Higher Education
Minister.” The last part of the report states that the process of
selection of Vice-Chancellor, which was set in motion vide
notification dated 27.10.2021, came to an end consequent to the
request from the Minister of Higher Education and the opinion of
the Advocate General, Kerala. The aforesaid facts make it
abundantly clear that there was no independent application of
mind or satisfaction or judgment on the part of the Chancellor and
the 4th respondent came to be reappointed only at the behest of
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 93
the State Government.
20. The UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC Regulations,
2018 are enacted in exercise of the powers under clauses (e) and
(g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, as per which every rule and regulation
made thereunder shall be laid before each house of Parliament.
As held by the Apex Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5
SCC 179], being a subordinate legislation, the UGC Regulations
become part of the UGC Act. In case of any conflict between the
State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central legislation
shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as
enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution of India as the
subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Moreover, Clause 7.4.0
mandates that the Universities/State Governments shall modify
or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes of the Universities concerned
within six months of adoption of the UGC Regulations, 2010.
Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the
provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of
the statutory provisions, warranting issuance of a writ of quo
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 94
warranto.
21. The law laid down in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022)
5 SCC 179] was relied on by the Apex Court in Sreejith P.S.
[(2023) 17 SCC 338], in the context of appointment as Vice-
Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. In the
said decision, the Apex Court held that the recommendation for
appointment as a Vice-Chancellor should be sent by the Search
Committee, duly constituted and the Search Committee has to
recommend the names and, thereafter, the Visitor/Chancellor
shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of names
recommended by the Search Committee. The decision of the Apex
Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5 SCC 179] was in
the context of regular appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Sardar
Patel University in the State of Gujarat and the decision of the
Apex Court in Sreejith P.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338] was in the
context of regular appointment as Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul
Kalam Technological University in the State of Kerala.
22. In view of the provisions contained in Clause 7.3.0 of
the UGC Regulations, 2010, followed by Clause 7.3 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor of
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 95
a University should be through proper identification by a panel of
3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection-Committee. As per Clause
7.3(ii) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the selection for the post of
Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel
of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection-Committee, through a
public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a
combination thereof. Thereafter, as per Clause 7.3(iii), the
Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the
panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee. As noticed by the Division Bench in Chancellor APJ
Abdul Kalam Technological University [2023 KHC OnLine
9027], there is no UGC Regulation governing the appointment of
the Vice-Chancellor temporarily, till a regular appointment is
made.
23. In Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1592], one of the questions considered by the Apex
Court was as to whether the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor
under Section 10(10) of the Kannur University Act has to follow
the same process as a fresh appointment of Vice-Chancellor under
Section 10. The Apex Court noticed that the reappointment of the
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 96
Vice-Chancellor has been provided under Section 10(10) of the
Act. The proviso to Section 10(10) further makes the intention of
the legislature to provide for reappointment more clear. The
legislature has not thought fit to prescribe any particular
procedure or any particular mode or manner of reappointment.
The UGC Regulations are also silent as regards the 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 continuation of the
first term, the procedure provided under Section 10 of the Act
must be gone through. However, in the 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.
24. The UGC Regulations, 2010 and also the UGC
Regulations, 2018 are also silent as regards the appointment of
the Vice-Chancellor temporarily, till a regular appointment is
made. Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act and
Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act deal with the
temporary appointment as Vice Chancellor for a period not
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 97
exceeding six months in the aggregate, in the circumstances
enumerated therein. As per Section 13(7) of the Technological
University Act, where the vacancy of Vice-Chancellor arises in any
of the circumstances enumerated in clauses (i) to (v), the
Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other
University or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the Technological
University or the Secretary to Government, Higher Education
Department, recommended by the Government, to be the Vice-
Chancellor for a period of not exceeding six months in the
aggregate. Similarly, as per Section 11(10) of the Digital
University Act, in the event that a temporary vacancy occurs in
the post of Vice-Chancellor due to any unforeseen or casual
reason or if the Vice-Chancellor has to be temporarily abstained
himself from the said position, the Chancellor may appoint the
Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Secretary of
Electronics and Information Technology Department, as
recommended by the Government, to be the Vice-Chancellor, for
a period of not exceeding six months, in the aggregate.
25. In the case of the Technological University, in exercise
of the powers under Section 13(10) of the Technological
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 98
University Act, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of
any other University or the Pro-Vice Chancellor of the
Technological University or the Secretary to Government, Higher
Education Department, recommended by the Government, to be
the Vice-Chancellor for a period of not exceeding six months in
the aggregate. Similarly, in the case of the Digital University, in
exercise of the powers under Section 11(10) of the Digital
University Act, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of
any other University or the Secretary of Electronics and
Information Technology Department, as recommended by the
Government, to be the Vice-Chancellor, for a period of not
exceeding six months, in the aggregate. Such temporary
appointments, for a period of not exceeding six months, in the
aggregate, in any of the circumstances enumerated in Section
13(7) of the Technological University Act and Section 11(10) of
the Digital University Act, are not governed by the provisions
contained in Clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 or Clause
7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Therefore, the principle of
repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution of
India is not attracted.
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 99
26. Being a temporary appointment, the field of choice is
limited to the Vice-Chancellor of any other University, and the
other officials enumerated in Section 13(7) of the Technological
University Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act. As
noticed by the Apex Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [(2022) 5
SCC 179] and reiterated in Sreejith P.S. [(2023) 17 SCC 338],
being a leader and head of the institution, the Vice-Chancellor of
the University has to play a very important role. The Vice-
Chancellor is the kingpin of a University’s system and a keeper of
the University’s conscience. Any vacuum in the office of the Vice-
Chancellor would not be in the best interest of the University,
since the Vice-Chancellor functions as a bridge between the
executive and academic wings of the University.
27. The term ‘recommended by the Government’ in the
context of Section 13(7) of the Technological University Act and
Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act means the initiation of
the process for the temporary appointment of the Vice-Chancellor,
as a stop-gap arrangement. In the context of the provisions
contained in Section 10(10) of the Kannur University Act, 1996,
which deals with the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor, the Apex
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 100
Court has stated in categorical terms in Dr.Premachandran
Keezhoth [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592] that, in the selection of
the Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor 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 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. Therefore, instead of recommending a single name,
the recommendation by the Government shall be by way of a
panel consisting of a minimum of three names, as in the case of
a regular appointment governed by the provisions under Clause
7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, as held by the Division Bench
in Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
[2023 KHC OnLine 9027].
28. The initiation of the process for the temporary
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, as a stop-gap arrangement,
in terms of the provisions under Section 13(7) of the Technological
University Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act, will
not in any manner offend any of the provisions under the UGC
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 101
Regulations, 2018 or the law laid down by the Apex Court
Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592].
In the said decision the Apex Court was dealing with a case in
which there was no independent application of mind or
satisfaction or judgment on the part of the Chancellor, and the 4th
respondent therein came to be reappointed as Vice-Chancellor
under Section 10(10) of the Kannur University Act, only at the
behest of the State Government. In the above circumstances, we
find no force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant in W.A.Nos.1160 and 1165 of 2025 and the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos.1180 and 1181 of
2025 that the impact of the subsequent judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in Dr.Premachandran Keezhoth [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1592] on the decision of the Division Bench in
Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
[2023 KHC OnLine 9027] was not properly considered by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The contention
of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.1160
and 1165 of 2025 that the decision of the Division Bench in
Chancellor APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 102
[2023 KHC OnLine 9027] is one rendered without noticing the
relevant statutory provisions and the law on the point is absolutely
untenable.
29. An order of temporary appointment of Vice-Chancellor,
issued by the Chancellor in exercise of the powers under Section
13(7) of the Technological University Act or Section 11(10) of the
Digital University Act shall be for a period of not exceeding six
months, in the aggregate. Therefore, under Section 13(7) of the
Technological University Act or Section 11(10) of the Digital
University Act, the Chancellor has no power to issue notifications
like Ext.P9 notification dated 27.11.2024 in W.P.(C)No.42527 of
2024 and Ext.P4 notification dated 27.11.2024 in
W.P.(C)No.43637 of 2024 appointing a person to exercise the
powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the
Technological University or the Digital University, until further
orders, pending regular appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. In
such circumstances, the learned Single Judge cannot be found at
fault for declaring the said notifications as not sustainable in law,
for the above reason.
30. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere
2025:KER:51557
W.A.Nos.1165, 1160, 1181
and 1180 of 2025 103
with the judgment dated 19.05.2025 of the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeals fail, and they are accordingly dismissed.
Considering the stalemate existing in the administration of
the Technological University and the Digital University, which is
continuing for a considerably long period, and which had an
adverse impact on the functioning of the said Universities and the
interest of the student community, we are of the view that the
Chancellor as well as the State Government will have to act pro-
actively, to ensure that regular appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor in the said Universities are made, without any further
delay.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
bkn/-