Kerala VC Appointments Row intensifies as Governor approaches the Supreme Court, arguing that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan cannot play any role in the selection of Vice Chancellors, citing UGC Regulations that completely bar executive interference in appointments.
Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar requested the Supreme Court to exclude Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan from the selection process for Vice Chancellors (VCs) at the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the Kerala Digital University.
As Chancellor of these two state-run universities, the Governor emphasized that neither the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act nor the Kerala Digital University Act provides for the Chief Minister’s involvement in VC selection.
He expressed that the Chief Minister’s participation could lead to a conflict of interest, as it would be akin to a person judging their own case, which is prohibited by University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations.
The Governor stated in an application submitted in his role as Chancellor,
“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 application seeks to modify aspects of the Supreme Court’s August 18 order, which appointed former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia as chairperson of the search-cum-selection committees for these appointments.
This order aimed to resolve the ongoing conflict between the State government and the Governor regarding the matter.
Also Read: Delhi University Vice-Chancellor Rejects Proposal to Include Manusmriti in Law Courses
The August 18 ruling also allowed for members of the search panel to be nominated from suggestions made by both the Kerala government and the Chancellor. While the Governor has no objections to Justice Dhulia’s appointment, he opposes the inclusion of State nominees on the panel.
According to the application, UGC Regulations require that search committee members be “persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and not connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges.”
The Governor argued that these regulations underscore the independence and autonomy of universities by excluding any governmental role in the process. He pointed out that both University Acts do not stipulate any involvement from the Minister or the Chief Minister in the selection and appointment of VCs.
Additionally, the Governor filed a separate application requesting a judicial direction to include the UGC in the case, citing the necessity of having a nominee from the UGC chairperson in the search panels. He noted that the Supreme Court had previously determined that VC appointments must adhere strictly to UGC Regulations from 2018.
These regulations specify that the search committee should present a list of potential VC candidates to the Chancellor. The application stated that neither the State nor the Chief Minister has any role in finalizing this list.
It asserted,
“As per UGC Regulations the Chancellor is having the prerogative to select the Vice Chancellor from the list submitted by the search Committee,”
The Governor contended that the list should not be a “rank list” of candidates, as this would undermine the discretion granted to the Chancellor.
Instead, the panel should provide three to five names deemed suitable, leaving the final selection to the Chancellor.
Furthermore, the application argued that although the Chancellor also serves as the Governor of the State, he is not obligated to act on the Cabinet’s advice regarding VC appointments. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, it stated that any decision made “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.”