Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the Judgment of Kerala High Court, wherein the Court upheld the reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University, the three-Judge Bench of Dr. DY. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala* and Manoj Misra, JJ. while setting aside the impugned judgment of Kerala High Court and the Notification reappointing Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University, said that is the decision-making process which vitiated the entire process of reappointment, as though the said notification was issued by the Chancellor, yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations, that is by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government.
However, the Court held the following:
-
Reappointment is permissible even in the case of a tenure post.
-
Outer age limit of sixty years provided in Section 10(9) of the Act Kannur University Act, 1996 (“the Act 1996”) will not apply, when it comes to reappointment under Section 10(10) of the Act 1996
-
It is not necessary to follow the procedure of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of the Act 1996 for the purpose of reappointment.
Background:
The tenure of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor was for a period of four years. As his tenure as the Vice-Chancellor of the University was coming to an end, the Chancellor initiated steps for selection and appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor in the said University. Thus, Notification dated 01-11-2021 was issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, State of Kerala inviting applications from eligible candidates. In the meantime, the Minister for Higher Education and Social Justice in her capacity as the Pro-Chancellor addressed a letter to the Governor/Chancellor recommending reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran for a second term as the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Thereafter, the Governor/Chancellor reappointed him as Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University for a period of four years.
The appellants filed a writ petition questioning the legality and validity of reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University in the Kerala High Court on the following grounds:
-
In view of Section 10(9) of the Act 1996, no person who is more than sixty years of age can be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, thus Dr. Gopinath Ravindran could not have been reappointed as the Vice-Chancellor having crossed the age of sixty years.
-
The procedure prescribed in Section 10 of the Act 1996 ought to have been followed even at the time of reappointment.
The Single Judge rejected the petition. Thereafter, the Division bench dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Issues and Analysis:
-
Is reappointment permissible in respect of a tenure post?
The Court examined the word “Tenure” and said that it is derived from the Latin word tenere which means “to hold”. Further, it took note of L.P. Agarwal (Dr) v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 526 wherein it was held that “tenure post” is a post where the person appointed to it is entitled to continue in it, till his term is complete unless it is curtailed for justifiable reasons.
The Court said that the statute itself has provided for reappointment with some object in mind. The ordinary meaning that can be ascribed to the term “reappointment” is the act or process of deciding essentially that someone should continue in a particular job. Ordinarily, the object behind providing for reappointment is twofold. First is “retention” i.e., where the incumbent to the office/post during his term is found to be extraordinary and has established himself or herself to be an asset to the institution, then in such circumstance, such person is retained with a view to allow him to continue the same post for one more term. Secondly, having regard to the nature of the post the organization or institution may not be in a position to fill up the post in a time bound manner and in such circumstances, the provision for reappointment may enable the organization or institution to relieve itself of the tedium of going through the entire selection process afresh every time the post becomes vacant.
Thus, it held that reappointment is permissible even in case of a tenure post.
-
Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of Vice-chancellor as stipulated under Section 10(9) of the Act 1996 is to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor for one more term of four years?
After perusing Section 10(9) of the Act 1996, the Court noted that it provides the outer age limit for appointments. While Section 10(10) of the Act 1996 provides that upon appointment, the term of the Vice-Chancellor would be for four years and that he shall be eligible for reappointment. The proviso attached to sub-section 10 stipulates that no person shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor for more than two terms.
Further, the Bench noted that Sub-section (9) deals with a situation prior to or leading up to the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, whereas sub-section 10 contemplates a situation after the appointment of Vice-Chancellor has been made. This is discernible from a very fine but pertinent distinction between the language of the two provisions. Sub-section 9 uses the word “person”. This connotes that the Vice-Chancellor is yet to be appointed, whereas Sub-section (10) uses the word “Vice-Chancellor” which connotes that it is applicable to the incumbent holding the office of Vice-Chancellor.
Thus, the Court viewed that Section 10(9) of the Act 1996 will apply only at the stage of appointment of Vice-Chancellor and would have no application whatsoever when it comes to reappointment of Vice-Chancellor under Sub-section 10. This is reinforced from the words “shall be eligible for reappointment” occurring in Sub-section 10 which connotes that the same is enabling provision, whereby the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of holding his office is deemed eligible for reappointment irrespective of the other provisions.
Thus, the Court said that if Sub-section (9) is interpreted so as to be made applicable even to reappointment as provided in Sub-section (10), then the result would be that any person who is appointed as Vice-Chancellor at the age of fifty-six or more would not be eligible for reappointment, thereby rendering Sub-section (10) and its proviso completely otiose and meaningless in such cases. Further, Sub-section (9) does not say that a person shall hold office of Vice-chancellor till he attains the age of sixty years and rather uses the expression “no person who is more than sixty years of age shall be appointed as Vice-chancellor”.
While taking recourse to purposive construction for the purpose of giving full effect to the statutory provisions, the Court held that the outer age limit of sixty years provided in Section 10(9) of the Act 1996 will not apply, when it comes to reappointment under Section 10(10) of the Act 1996
-
Whether the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under Section 10(1) of the Act 1996?
The Bench noted that the legislature has not thought fit to prescribe any procedure or any mode or manner of reappointment. The University Grants Commission Regulations are also silent as regards the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor. Further, Section 10(10) of the Act 1996 is plain and simple. The provision does not confer the right to seek reappointment. Thus, a Vice-Chancellor once appointed, subject to the proviso to Section 10 (10), is eligible to be considered for reappointment. Reappointment essentially means the incumbent Vice-Chancellor will receive another term of four years if the Chancellor deems fit without reopening the position for new applications or without constituting a select committee. “Reappointment” is an act or process of being appointed again. Where the appointment is to be made for the first time or where the same person is being appointed as a Vice-Chancellor for the second time, but not in continuation of the first term, the procedure provided under Section 10 of the Act 1996 must be gone through. However, in the case of reappointment immediately upon the tenure of the first term coming to an end, there is no requirement to initiate the entire process of appointment as provided under Section 10 of the Act 1996.
The Court noted that Section 10(10) of the Act, 1996, provides for reappointment and does not even contain the words “subject to provisions of this section”. Thus, the legislature’s intention was to permit reappointment without following the ordinary process of appointment of Vice-Chancellor.
Therefore, the Court held that it is not necessary to follow the procedure of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of the Act 1996 for the purpose of reappointment.
-
Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor?
The Court noted that the State of Kerala issued a Notification inviting applications from eligible candidates. Suddenly, the Minister for Higher Education and Social Justice in his capacity as the Pro-Chancellor addressed a letter to the Chancellor recommending reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran for a second term as Vice-Chancellor. Thereafter, the notification inviting application from the eligible candidates was withdrawn. On the same day, the Minister addressed another letter to the Chancellor stating that Dr. Gopinath Ravindran be reappointed as Vice-Chancellor. On the very same day, the notification reappointing him as Vice-Chancellor was issued. Further, the opinion of the Advocate General was also sought in connection with reappointment.
The Court said that there was no independent application of mind or satisfaction or judgment on the part of the Chancellor and Dr. Gopinath Ravindran came to be reappointed only at the behest of the State Government. Further, it remarked that under the scheme of the Act 1996 and the statutes, the Chancellor plays a very important role. He is not merely a titular head. In the selection of the Vice-chancellor, he is the sole judge, and his opinion is final in all respects. In reappointing the Vice-Chancellor, the main consideration to prevail upon the Chancellor is the interest of the university.
The Court reiterated the principle of administrative law that, if a statute expressly confers a statutory power on a particular body or authority, then such power must be exercised, or duty performed by that very body or authority itself and no other. That body or authority cannot merely rubberstamp an action taken elsewhere or simply endorse or ratify the decision of someone else.
The Court said that 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. Law does not recognise any such extra constitutional interference in the exercise of statutory discretion. Any such interference amounts to dictation from political superior and has been condemned by courts on more than one occasion.
The Court said that although the notification reappointing Dr. Gopinath Ravindran to the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor, yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations, that is by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government. It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under the Act 1996 to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor. No other person even the Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority and if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on a suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. It is the decision-making process which vitiated the entire process of reappointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor.
[Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v Chancellor Kannur University, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592, decided on 30-11-2023]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice J.B. Pardiwala
