A.V.GEORGE Vs. CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legality of the order of the Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University, removing the petitioner from the office of the Vice - Chancellor of the University, is the issue that comes up for consideration in this writ petition. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows;

(2.) THE office of the Vice -Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University having fallen vacant, proceedings were initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MGU Act') for appointing a new incumbent to the said office. As a first step in that direction, the Chancellor of the University issued a notification dated 26.11.2012 constituting a three member committee as contemplated in Section 10 of the MGU Act. The Chief Secretary of the State was the nominee of the Chancellor in the said committee and he was also to be the Convener of the committee. While the committee began to receive applications from interested candidates immediately after its constitution, pursuant to a meeting held by the members of the committee on 20.12.2012, it was decided by the committee to receive applications from interested candidates till 28.12.2012, before commencing the process of shortlisting of candidates for submission to the Chancellor. Thereafter, on 31.12.2012, the committee submitted two panels of names. Two members of the panel submitted a panel of three names and the other member submitted a separate panel of three names. From among the panel of names submitted by two members of the committee, the Chancellor appointed the petitioner as the Vice -Chancellor of the University vide Notification dated 05.01.2013.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent preferred a writ petition - W.P.(C).No.13317/2013 - in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation, challenging the appointment of the petitioner as the Vice - Chancellor of the University and praying inter alia for a direction to the Chancellor to hear and dispose the representations preferred by him before the Chancellor. Another writ petition - W.P.(C). No.24003/2013 - was also preferred by the 3rd respondent seeking a writ of quo warranto against the appointment of the petitioner as the Vice -Chancellor. Both the aforementioned writ petitions were disposed by this Court, by separate judgments dated 08.01.2014, finding that insofar as the Chancellor was seized of the matter regarding the validity of the appointment of the petitioner as Vice - Chancellor, the writ petitions were not maintainable before it. These judgments came to be passed because, while the writ petitions were pending, and based on interim orders passed therein, the Chancellor had caused Ext.P2 show cause notice to be issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation with regard to the findings in Ext.R3 (m) report as also the contents of the representations received by the Chancellor from the 3rd respondent.