IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24164 of 2009(S)
1. DR.N.PRASANTHA KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA
3. THE PRO CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA
4. DR.J.PRASAD, VICE CHANCELLOR,
5. PROF.ASOK KUMAR KALIA, VICE CHANCELLOR,
6. SRI.V.N.VASAVAN, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE
7. SRI.P.J.THOMAS, FOREMER CHIEF SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,SC,SANKARACHA.UTY
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.24164 of 2009 &
W.P.(C) No.25427 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.
Challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as
the Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of
Sanskrit these two public interest litigations have been filed.
2. The main thrust of argument is alleged violation
of Section 24 of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit
Act, 1994 (‘the Act’ for short). It is vehemently contended by
the learned counsel that though a selection committee was
constituted as required under the said provision, they did not
meet or recommend any candidate and as such without their
meeting or recommendation the unilateral act of the
Chancellor/Governor is illegal and in violation of the provisions
contained in the Act.
WP(C) 24164 & 25427/2009
– 2 –
3. In our view, the very provision itself is the answer
to the argument of the learned counsel. Under Section 24 (3) of
the Act, a procedure is prescribed for appointment of Vice
Chancellor to the said University by constituting a committee
and on the recommendations of the committee the Chancellor
has to appoint the appropriate candidate. Taking into
consideration the usual delays, a restriction of 60 days
limitation is fixed for the recommendations by the said
committee. No doubt, in the present case the committee was
constituted by the Chancellor as long back as in July 17, 2008
and as per Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.25427 of 2009, it was made
clear that the committee shall make its recommendations within
sixty days from the date of the notification along with the bio
data of the person or persons to be recommended. Admittedly,
the selection committee, though constituted, has not made any
recommendations and as such, having no other option, the Pro
Chancellor as per the note Ext.P2, recommended the names of
WP(C) 24164 & 25427/2009
– 3 –
three persons including the 4th respondent along with the bio
data, and amongst these persons, the Chancellor has appointed
the 4th respondent as Vice Chancellor. Whatever may be the
reasons for non-meeting or non-recommendations by the
selection committee, once the limitation period of sixty days is
over, it is open to the Chancellor to appoint a suitable person on
the advice of the Governor as per Section 24(3)(e) of the Act
and hence we find no reason to interfere with the impugned
order of appointment.
4. Moreover, these writ petitions are also barred by
delay and laches inasmuch as, as per the notification dated 9th
December, 2008 itself, the Vice Chancellor has assumed his
office and after a lapse of nearly ten months these two
petitioners have approached this Court in the present public
interest litigations. There is no cause shown for such delay and
laches. Even on this count also, the writ petitions are devoid of
merits. It is also to be noted that there is no allegation of
WP(C) 24164 & 25427/2009
– 4 –
personal bias or mala fides against the Pro Chancellor or the
Governor.
In this view of the matter, we find no merit in these
writ petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
A.K. Basheer,
Judge
vns/vgs