Order setting aside VC appointment in Kerala varsity: SC dismisses review petition
Dec 13, 2022
New Delhi [India], December 13 : The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by Dr Rajasree MS seeking a review of the judgment, setting aside her appointment as the vice-chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala.
"There is no substance in the review petition. The petition stands dismissed," a bench of justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar said in an order delivered recently.
In the judgment and order under review, this court made no observation on salary, emoluments and perquisites drawn by the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of review in the judgment and order on the aforesaid, the bench said.
So far as the claim of pension she would be entitled for the services rendered for about four years is concerned, once the appointment is held to be illegal and void ab initio, the services rendered cannot be considered/counted for the purpose of pension, the bench said.
Earlier, the top court had set aside the appointment of MS Rajasree as VC of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram after it allowed the appeal filed by Professor Sreejith PS, challenging Kerala High Court order dated August 2 2021.
Professor Sreejith PS had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the order dated August 2, 2021, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, dismissing his appeal and the review petition preferred by the appellant herein.
The order also confirmed the judgment and order passed by the single judge, refusing to issue writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent Rajasree as vice-chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
The top court noted that as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before the Visitor or Chancellor.
The court observed that in the present case, admittedly, the only name of respondent Rajasree was recommended to the Chancellor.
As per the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations as well, the Visitor or Chancellor shall appoint the VC out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.
Therefore, when only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not, the Chancellor had no option but to consider the names of the other candidates, the top court observed.
Therefore, the appointment of the respondent Rajasree can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations, as well as to the University Act, 2015, the top court had noted.
