Case Details Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. vs The Chancellor Kannur University & Ors.

Held: Reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has been provided under subsection (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 – The proviso to sub-section (10) of the Act 1996 further makes the intention of the legislature to provide for reappointment more clear – The legislature has not thought fit to prescribe any particular procedure or any particular mode or manner of reappointment – The UGC Regulations are also silent as regards the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor – In the case at hand, sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act, 1996, provides for reappointment and does not even contain the words “subject to provisions of this section” – This is as good as to reflect the legislature’s intention of permitting reappointment without following the ordinary process of appointment of Vice-Chancellor – Thus, 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. [Paras 58, 65, 66] Kannur University Act, 1996 – s. 10(9) and s.10(10) – Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

Held: The facts make it abundantly clear that there was no independent application of mind or satisfaction or judgment on the part of the Chancellor and the respondent No. 4 came to be reappointed only at the behest of the State Government – Although the notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 to the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations or to put it in other words 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 – Thus, it is the decision-making process, which vitiated the entire process of reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor – The decision making process because in such a case the exercise of power is amenable to judicial review – As a consequence, the notification dated 23.11.2021, reappointing the respondent no.4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University is quashed. [Paras 81,84, 85,86,87,90]

Words and Phrases – ‘Tenure’ and ‘Tenure post’ – Discussed. Interpretation of Statutes – Doctrine/Principle – Doctrine of Purposive construction:

Held: The doctrine of purposive construction may be taken recourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to the statutory provisions, and the courts must state what meaning the statute should bear, rather than rendering the statute a nullity, as statutes are meant to be operative and not inept. The courts must refrain from declaring a statute to be unworkable – The rules of interpretation require that construction which carries forward the objectives of the statute, protects interest of the parties and keeps the remedy alive, should be preferred looking into the text and context of the statute – Construction given by the court must promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and not efface its very purpose – The courts strongly lean against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to futility – The provision of the statute must be so construed as to make it effective and operative – The court must take a pragmatic view and must keep in mind the purpose for which the statute was enacted as the purpose of law itself provides good guidance to courts as they interpret the true meaning of the Act and thus legislative futility must be ruled out. [Para 56]

Administrative Law – Principle:

Held: It is a well settled principle of administrative law that if a statute expressly confers a statutory power on a particular body or authority or imposes a statutory duty on the same, then such power must be exercised or duty performed (as the case may) by that very body or authority itself and none other – If the body or authority exercises the statutory power or performs the statutory duty acting at the behest, or on the dictate, of any other body or person, then this is regarded as an abdication of the statutory mandate and any decision taken on such basis is contrary to law and liable to be quashed – It is important to keep in mind that, in law, it matters not that the extraneous element is introduced (i.e., the advice, recommendation, approval, etc. of the person not empowered by the statute is obtained or given) in good faith or for the advancement of any goal or objection howsoever laudable or desirable – The rule of law requires that a statutory power vests in the body or authority where the statute so provides, and likewise, the discharge of the statutory duty is the responsibility of the body or authority to which it is entrusted – That body or authority cannot merely rubberstamp an action taken elsewhere or simply endorse or ratify the decision of someone else. [Para 71]

Writ – Writ of Quo Warranto:

Held: Quo warranto is a remedy or procedure whereby the State inquires into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to an office or franchise, and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim be not well founded, or to have the same declared forfeited and recover it, if, having once been rightfully possessed and enjoyed; it has become forfeited for mis-user or non-user – It is now well settled that a writ of quo warranto lies if any appointment to a public office is made in breach of the statute or the rules – In the case on hand, this Court is not concerned with the suitability of the respondent No. 4 – The “suitability” of a candidate for appointment to a post is to be judged by the appointing authority and not by the court unless the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules/provisions. [Paras 30, 84]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr, [1964] 4 SCR 575 – followed.

High Court of Gujarat and Another v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Ors, [2003] 2 SCR 799: (2003) 4 SCC 712; B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn, [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 462:(2006) 11 SCC 731; Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors., [2013] 14 SCR 621: (2014) 1 SCC 161; J.S. Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2011] 5 SCR 460: (2011) 6 SCC 570; Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, (2004) 2 SCC 590: [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 526; Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 843:(2004) 8 SCC 524; Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (ALPAI) and Others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Others, [2011] 5 SCR 1019: (2011) 5 SCC 435 – relied on.

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365 :(1981) Supp SCC 87:; State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1382; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, [1992] 1 SCR 917 :(1992) Supp (2) SCC 351; Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179; Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473; Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, [1992] 3 SCR 567: (1992) 3 SCC 526; Dept. of Commerce v. US House of Representatives, 1999 SCC OnLine US SC 10; State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, [1961] 2 SCR 679; Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1959] SCR 12; U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd., (2009) 6 SCC 235: [2009] 3 SCR 1060; Udai Singh Dagar v. Union of India, (2007) 10 SCC 306: [2007] 6 SCR 707; State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, [1981] 2 SCR 742: (1981) 2 SCC 205; Hotel Balaji v. State of A.P., [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 182: 1993 Supp (4) SCC 536; Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, [2015] 14 SCR 1037:(2016) 3 SCC 183; State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah, [1967] 2 SCR 361; Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101: [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 929; State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., [1991] 3 SCR 64; B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another (2001) 7 SCC 231: [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 191; Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 162: [2018] 3 SCR 137; P. Venugopal v. Union of India,[2008] 8 SCR 1; M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa [1961] 2 SCR 295; S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta [1987] 1 SCR 411; RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., [1987] 2 SCR 1; Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, [1989] 2 SCR 544 :(1989) 3 SCC 709:; UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2008) 5 SCC 257: [2008] 5 SCR 775; Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys, [2010] 10 SCR 779:(2011) 11 SCC 334; Bhuri Nath and Others v. State of J&K and Others, [1997] 1 SCR 138: (1997) 2 SCC 745 – referred to. Hardwari Lal, Rohtak v. G.D. Tapase, Chandigarh and others, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 439 – referred to.

Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 1 WLR 1155 : (1982) 3 All ER 141 (HL) - referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES