'Not In Best Interest Of Education': Kerala High Court Expresses Concern Over 12 Varsities Functioning Without Regular Vice-Chancellor

“However, the fact remains that the Petitioners are members of the Senate, and it is due to the disagreement between the Senate and the Chancellor that the arrangement, which is otherwise intended to address a short – term contingency, has continued. It may be that for various reasons, the regular selection process has not been completed and now questions are being raised about the temporary arrangements made in its place. However, this approach is not in the best interest of higher education, which must remain the primary concern of all those involved in university administration. It is a matter of serious concern that twelve out of thirteen universities in Kerala are currently functioning without regularly appointed Vice-Chancellors, and that petitions are being filed in this court at nearly every stage of the appointment process and even over temporary arrangements. The situation risks weaking the quality of higher education in the State. We sincerely hope that appropriate steps are taken without delay to resolve the issues.”

The bench was considering a petition filed by the members of the Senate of University of Kerala against the appointment made by the then Governor who was also the ex-officio Chancellor of the University by giving Dr. Mohan Kunnummel, the Vice Chancellor of Kerala University of Health Sciences to discharge the additional duty of Vice Chancellor of the University of Kerala.

The petitioners alleged that Dr. Mohan is now over the age of 60 years and disqualified to continue as the VC of Kerala University as per Section 10(5) of the Kerala University Act.

For context, Section 10(5) states, "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), the Chancellor may allow the Vice-Chancellor to continue in office alter the expiry of his term until his successor is appointed and enters upon his office or fora period of six months horn the date of such expiry, which ever period expires earlier".

Section 10(3) states that the VC shall hold office for four years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for reappointment, provided that a person shall not be appointed as VC for more than two terms.

The Chancellor argued that he had to nominate VC of another University as the Senate members created an impasse by not nominating a member to the Search-cum-Selection Committee. It was submitted that the Petitioners themselves are members of the Senate and the Senate has adopted an attitude of non-cooperation with the Chancellor, resulting in an impasse that has prolonged the process of regular appointment of a Vice-Chancellor.

It was submitted that, after having delayed the appointment of a regular vice-chancellor, the Petitioners are now seeking to create difficulties even with respect to the arrangement made by the Chancellor, who had no option but to call upon the Vice-Chancellor of another University. 

The petitioners refuted these allegations, submitting that the Petitioners were not parties to the earlier litigation and were only opposing procedural irregularities.

The Court held that the bar under Section 10(5) will apply only to regular appointments and not for temporary arrangement under Section 10(19) made in this case.

"Unless there is a legal bar or statutory prohibition against this arrangement, a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued. Further, the course of action taken by the Chancellor is consistent with administrative necessity and institutional continuity. If the contention of the Petitioners that there is only one option with the chancellor, that is, to appoint the senior-most professor, is accepted, it would create a right in favour of a senior-most professor, when the statute does not confer any such right, and it would amount to rewriting the statute. Also disputes may arise regarding seniority, which may defeat the purpose of an effective temporary arrangement. The post of vicechancellor of the University of Kerala is not promotional. To insist that even interim arrangements must follow the full regular appointment process would defeat the very purpose of the flexibility intended by the statute in specifically using two different terms," it said. 

With respect to Dr. Mohan's appointment the high court observed that he served as a Professor for a period of ten years and holds the qualifications of a Master's degree and a Doctorate. It noted that he was appointed as the VC of the Kerala University of Health Sciences on 26 October 2019 and has been discharging the additional responsibilities pending the finalisation of the selection process.

"Nothing is placed before us that the institutional interest of the University has suffered due to this arrangement. Therefore, this is not a case where the exercise of power is entirely arbitrary," it added while dismissing the plea. 

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Elvin Peter P. J. (Sr.), K. R. Ganesh, Gouri Balagopal, Sreelekshmi A. S., Anamika M. J

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates N. Manoj Kumar (State Attorney), P. Sreekumar (Sr.), Thomas Abraham, Binny Thomas, Girija K. Gopal, K. N. vigy, Soorya Mariya Kurian

Case No: WP(C) 43059 of 2024

Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Another v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 365