Kerala High Court: KTU Syndicate Meeting Cannot Continue Once Called Off by Vice-Chancellor | VC Cannot Annul Resolutions, Statutes Must Comply with Article 348(3
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi held that the Vice Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University lacked authority to annul resolutions passed by the Syndicate after convening a meeting and subsequently calling it off. The Court declared that such power lies only with the Chancellor under the statutory framework. It further directed implementation of the Syndicate’s approved decisions, including those ratified by the Government, and clarified the constitutional mandate regarding the authoritative English text of statutes.
The case arose out of two writ petitions concerning the functioning of the Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The first petition sought to quash an order issued by the Vice Chancellor that annulled the decisions of a Syndicate meeting convened in his absence. The petitioner, a Syndicate member, contended that the Vice Chancellor lacked authority to annul Syndicate decisions and that members were entitled to continue the meeting after electing a chairperson from among themselves. Reliance was placed on Statute 10 of the University’s First Statutes, 2020, which provides for the conduct of meetings in the absence of the Vice Chancellor.
The petitioner submitted that this Court, in an earlier judgment, had directed completion of disciplinary proceedings against a university employee. Despite submission of the Enquiry Officer’s report and the Sub-Committee’s recommendations, the matter was not finalized owing to delays in convening the Syndicate. In the 63rd Syndicate meeting, the matter was not included in the agenda, leading to disputes. The Vice Chancellor called off the meeting without transacting any business, following objections raised by members regarding the omission. The majority of members objected to this course of action, elected a chairperson from among themselves, and proceeded with the business of the meeting. The Vice Chancellor subsequently annulled their decisions by issuing an order.
The Vice Chancellor’s affidavit contested the maintainability of the petition. He stated that the petitioner lacked locus standi as he was not acting on behalf of or with authorization from the Syndicate. He further argued that the meeting could not have continued after being called off, since Statute 10 only applies in cases where the Vice Chancellor is absent at the time of convening. He stated that the meeting was lawfully called off due to persistent demands to add an item not included in the circulated agenda. He further argued that any continuation by members constituted an irregular and unauthorized meeting.
It was further recorded that the Vice Chancellor had taken charge only in November 2024 and that the domestic enquiry file was presented to him only in January 2025. He reported that the Comptroller and Auditor General had recorded the alleged withdrawal of provident fund amounts as a systemic lapse, warranting further study. He stated that when members attempted to continue the meeting in his absence, he exercised his powers and issued an order annulling the resolutions.
The second writ petition was filed by another Syndicate and Board of Governors member seeking a mandamus to direct the Vice Chancellor to urgently convene a meeting to place before it certain Government orders approving reappointments of senior officers. The petitioner further sought to quash the Vice Chancellor’s annulment order and direct implementation of Government approvals of Syndicate decisions. It was contended that the Syndicate is the administrative authority of the University and that the Registrar is obliged to implement its decisions. The petitioner alleged that despite Government approval, the Vice Chancellor was refusing to convene the Syndicate to implement those decisions.
The respondents opposed the second petition, adopting the same stand as in the first petition. It was contended that requests for extension of terms of officers had been forwarded to the Government independently, and that when certain Syndicate members objected, they even threatened officers. The Government initially declined the request, but later granted approval. Respondents stated that the matters could not be proceeded with because of the pendency of litigation and that minutes of the 63rd meeting relied upon by the petitioners were not placed before the Vice Chancellor.
The Court framed four issues: whether the First Statutes in vernacular could be relied on, whether a Syndicate member had locus standi to file the petition, whether the Vice Chancellor could call off a meeting after it had commenced, and whether the Vice Chancellor could annul decisions taken by members after he left.
On the issue of reliance on the vernacular Statutes, the Court recorded: “It is disheartening to note that all the reminders issued by this Court are falling into deaf ears. The First Statutes of the University was introduced in the vernacular and even today there is no English Translation of the Statutes as required under Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India available before the Court as an authoritative text, to be looked into.” The Court stated that it could not ignore the vernacular text entirely, but stressed that compliance with the constitutional mandate of publishing an English translation in the Official Gazette is essential.
On locus standi, the Court stated: “It may not be in the interests of justice to hold that members of the Syndicate are not persons interested in or aggrieved by the cancellation of a decision, which they contend to be the decision of the Syndicate.” The Court therefore accepted that members had standing to challenge such actions.
On whether the Vice Chancellor could call off a meeting, the Court examined Section 28 of the Act, which governs Syndicate meetings. It recorded: “It is thus clear from a reading that no meeting of the Syndicate can happen at the instance of the individual members and has to be necessarily with the junction of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar.”
The Court noted that the Vice Chancellor’s role allowed a degree of discretion: “The law is thus clear that in case of statutory meetings, the person who convenes the meeting had power to call off the meeting even before it commenced or to call off a meeting which had already commenced, in certain situations.”
The Court added: “When the Vice Chancellor calls off a meeting due to disruption, it is not for this Court to conduct an enquiry into what happened or might have happened during the meeting, which can be said to justify or not justify the action of calling off the meeting.”
On the validity of the subsequent meeting, the Court recorded: “There is no provision in the Act, for holding such a meeting. Such a meeting cannot be a meeting contemplated by Section 28 of the Act. It was not convened by the Registrar on directions of the Vice Chancellor. The mere fact that the requirement of the quorum was satisfied, it cannot be held to be a properly convened meeting of the Syndicate.”
Even considering the vernacular Statutes, the Court stated: “Firstly, it is not a case where there was absence of the Vice Chancellor. As already observed, this can lead to absurdities. Even if the Vice Chancellor was in his office, a meeting can be held in another room by 5 members of the Syndicate and call it as a Syndicate meeting, which is not what is contemplated by law.”
The Court therefore held that the Vice Chancellor’s order annulling the decisions of the continued meeting was valid. It also reminded authorities of the role of Vice Chancellors as outlined in prior judgments and commission reports, stating: “A Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of a university's system and a keeper of the university's conscience.”
The Court dismissed the first writ petition. It stated: “In the result, W.P.(C) No. 3197 of 2025 is dismissed.” Regarding the second writ petition, it rejected certain prayers while issuing directions: “The prayers (ii) and (iii) in W.P.(C)No. 5448 of 2025 are rejected. There will be a direction to the Vice Chancellor to direct the Registrar to convene a meeting of the Syndicate at the earliest and consider the business that had been left untransacted and such other business that might have arisen subsequently.”
The Court further reminded: “The Vice Chancellor is reminded that it is not always necessary to adjourn meetings when requests are made to add items to the agenda. It is well within the powers of the Chairman of a meeting to add additional items in the agenda which may become necessary and to discuss on the same and if necessary, postpone the decision to another day.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. P. Ravindran (Senior Advocate), Smt. Aparna Rajan, Shri. M.R. Sabu, Smt. Lakshmi Ramadas, Sri. Sreedhar Ravindran, Shri. T. Rajasekharan Nair
For the Respondents: Sri. A.J. Varghese (Senior Government Pleader), Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, Sri. Babu Karukapadath, Smt. Arya Raghunath, Shri. Karukapadath Wazim Babu, Smt. P. Lakshmi, Smt. Aysha E.M., Shri. Hashim K.M., Shri. Abuasil A.K., Smt. Haniya Nafiza V.S., Shri. M.I. Insaf Mooppan, Shri. Rishi Vincent, Shri. P.K. Abdul Rahiman, Shri. Manu Krishna S.K., Shri. V. Manu (Special Government Pleader to Advocate General), Sri. K.R. Ganesh, Sri. Elvin Peter P.J. (Senior Advocate)
Case Title: Dr. Vinodkumar Jacob v. The Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & Saju I v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:64455
Case Number: W.P.(C) Nos. 3197 & 5548 of 2025
Bench: Justice T.R. Ravi
