On November 3, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan took to Twitter to share the notification issued by Raj Bhavan about the appointment of Professor Dr Ciza Thomas as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University in Thiruvananthapuram. Further, the Governor has appointed Thomas, who is the senior joint director of the Directorate of Technical Education. This is additional to her normal duties till further orders.
The notice issued read, "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 7 of Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (Act 17 of 2015), read with clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Chancellor of the University is pleased to order that pending the appointment of a regular Vice-Chancellor in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Prof (Dr) Ciza Thomas, Senior Joint Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram, shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University with immediate effect, in addition to her normal duties, until further orders."
It was on October 21 that the apex court set aside the appointment of MS Rajasree as VC of the university. A Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar allowed the appeal filed by Professor Sreejith PS. challenging the Kerala High Court order dated August 2, 2021, as stated in a report by ANI.
What happened then?
An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court by Professor Sreejith PS challenging the High Court order dated 02.08.2021. The Division Bench of HC dismissed his appeal and the review petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent Rajasree as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram.
Additionally, the court noted that even as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before the Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case, admittedly only the name of respondent Rajasree was recommended to the Chancellor, the court observed. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent Rajasree can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015, the top court noted.
