Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Gopinath P held that the appointment of a temporary Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University must strictly adhere to the procedure outlined under Section 13(7) of the 2015 Act, including a mandatory recommendation from the State Government. While declaring the Chancellor’s impugned appointment invalid, the Court declined to remove the incumbent due to the imminent expiration of the six-month tenure and the administrative sensitivity of the office. The Court further clarified that the appointment process must comply with University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, overriding any conflicting state legislation.

This case arose from a writ petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging a notification dated 27 November 2024, issued by the Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University appointing Dr. K. Sivaprasad as temporary Vice-Chancellor. The challenge centered on the validity of the appointment under Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Equal Pension For All Retired High Court Judges | One Rank One Pension Must Be The Norm | Source Of Appointment Cannot Determine Post-Retirement Benefits

The issue originated after the Supreme Court declared the previous appointment of Dr. Rajasree M.S. as Vice-Chancellor illegal in its decision in Dr. Sreejith v. Dr. Rajasree, reported in 2022 (6) KLT 147 (SC), necessitating a temporary replacement. The State Government initially recommended Dr. Saji Gopinath for the post, a recommendation the Chancellor did not accept. The Chancellor instead issued a notification on 3 November 2022 appointing Prof. (Dr.) Ciza Thomas. This action was upheld by a single judge, but the Division Bench later clarified in W.A. No. 1847/2022 that only individuals recommended by the Government could be appointed, and such appointees must also meet the qualifications prescribed under UGC Regulations.

Following this, in February and March 2023, the Government sent reconstituted panels, including Dr. Saji Gopinath, whose appointment was then formalized on 31 March 2023. Dr. Gopinath later requested relief from his duties due to the end of his extraordinary leave. Subsequently, communication between the Government and Chancellor regarding the applicability of UGC qualifications and Supreme Court precedents led to disagreements. The Government insisted that the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7700/2023 (involving Kannur University) was inapplicable due to differing statutory provisions.

Despite this, the Chancellor issued the 27 November 2024 notification appointing Dr. Sivaprasad, without Government recommendation. The State, contending that this violated the earlier Division Bench decision, filed the writ petition.

During arguments, the State contended that the procedure under Section 13(7) had not been followed and that the Chancellor’s unilateral action violated established law. The respondents, representing the Chancellor and the appointee, maintained that UGC regulations prevail over state law and that the Chancellor had acted within discretion, citing Dr. Sreejith and Civil Appeal No. 7700/2023.

Justice Gopinath P recorded that “the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P3 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1847/2022.” The Court noted that while UGC regulations apply to qualifications, the procedural steps outlined in Section 13(7) of the 2015 Act must be followed.

“It was categorically held that the procedure contemplated by sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act, to the extent it is not contrary to the UGC Regulations, must be followed,” the Court stated, adding further, “only officers who possess the necessary qualifications as prescribed by the UGC could be recommended.”

Referring to the three-part structure of Section 13(7), the Court explained that the power of recommendation lies with the State, while the Chancellor has appointment authority, subject to the prescribed process and qualifications. It was stated that “the Chancellor, in that process, cannot overlook the authority of the State Government to recommend any qualified name for appointment as Vice-Chancellor.”

Rejecting the respondents' argument that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7700/2023 overrides the Division Bench ruling, the Court noted, “the findings in Ext.P6 judgment relate to specific provisions of the Kannur University Act, 1996,” and that it had no bearing on the statutory scheme under the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act.

The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Dr. Sreejith recognize the binding nature of UGC regulations even in the face of conflicting state legislation. It recorded, “the said judgment only fortifies the view taken by the Division Bench in Ext.P3 judgment.”

Acknowledging the administrative significance of the Vice-Chancellor’s post, the Court cited Supreme Court precedent in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, where the importance of leadership in higher education institutions was stressed. Quoting extensively, the Court stated that “the Vice-Chancellor functions as a bridge between the executive and academic wings of a university,” and frequent changes in office-holders could disrupt university operations.

The Court found that the notification issued on 27 November 2024, which appointed the third respondent as temporary Vice-Chancellor, was not legally valid as it did not comply with the procedure outlined under Section 13(7) of the 2015 Act. Despite this finding, the Court chose not to remove the third respondent from office immediately, noting that the individual's tenure would naturally conclude by 27 May 2025.

The State was directed to promptly recommend to the first respondent the names of individuals who meet the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, for appointment as temporary Vice-Chancellor until a regular appointment is made.

Also Read: Delhi HC Lifts Injunction In Trademark Row Over Imported HDDs | International Exhaustion Doctrine Applies | Full Disclosure Must Precede Sale Of Refurbished Goods

In addition, the State was instructed to concurrently proceed—unless barred by any orders from this Court or the Supreme Court—to fill the position of Vice-Chancellor on a regular basis, in accordance with Section 13 of the 2015 Act and the applicable provisions of the UGC Regulation on Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018.

The Court clarified that the UGC Regulation on Minimum Qualification for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges, 2018, would govern the appointment process for the Vice-Chancellor, regardless of any conflicting clauses in the 2015 Act. It further specified that Section 13 of the 2015 Act would only remain applicable insofar as it aligns with the UGC Regulations.

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 to A.G.; Government Pleader; Public Prosecutor

For the Respondents: S. Prasanth, Standing Counsel, Chancellor of Universities of Kerala; K.R. Ganesh; Nisha George; P. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate); Silpa Sreekumar; George Poonthottam (Senior Advocate); Kavya Varma M. M.

Case Title: State of Kerala v. The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:34083

Case Number: WP(C) No. 42527 of 2024

Bench: Justice Gopinath P

[Read/Download order]