Kerala Governor moves Supreme Court against Chief Minister Vijayan’s role in Kerala VC appointments

On Tuesday, Kerala Governor Rajendra Arlekar called on the high court of Prime Minister Pinarayi Vijaya from the vice -president of the University of Apj Abdul Kalam Technology and Kerala Digital University (VCS).

The governor, who is also the chancellor of the two state universities, said that neither the APJ Abdul Kalam University Law, nor the Kerala Digital University Law did not foresee a role for the Prime Minister in the election of VCS.

In addition, the Prime Minister’s involvement in the process, the university grants commission (UGC) will have a person who is banned by his own case, he said.

“The prime minister, the head of the state, is linked to the number of government colleges governed by the government and affiliated to the university. Therefore, according to the UGC regulations, there cannot be any role in the appointment of the vice president.” He said.

The application requested that the Supreme Court’s decision of the Supreme Court of 18 August to be appointed as the president of the search-cum election committees for the appointments of the former top court judge justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. Emir aimed to break the dilemma between the state government and the governor.

The August 18 order also allowed the members of the search panel to be taken from the names proposed by both the Kerala government and the chancellor.

Governor, Justice Dhulia’ya explained that he did not object, the state candidates opposed the inclusion of the panel.

The application requires that the UGC arrangements require the members of the search committee to be “distinguished people in the field of higher education and that they are not linked to the relevant university or their colleges”.

“The UGC regulations emphasize the independence and autonomy of universities by excluding any role in the state government. The Law of the State Universities also consider the independence and autonomy of the two universities in the current case. Both university actions do not give any role for the election and appointment of the governors”.

The governor also made a separate application seeking a judicial aspect to implement the UGC in the case. He said there was a compulsory requirement to include the UGC presidential candidate on the search panels. The Supreme Court has decided that VC appointments should definitely follow the UGC regulations of 2018.

Regulations predict that the list of the names of potential VC candidates should be placed in front of the chancellery by the search committee. Neither the state nor the Prime Minister said that the application has no role in concluding the name.

“According to the UGC arrangements, Chancellor has the privilege of choosing the chancellor from the list presented by the search committee,” he said.

The governor argued that the list provided by the committee should not be a “rank list, because he argued that this would violate the appreciation of the chancellery. Instead, the panel should leave the last election to the chancellor and provide three to five names deemed appropriate.

The application also suggested that the Chancellor was also the governor of the state, while the VC appointments were not expected to move on the advice of the cabinet. He referred to the past Supreme Supreme Court’s decisions, “Any decision taken by the order of any authority that has no role to play according to the regulation is bad and is enough to declare the evacuation of the decision”.