Kerala High Court upholds appointment of Prof. H Venkateshwarlu as Vice Chancellor of Central University of Kerala

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday upheld the appointment of Prof. H Venkateshwarlu as Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Kerala [Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal v Union of India & Ors.].A division bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman dismissed petitions that challenged Venkateshwarlu's appointment alleging that the Central government had interfered in the decision making process of the Visitor, who, in this case, was the President of India."The 3rd respondent (Venkateshwarlu) has been appointed as Vice Chancellor, by the Visitor, the competent authority, as per the statutory provisions and is holding office with legal authority and there is no usurpation in office by the 3rd respondent. He has the necessary qualification and eligibility for the post. This Court will not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Visitor in the choice of the person to be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor," the judgment stated..The Court's judgment was passed on three petitions which sought to quash the appointment of Venkateshwarlu as VC of the Central University of Kerala (the University). One petition was a PIL (public interest litigation) moved by a former Guest Faculty at the Central University, Uttarakhand. The other two petitions were moved by persons who were candidates for selection to the post of VC in the University and were shortlisted for personal interaction with the search cum selection committee..The Central government's Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education had issued a notification in June 2019 inviting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor to the University.223 persons applied for the post out of whom 16 were shortlisted. Venkateshwarlu was not shortlisted at this stage but the second and third petitioners were. After personal interaction, the search cum selection committee recommended a panel of 5 candidates but the ministry, after scrutinizing the same, found that there was no suitable candidate in the panel. Therefore, it recommended the Visitor (the President) to reject the panel and asked the committee to recommend a fresh panel of 5 eminent academicians.The Visitor approved the proposal of the ministry and after the process was repeated and a panel of 5 candidates was submitted by the committee. Thereafter, the Vistor appointed Venkateshwarlu who was included in this fresh list. .The primary contention of the petitioners was that the Visitor had merely accepted the recommendation of the ministry even though as per the Central Universities Act, 2009 and the statutes, the Visitor is not bound by the advice of the ministry and cannot act upon the dictates of the officials in the ministry. Moreover, it was argued that the Visitor ought not to have rejected the first panel based on the summary note of the ministry which contained disparaging remarks about the candidates..Deputy Solicitor General of India S Manu, appearing for the respondent-Central government, submitted that the ministry's note, which contained full assessments of the candidates, was made to help the Visitor in the decision-making process and does not amount to interfering with the selection process. It was contended that the ministry, by the said process, had only aided the Visitor in discharging his duties for selection and appointment of the Vice Chancellor.Moreover, assisting the Visitor in matters of appointments to universities is the responsibility of the ministry, the DSGI argued..While considering this case, the Court called all the files pertaining to the selection and appointment of Venkteshwarlu which the DSGI duly submitted. On going through the same, the Court was satisfied that the appointment of Venkateshwarlu as VC was done as per the provisions of the Central Universities Act, 2009 and the Statutes.Accordingly, it dismissed the petitions..Advocates Jayasree KP and T Sanjay appeared for the petitioners.Apart from DSGI S Manu, the other respondents were represented by Senior Advocate K Ramakumar and advocates S Krishna Moorthy, SP Aravindakshan Pillai, and Tek Chand V..[Read Judgment]