PROF (DR.) P.T. RAVEENDRAN Vs. KANNUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Pro Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the termination of his services ordered on the basis of the recommendation made by the Vice Chancellor consequent to retirement of the petitioner from the post of Professor on 30.04.2019, on superannuation. Exts.P6, P10 and P12 are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Pro Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University, as per Ext.P2 order, while he was working as Professor in the Department of Management of Studies in that University. He took charge on 27.03.2018, on his appointment made in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 7.1.0 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC Regulations, 2010'). The terms and conditions of his service were fixed as per Ext.P4 order dated 03.09.2018, fixing his pay at Rs.67,000/- with academic grade pay of Rs.10,000/- and special allowance of Rs.4,000/- per month. It further provided that in the event of his retirement on superannuation from the parent post during his tenure as Pro-Vice Chancellor, his pay should be refixed under Rule 100 of Part III KSR after deducting his pension. On attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from the post of Professor on 30.04.2019. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor-2nd respondent as per Ext.P5 note dated 03.05.2019 recommended to the syndicate for appointment of a new Pro-Vice Chancellor in the place of the petitioner, stating that petitioner did not meet the requirement of clause 7.1.1 of the UGC Regulation 2010, since he retired from the post of Professor. On consideration of that recommendation, the Syndicate as per Ext.P6 minutes, resolved to wait for the opinion of the Secretary to the Law Department, before proceeding further in the matter. Thereafter the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department as per Ext.P7 letter opined that the petitioner can continue despite his superannuation and made it clear that he can continue only for 4 years from the date on which he assumed charge. It is stated that the syndicate got opinion from the Standing Counsel of the University also which was also in tune with the opinion of the Government.

(3.) The 2nd respondent had requested for the opinion of the Chancellor also in the matter. The Chancellor considered the matter in the light of the provisions contained in Clause 7.1.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and the judgments of this Court in Dr.T. Asokan v. Chancellor and others [W.P.(C) No. 11058 of 2018] and in Dr. Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala [W.P.(C) No. 19796 of 2018]and found that it is a mandatory requirement under Clause 7.1 of the UGC Regulation that Pro-Vice Chancellor shall continue to be a whole time Professor during the coterminus period of his appointment. It was also found that the continuance of a Pro-Vice Chancellor depends on the pleasure of Vice Chancellor and it is the pre-rogative of the Vice Chancellor to recommend a new Vice Chancellor. Accordingly as per Ext.P8 letter of the Principal Secretary to Governor, issued as per the orders of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor was directed to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of UGC Regulations.