Kerala Governor moves Supreme Court against Chief Minister Vijayan’s role in Kerala VC appointments

Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to exclude Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan from the process to select Vice Chancellors (VCs) for the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the Kerala Digital University.

The Governor, who is also the Chancellor of the two State-run universities, said neither the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act nor the Kerala Digital University Act envisaged a role for the Chief Minister in the selection of VCs.

He further indicated that the Chief Minister’s involvement in the process would amount to a person judging his own cause, which was barred by the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations.

“The Chief Minister being the Executive Head of the State is connected with the number of government colleges, managed by the government and affiliated to the university. Therefore, as per UGC Regulations he cannot have any role whatsoever in the appointment of Vice Chancellors,” the Governor said in an application filed in his capacity as Chancellor.

The application sought modification of parts of the Supreme Court’s August 18 order, which had appointed former top court judge, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, as chairperson of the search-cum-selection committees for the appointments. The order had been intended to break the impasse between the State government and the Governor over the issue.

The August 18 order had also allowed members of the search panel to be drawn from names suggested by both the Kerala government and the Chancellor.

While clarifying that he had no objections to Justice Dhulia, the Governor opposed the inclusion of State nominees in the panel.

The application said the UGC Regulations required search committee members to be “persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and not connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges”.

“The UGC Regulations highlight the independence and autonomy of the universities by excluding any role to the State Government. The State Universities Act, in the present case, also contemplate the independence and autonomy of the two Universities. Both the University Acts do not provide any role for the Minister or the Chief Minister in the matter of selection and appointment of the Vice Chancellors,” the Governor/Chancellor contended.

The Governor also filed a separate application seeking a judicial direction to implead the UGC in the case. He said there was a mandatory requirement to include a nominee of the UGC chairperson in the search panels. The Supreme Court had itself held that VC appointments had to strictly follow the UGC Regulations of 2018.

The Regulations provide that the list of names of prospective VC candidates should be placed before the Chancellor by the search committee. Neither the State nor the Chief Minister, the application said, had any role in finalising the name.

“As per UGC Regulations the Chancellor is having the prerogative to select the Vice Chancellor from the list submitted by the search Committee,” it said.

The list provided by the committee should not be a “rank list” of candidates, the Governor argued, as this would violate the discretion vested in the Chancellor. The panel should instead provide three to five names, all deemed suitable, leaving the final choice to the Chancellor.

The application further argued that while the Chancellor is also the Governor of the State, he is not expected to act on the advice of the Cabinet in VC appointments. Citing past Supreme Court judgments, it said any such decision taken “at the behest of any authority which has no role to play as per the statutes was held to be bad and sufficient to declare the decision void”.