New Delhi: The Supreme Court quashed the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University in Thiruvananthapuram on Friday, terming it bad in law and contrary to UGC regulations. A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said, as per University Grants Commission, the search committee constituted by the state should have recommended a panel of not less than three suitable persons among eminent people in the field of engineering science to the Chancellor but instead it sent only the name of Dr Rajasree MS.
‘The writ petition is allowed. There shall be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent number 1 (Dr Rajasree MS) as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the appointment of respondent number 1 as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set aside’, it said.
The bench said the impugned judgment and order passed by the division bench of the High Court and the single judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ of quo warranto (a writ or legal action requiring a person to show by what warrant an office is held) declaring the appointment as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio are hereby quashed and set aside. The Supreme Court said it is required to be 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.
‘In the present case, admittedly the only name of respondent number 1 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 Supreme Court said.
Post Your Comments