New Delhi: As the chancellor of a state-run university, a governor is not “merely a titular head”, but is the sole judge whose opinion is final in all respects. With this observation, the Supreme Court Thursday quashed a two-year-old reappointment notification of a Kannur University vice-chancellor.
The occasion to draw a distinction between the governor and his/her role as a state university chancellor arose as a three-judge bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra heard an appeal against a Kerala High Court judgment that refused to set aside the notification for Gopinath Ravindran’s reappointment as vice-chancellor of Kannur University, issued 23 November 2021.
Ravindran’s reappointment notification was challenged by an elected member of the Kannur University senate and a member of its academic council.
The judgment assumes significance as it comes at a time when state governments of Tamil Nadu and Kerala are locked in a tussle with their respective governors over non-approval of crucial bills, most of which relate to amendments in state university laws.
The proposed changes intend to dilute the governor’s role in the appointment of state university vice-chancellors, and instead vest it with the state government.
The bench held that the governor, as chancellor of Kannur University, “surrendered” his statutory powers, which vitiated the entire process of reappointment of the vice-chancellor.
The reappointment was influenced by extraneous considerations, which was the “unwarranted intervention of the state government”, the bench observed. There was no irregularity otherwise, it said.
“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 court added. “Law does not recognise any such extra-constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion. Any such interference amounts to dictation from political superior.”
Also Read: Fears of India’s founders are coming true. Governors are acting like viceroys
Four questions
Four questions of law were considered by the top court in its judgment.
They were whether Ravindran’s reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post, whether the outer age limit of 60 years for the appointment of vice-chancellor as stipulated under the Kannur University Act is to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the vice-chancellor for another term of four years, whether the reappointment of the vice-chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee, and did the chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the vice-chancellor.
While the HC upheld Ravindran’s reappointment on all four grounds, the apex court differed in its opinion. It agreed with the HC’s finding on the first three points and held the university Act permitted the reappointment of an incumbent vice-chancellor and the said person could be older than 60 years.
For reappointment, the court said, there was no requirement in the law to set up a selection committee. Also, since reappointment was distinct from appointment, it need not follow the ordinary process designed for a fresh appointment.
On the fourth question of law, the court accepted the petitioners’ view.
The governor, as chancellor of Kannur University, supported the petitioners in the top court.
In his argument, he said the appointment defied University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, which say a nominee of the regulator should have been a member of the selection committee that appointed Ravindran in the first place.
The governor also drew the court’s attention to a press release issued by the Kerala Raj Bhavan on 3 February 2022, in which it was unequivocally announced that Ravindran’s reappointment as vice-chancellor was initiated by the chief minister and the higher education minister.
The press release also mentioned the notification that was issued inviting fresh applications for the appointment of vice-chancellor, which was later cancelled following a letter written by the higher education minister to the governor. The letter pushed for Ravindran’s reappointment.
Taking account of the press release, the apex court noted in its judgment that as the governor was the ex-officio chancellor of the university, by virtue of his office, he was not bound to act under the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
The law governing the university makes a clear-cut distinction between two distinct authorities, namely the chancellor and the state government, the bench said. And, when the legislature intentionally makes a distinction, the same must also be interpreted distinctly, the bench added.
Therefore, as a chancellor, the governor acts only in his personal capacity, and the powers and duties exercised by him under a statute related to the university have “absolutely no relation to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties by him while he holds office as the governor of the state”, the bench ruled.
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)
Also Read: Governors must return bill to state legislature for reconsideration if approval is withheld, says SC