Kochi, Dec 15 (PTI) The Kerala High Court on Wednesday said there was no violation of any statutory provision in the re-appointment of Gopinathan Ravindran as the Vice Chancellor (VC) of Kannur University.

Also Read | Bengaluru: 33-Year-Old Medical Student Arrested for Sexually Harassing Woman, Daughter in Hebbal.

Justice Amit Rawal said that re-appointment was different from appointment and the procedure adopted for the latter need not be followed when re-appointing someone.

Also Read | Pilgrims to Kartarpur Gurdwara Darbar Sahib Can Carry Up to Rs 11,000: RBI.

"The expression 'appointment' and 're-appointment' have different connotation; for undergoing the re-appointment the qualifications are prescribed under clause 7.3 of the UGC regulations ibid and there is no age bar and for reappointment, criteria of age would not be applicable," the court said.

The observations of the court came while dismissing a plea moved by a member each from the varsity's Senate and Academic Council seeking quashing of the November 23 notification by which Ravindran was re-appointed as the VC.

One of the reasons given by them for quashing the re-appointment was that a person can hold office of VC only till the age of 60 years and Ravindran, born on December 19, 1960, was over age at the time of his second appointment.

The petitioners had also contended that after the expiry of the four year term of a VC, there was no clause for extension and the only option was appointment.

The high court rejected the contentions and said while there was no doubt that for appointment the entire procedure prescribed under section 10 of the Kannur University Act, 1996, has to be followed, for re-appointment there was no need to undertake the same task.

"No doubt, for appointment, the entire procedure prescribed undersection 10 (of the Act) is to be followed. At the time of the initial appointment, in the year 2007, all the parameters were considered for appointment as per the procedure laid down therein.."

"..but for re-appointment as per proviso to sub-section(10), there is no requirement for undertaking the task of constitution of a Selection Committee as was done during the initial appointment," the court said.

The court also said that according to the submissions before it, "there has not been any incident or lack of integrity, transparency as provided in the UGC regulations".

"It cannot be said that there was any violation of the statutory provisions for reconsideration for the purpose of re-appointment, thus, in such circumstances, writ of quo warranto cannot be issued," it added.

The court also dismissed an application, filed as part of the petition, seeking calling of the records with regard to re-appointment of the VC in light of the recent letter written by the Chancellor to the CM.

"I am afraid that the aforementioned roving enquiry in a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India particularly quo warranto cannot be entertained by invoking the powers as prescribed under Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

"The prayer in the application is rejected. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed," Justice Rawal said.

Welcoming the decision, Ravindran told reporters that such things (re-appointments) happen regularly in other varsities, but here it was politicized.

"I had said earlier also that there was nothing wrong with regard to my re-appointment and the high court has upheld it," he said and added that being the VC he has nothing to say against the Chancellor publicly or via the media.

State Minister for Higher Education R Bindu, facing flak from the Congress-led UDF opposition over alleged interference in the appointment of the VC of Kannur University, also welcomed the high court decision.

She said the high court has not found anything wrong with the re-appointment of the VC.

The minister also said that communications between the Governor and the government and the Chancellor and the Pro-Chancellor are not to be discussed with the media.

Leader of Opposition in the state assembly V D Satheesan said that the high court dismissed the petition as it was filed prior to the ongoing controversy resulting from the Governor's letter to the CM.

He said that the new circumstances would be considered by the division bench when an appeal is moved against the judgement.

Satheesan alleged that Kannur varsity's VC appointment was an example of blatant political intervention.

He further alleged that vacancies in universities were being reserved for family members of CPI(M) members and their favourites were being pushed into academic committees.

He said the opposition will go ahead with its protests demanding resignation of the state's Higher Education Minister.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)