New Delhi [India], October 21 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the appointment of MS Rajasree as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala.
A bench of justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar allowed the appeal filed by Professor Sreejith P.S. challenging the Kerala High Court order dated August 2, 2021.
Professor Sreejith PS has filed an appeal in Supreme Court challenging order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed his appeal and the review petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent Rajasree as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram.
“The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) 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 respondent No. 1 (Rajasree) as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio are hereby quashed and set aside,” the top court said.
“The writ petition is allowed. There shall be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent No. 1 (Rajasree) as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set aside,” the top court said.
The court noted that even as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015, 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.
The court observed that in the present case, admittedly the only name of respondent Rajasree was recommended to the Chancellor.
As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. Therefore, 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, the top court observed.
Therefore, the appointment of the respondent Rajasree can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015, the top court noted.
“Therefore, the appointment of respondent Rajasree on the basis of the recommendations made by the Search committee, which was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per the UGC Regulations and when only one name was recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable persons as required under Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015), the appointment of respondent can be said to be illegal and void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo warranto was required to be issued,” the top court said. (ANI)
This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.