ASHOK Vs. CHANCELLOR KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, an IAS Officer in the Kerala Cadre, was sent on deputation to the Central Government in July, 2006 for a period of five years. However, before completion of his deputation-tenure with the Central Government, he was considered for appointment as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, which is a new University set up in 2010 under the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). Among the three candidates considered for selection, the appellant came out successfully probably because besides the IAS, he holds a bachelor degree in Veterinary Sciences and Animal Husbandry and has also experience as Director of Animal Husbandry in Government of India. On being selected for appointment as the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the appellant's deputation was prematurely cancelled by the Central Government at his request and he was repatriated to the State cadre. On repatriation from the Central Government, the Government of Kerala vide Ext. P1 order dated 10/12/2010 placed the service of the appellant at the disposal of Animal Husbandry Department for being appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the new University. The Governor of the State as the Chancellor of the University issued Ext. P2 notification on 29/12/2010 appointing the appellant as the Vice-Chancellor of the University for a period of five years from the date on which he joins the Office. The appellant as the first Vice-Chancellor of the University appeared to the Chancellor to be the right man to give a good start to the University, which is reflected in the remarks made by the Chancellor in the appraisal report for the period from 03/01/2011 to 31/08/2011, produced as Ext. P7, wherein the Chancellor's remarks is as follows:

(2.) At the outset towards proof of the real reason for Appellant's removal from Vice-Chancellor's post, the Senior counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the developments subsequent to the appellant's release from Vice-Chancellor's position by producing disciplinary proceedings initiated wide Annexure-I dated 09/12/2011 enclosing therewith the articles of charges leveled against the appellant on 18/11/2011 based on Ext. P6 article written by him in the newspaper. The specific case canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Annexure I issued subsequent to the appellant's release from service should be considered by this Court as the real reason for Appellant's removal and to fortify this he has also relied on Ext. P13, by which the Indian Express in their publication dated 07/11/2011 reported the Chief Secretary's statement that the State Cabinet was not happy with the article written by the appellant which led to the decision to remove him from the position of the Vice-Chancellor of the new University.

(3.) We have to necessarily consider the legality of the impugned orders with reference to the statutory provisions under which the same are issued. Section 12 of the Act provides the procedure for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, his conditions of service, procedure for removal etc. For easy reference we extract hereunder Section 12 of the Act.