Kerala High Court : Appointment Of Vice Chancellor At Digital University Legally Unsustainable | Process Must Comply With UGC Regulations | Allows Incumbent To Complete Tenure
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P. declared that the notification appointing an individual to exercise the powers and duties of Vice-Chancellor in a digital sciences university was not sustainable in law. The Court held that the appointment was not made in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 11(10) of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act, 2021. However, the Court clarified that the declaration would not affect the tenure of the appointee until the scheduled date of expiry. The Court further directed that any future appointment to the post—whether temporary or regular—must conform to the statutory and regulatory framework.
The petitioner, the State of Kerala, challenged a notification dated 27.11.2024 issued by the Chancellor of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology. The notification, marked as Ext.P4, appointed the third respondent to perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor on a temporary basis under Section 11(10) of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act, 2021.
The petitioner contended that the appointment was made without adhering to the procedure stipulated under the statute, particularly the requirement that such appointments must be based on a recommendation from the State Government. The petitioner referred to a prior judgment in W.P.(C) No.42527/2024 and W.A. No.1847/2022, which had examined similar provisions under the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. In both matters, the Court had held that a Chancellor’s appointment of a temporary Vice-Chancellor must follow the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute.
The third respondent, appointed under Ext.P4, was assigned the role of Vice-Chancellor pending the regular appointment to the post. According to the petitioner, the appointment bypassed the statutory requirement of a recommendation from the Government and was thus legally untenable.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing such appointments. Section 11(10) of the 2021 Act permits the Chancellor to appoint a temporary Vice-Chancellor in cases of unforeseen vacancies, but explicitly mandates that such an appointment must be made “as recommended by the Government.” A comparative reference was made to Section 13(7) of the 2015 Act, which similarly allows for a temporary appointment subject to Government recommendation.
The State submitted that since both statutory provisions were in pari materia, the present case was squarely covered by the reasoning applied in the earlier decisions. Exhibits submitted by the petitioner included the prior judgments and relevant correspondence between the Electronics and Information Technology Department and the Chancellor’s Office.
The Chancellor and the University had issued Ext.P4 without prior recommendation from the State, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention. The Court found that such action contravened the procedure explicitly laid out in Section 11(10) of the 2021 Act.
In examining the statutory interpretation and its practical implications, the Court emphasised that while the statute empowers the Chancellor to appoint a temporary Vice-Chancellor, it does so only through a Government recommendation. As such, any appointment made outside this procedure is invalid.
The Court stated: “It can be seen that while sub-section (10) of Section 11 of 2021 Act also empowers the 1st respondent to appoint a person to act as the Vice-Chancellor in any of the contingencies contemplated by the provisions, this must be preceded by the recommendation of the State Government.”
It further recorded: “Thus for all practical purposes sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the 2021 Act contemplates that the power to appoint a temporary Vice-Chancellor shall be exercised only on the basis of the recommendation of the Government.”
Regarding the validity of the contested notification, the Court declared: “Therefore, Ext.P4 cannot be sustained.”
However, the Court also noted: “Since the term of appointment of the 3rd respondent is to expire by 27-05-2025, I direct that this finding will not have the effect of dislodging the 3rd respondent till 27-05-2025.”
The Court further observed: “The writ petition will stand disposed of on the basis of the findings rendered in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.42527/2024 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.”
Clarifying the applicability of regulations, the Court recorded: “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.”
Addressing the regulatory hierarchy, the Court stated: “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.”
The Court declared that Ext.P4 notification is not sustainable in law as it was not issued in accordance with the procedure contemplated by Section 11(10) of the 2021 Act. However, this declaration would not affect the third respondent’s tenure, which is set to expire on 27.05.2025.
The Court directed the petitioner to forthwith recommend to the Chancellor names of persons possessing the qualifications prescribed by the UGC, who may be appointed as temporary Vice-Chancellor pending regular selection.
The Court also directed the petitioner to simultaneously take steps to fill the post of Vice-Chancellor on a regular basis, provided there were no interdicting orders from this Court or the Supreme Court, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the 2021 Act and the UGC Regulations.
The Court clarified that the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018 will govern both the qualification criteria and the procedure for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, and will override any conflicting provisions in the 2021 Act.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Asok M. Cherian, Additional Advocate General; Shri N. Manoj Kumar, State Attorney; Shri V. Manu, Special Government Pleader
For the Respondents: S. Prasanth, Standing Counsel, Chancellor of Universities of Kerala; Nisha George; P. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate); George Poonthottam (Senior Advocate); A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan; Kavya Varma M.M.; Silpa Sreekumar
Case Title: State of Kerala v. The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:34137
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 42637 of 2024
Bench: Justice Gopinath P.
[Read/Download order]
