DR. VINODKUMAR JACOB Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this writ petition are; to call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari; to issue any other such writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary to meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and to award the costs of this case to the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner is a member of the Syndicate of the 3rd respondent University. The Vice Chancellor (1st respondent) convened a meeting of the Syndicate to consider various issues included in the 63rd agenda of the meeting of the Syndicate. This Court, as per its judgment in W.P.(C) No.39062/2023, had ordered finalisation of disciplinary proceedings by the Syndicate against one of the employees of the University. The time granted by this Court had expired on 7/10/2024. Even though the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and the Sub Committee had submitted its recommendation regarding the penalty, the matter has not been finalised due to the delay in convening the meeting of the Syndicate. In the agenda for the 63rd meeting, this matter was not included. One of the members of the Syndicate mentioned this matter at the meeting and requested inclusion of this item in the agenda. Most of the members present in the meeting supported this suggestion. However, the 1st respondent refused to entertain the request and declared that the meeting was closed, even without considering any of the items on the agenda.

(3.) A majority of the members present objected to the action of the 1st respondent. After electing one of the members of the Syndicate to preside, the members continued with the meeting in the absence of the 1st respondent, and transacted the business included in the agenda. The 1st respondent, however, passed an order annulling the decision of the Syndicate. The writ petition is filed in the above circumstances. It is contended that there is no provision either under the University Act or the Statute framed thereunder enabling the 1st respondent to annul any decision of the Syndicate. Reliance is placed on Statute 10 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University First Statutes, 2020, ('First Statutes' for short) which provides that the Syndicate, in its discretion, can consider and discuss any issue brought to its notice. It is contended that the powers conferred on the 1st respondent under Sec. 14 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 ('the Act' for short) do not contain any power to annul any of the decisions of the Syndicate and that such power is reserved to be exercised by the Chancellor alone. It is contended that Chapter III sub-statute 1.3, enables the Syndicate to proceed with any transaction included in the agenda by electing one of the members as a Chairperson in the absence of the 1st respondent. It is submitted that it is in exercise of this power that the Syndicate decided to proceed with the 63rd meeting of the Syndicate.