E-Paper
SC asks ex-judge led panel to resolve Kerala V-C deadlock
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked a committee headed by a former judge of the top court to resolve the stalemate between Kerala’s governor and chief minister in appointing vice chancellors to two universities
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked a committee headed by a former judge of the top court to resolve the stalemate between Kerala’s governor and chief minister in appointing vice chancellors to two universities by examining the differences and propose one name each for the two institutions by December 17.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order after both the constitutional authorities informed that despite holding consultations, there has been no consensus on the name recommended as vice chancellor of Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology while there was no difference of opinion with regard to another university — APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
Earlier, a name was endorsed by Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, the governor and chancellor of the two universities, as it was recommended by a selection committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Sudhanshu Dhulia. However, chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan objected to the name.
With the matter travelling back to the court, the bench requested justice Dhulia’s committee to look into the matter once again and propose one name for the two universities within a week. The court further requested the recommendation to be sent in a sealed cover by December 17 before the matter could be taken up on December 18.
The committee was asked to look into the letter by CM Vijayan objecting to the name for VC of Kerala Digital University and even examine the chancellor’s reservation on accepting the alternate suggestion made by the CM.
The court noted in its order, “Despite the best of our efforts, the deadlock continues till this date. The chancellor and the CM have not been able to reach any consensus regarding the appointment of a particular person as VC of the two universities.” Last week, when the court was apprised of this position, it had asked the two constitutional offices to give another attempt to find a solution indicating that the court will decide in the event there is absence of any consensus.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the state government informed the court that the state law minister and higher education minister met the Chancellor informing about the CM’s objection to the one name he had endorsed as VC out of a panel of four names. Gupta said, “This lady (whose name is recommended) has disrupted the functioning of the university while she was the Acting VC.”
When the court enquired in what manner she disrupted, Attorney General R Venkataramani appearing for the Chancellor said, “The government does not want somebody who says there has been no audit in this University. This is what they call disruption.”
The court told the state, “This selection has been done by the committee appointed by us. She has been found meritorious for both the universities. At least proceed forward with the lady recommended for the other university.” The court was referring to the panel recommended by justice Dhulia committee recommending two women candidates in the top order of preference for both universities.
However, Gupta said, “Anybody except her, we have no objection.”. The order said, “We are of the view that in such circumstances, we should request the selection committee to look into the entire issue and give us one composite report. We request the committee to give one name for each university in terms of preference.”
The post of V-Cs for the two universities has been lying vacant since last year with a temporary V-C managing the affairs amid the two constitutional authorities failing to agree on a common name.
It was in August this year, justice Dhulia committee submitted its report to the court giving a panel of four names for one university and five names for the other post.
The governor had earlier filed an affidavit giving reasons for endorsing the name objected to by the CM. He pointed out that while serving for a brief period as VC of the Kerala Digital University, she had reported to the Chancellor about irregularities in the maintenance of records and accounts in the university, with no financial audit conducted in the past years.
He further pointed out that the CM recommended two names for the two posts who had served as V-Cs in the two universities. However, one was removed following an order from the Supreme Court while the other individual did not get the accounts of the Kerala Digital University audited during his tenure.
The top court had in July observed, “Appointment of vice chancellors in educational institutions should not reach courts. There has to be harmony between the chancellor and the state government. Who are the sufferers ultimately, it is the students.”
