|
Amid continuous deadlock, Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar on Sunday criticised the Supreme Court's order asking the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Committee to give the names for the Vice Chancellors of the University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology and ABJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
The apex court, in an order on December 11, noted that a deadlock persists to date despite the court's efforts. The court ordered the Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia Committee to provide, in sealed covers, the names in order of preference for each university and to submit a report on the Chief Minister's letter and the Vice-Chancellor's reply. Governor Arlekar alleged that the Supreme Court ignored its own provisions set in the Kannur University Vice Chancellor judgment. He said, "Here in our Kerala, University matters are always being discussed everywhere. Everybody knows what the Kannur judgement was. It honours that UGC has its right, and it honours the Chancellor in its own right to select the vice chancellors. But after some time, the very same provisions are being ignored by the judges, by the Supreme Court. The court appoints a search committee for what? Search committee is to be appointed by the Chancellor." He argued that the University Chancellor should appoint the search committee and not the apex court. "The Kannur judgement accepted this, but later on, the judges said no, a search committee will be appointed by us, you have to follow this. Even if the Act in Kerala, the University Act says that it is to be appointed and done by the chancellor, the court says no, we will do it. Even UGC says it is to be done by the chancellor, but the court says no, we will do it. This train itself is not correct. Taking all the tasks of everybody in every institution and being done by the courts is not correct," the Kerala Governor said. The Supreme Court dealt with the question of a search cum selection committee to be appointed to select a Vice Chancellor, and in conclusion, the apex court in the Kannur University judgement noted that the Chancellor has been conferred with the competence to appoint or reappoint a Vice-Chancellor. No other person, even the Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority, and if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on a suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. However, the court also emphasised the decision-making process because in such a case, the exercise of power is amenable to judicial review, the 2023 judgement said. (ANI)
|
