he Supreme Courtroom on Friday quashed the appointment of the vice chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College in Thiruvananthapuram, terming it dangerous in regulation and opposite to UGC laws.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar mentioned, as per College Grants Fee, the search committee constituted by the state ought to have advisable a panel of not lower than three appropriate individuals amongst eminent folks within the discipline of engineering science to the chancellor however as a substitute it despatched solely the title of Dr Rajasree M.S.
“The writ petition is allowed. There shall be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent No. 1 (Dr Rajasree MS) as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological College, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and put aside,” it mentioned.
The bench mentioned the impugned judgment and order handed by the division bench of the excessive court docket and the only choose dismissing the writ petition and refusing to challenge the writ of quo warranto (a writ or authorized motion requiring an individual to indicate by what warrant an workplace is held) declaring the appointment as dangerous in regulation and/or unlawful and void ab initio are hereby quashed and put aside.
The highest court docket mentioned it’s required to be famous that at the same time as per Part 13(4) of the College Act, 2015 the Committee shall advocate unanimously a panel of not lower than three appropriate individuals from amongst the eminent individuals within the discipline of engineering sciences, which shall be positioned earlier than the Customer/Chancellor.
“Within the current case, admittedly the one title of respondent No. 1 was advisable to the Chancellor. As per the UGC Rules additionally, the Customer/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names advisable by the Search Committee.
“Subsequently, when just one title was advisable and the panel of names was not advisable, the Chancellor had no choice to think about the names of the opposite candidates,” the court docket mentioned.