P VIJAYAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was originally appointed as Director of National Maritime Academy, Chennai on 28.05.2008. Subsequently, the Indian Maritime University, an University established by the Indian Maritime University Act, 2008 (Act 22 of 2008) came into force from 14.11.2008 in which the petitioner was appointed as Vice-Chancellor on 20.11.2008. As per the order of appointment, the petitioner shall continue as Vice-Chancellor for a period of three years. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the second respondent, by which, the third respondent was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Indian Maritime University (in short IMU), Chennai in the place of the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 18.11.2011 of the second respondent, the third respondent was ordered to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor of IMU with effect from 19.11.2011 (a/n) in addition to his existing duties till further orders in the place of the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order passed by the second respondent, appointing the third respondent as Vice Chancellor of IMU, is without jurisdiction as the Visitor alone is empowered to appoint a Vice Chancellor of IMU. THErefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent has no right or authority, either under the Act or under the Statute, to appoint the third respondent as Vice-Chancellor. THE learned Senior counsel would further contend that the petitioner has not handed over the charge and the third respondent has only taken assumed charge, therefore, the third respondent cannot be construed as Vice-Chancellor of IMU. THE petitioner continued to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor because, as per the Act and the statute, the incumbent is entitled to continue to hold the post till a successor is duly appointed. As per the proviso to Section 2 (4) of THE Indian Maritime University Act ? 2008 (Act 22 of 2008) hereinafter called as 'THE Act", the petitioner is entitled to continue in the office until his successor is appointed. As per the proviso to Section 2 (4) of the Act, the Visitor may direct any Vice-Chancellor after his term has expired, to continue in office for such period, not exceeding a total period of one year, as may be specified by him. THErefore, the continuance of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor is in accordance with the statute.

(3.) THE learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the petitioner himself relinquished the post of Vice Chancellor as early as on 19.11.2011 after expiry of three years period. In fact, on 23.11.2011, the petitioner himself has written a letter to the second respondent accepting the order of the second respondent dated 18.11.2011 appointing the third respondent as Vice-Chancellor pursuant to expiry of his tenure. Further, in the very same letter dated 23.11.2011, it is clearly admitted by the petitioner himself that he has taken charge of the post of Director after expiry of his tenure as Vice Chancellor and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, suppressing the letter dated 23.11.2011, is fatal to the case of the petitioner. THE petitioner has obtained interim order without disclosing the true particulars to this Court. THE third respondent had already assumed office on 19.11.2011 and the petitioner also allowed this position to continue for a period of one month, thereafter, the present writ petition has been belatedly filed by the petitioner, that too in the Vacation Court and obtained interim order. Pursuant to obtaining interim order, the petitioner obstructed the discharge of functions by the third respondent, hence, the interim stay has to be vacated.