# CASE DETAILS DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR v. THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY & ORS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 1032
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-11-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7700 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-dr-premachandran-keezhoth-anr-v-the-chancellor-kannur-university-37173
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: The respondent No. 4 herein was appointed
as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University, his tenure was for a
period four years. As the tenure of the respondent No. 4 was coming to an
end, the Chancellor initiated steps for selection and appointment of a new
Vice-Chancellor. The Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, State
of Kerala issued notifi cation inviting applications from eligible candidates.
However, the respondent no. 4 herein was re-appointed as Vice-Chancellor
of the Kannur University after the Minister for Higher Education and Social
Justice addressed a letter to the Governor/Chancellor dated 22.11.2021
recommending re-appointment of the respondent No. 4 herein for a second
term. (i) Whether re-appointment is permissible in respect of a tenure
post; (ii) Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of
Vice-Chancellor as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the
Kannur University Act, 1996 is to be made applicable even in the case of
re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor for one more term of four years (iii)
Whether the re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same
process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under
Section 10(1) of the Act 1996 (iv) Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender
his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
Kannur University Act, 1996 - s. 10(9) and s.10(10) - Whether
reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post:
Held: The ordinary meaning that can be ascribed to the term
"reappointment" is the act or process of deciding essentially that someone
should continue in a particular job - Ordinarily, the object behind providing
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
for reappointment is twofold - First is "retention" i.e., where the incumbent
to the offi ce/post during his term is found to be extraordinary and has
established himself or herself to be an asset to the institution, then in such
circumstance, such person is retained with a view to allow him to continue
on the same post for one more term - Secondly, having regard to the nature
of the post the organization or institution may not be in a position to fi ll up
the post in a time bound manner and in such circumstances, the provision
for reappointment may enable the organization or institution to relieve itself
of the tedium of going through the entire selection process afresh every time
the post becomes vacant - Therefore, the reappointment is permissible even
in case of a tenure post. [Paras 46 and 47]
Kannur University Act, 1996 - s. 10(9) and s.10(10) - Whether the
outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor
as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act, 1996 is
to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the ViceChancellor for one more term of four years.
Held: On a plain reading of sub-section (9) of Section 10 of
the Act 1996, it appears that the person sought to be appointed as a
Vice-Chancellor must not be more than sixty-years of age at the time
of appointment i.e., it provides the outer age limit for appointment -
While sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 provides that upon
appointment, the term of the Vice-Chancellor would be for four years
and that he shall be eligible for reappointment - The proviso attached
to sub-section (10) stipulates that no person shall be appointed as ViceChancellor for more than two terms - Sub-section (9) of Section 10
of the Act 1996 will apply only at the stage of appointment of ViceChancellor and would have no application whatsoever when it comes
to reappointment of Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (10) - This is
reinforced from the words "shall be eligible for reappointment" occurring
in sub-section (10) which connotes that the same is an enabling provision
whereby the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of holding his offi ce is deemed
eligible for reappointment irrespective of the other provisions - If

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 126,158. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 377 : 2023 INSC 1032
377
CASE DETAILS
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR.
v.
THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7700 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The respondent No. 4 herein was appointed
as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University, his tenure was for a
period four years. As the tenure of the respondent No. 4 was coming to an
end, the Chancellor initiated steps for selection and appointment of a new
Vice-Chancellor. The Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, State
of Kerala issued notifi cation inviting applications from eligible candidates.
However, the respondent no. 4 herein was re-appointed as Vice-Chancellor
of the Kannur University after the Minister for Higher Education and Social
Justice addressed a letter to the Governor/Chancellor dated 22.11.2021
recommending re-appointment of the respondent No. 4 herein for a second
term. (i) Whether re-appointment is permissible in respect of a tenure
post; (ii) Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of
Vice-Chancellor as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the
Kannur University Act, 1996 is to be made applicable even in the case of
re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor for one more term of four years (iii)
Whether the re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same
process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under
Section 10(1) of the Act 1996 (iv) Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender
his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
Kannur University Act, 1996 - s. 10(9) and s.10(10) - Whether
reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post:
Held: The ordinary meaning that can be ascribed to the term
"reappointment" is the act or process of deciding essentially that someone
should continue in a particular job - Ordinarily, the object behind providing
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
for reappointment is twofold - First is "retention" i.e., where the incumbent
to the offi ce/post during his term is found to be extraordinary and has
established himself or herself to be an asset to the institution, then in such
circumstance, such person is retained with a view to allow him to continue
on the same post for one more term - Secondly, having regard to the nature
of the post the organization or institution may not be in a position to fi ll up
the post in a time bound manner and in such circumstances, the provision
for reappointment may enable the organization or institution to relieve itself
of the tedium of going through the entire selection process afresh every time
the post becomes vacant - Therefore, the reappointment is permissible even
in case of a tenure post. [Paras 46 and 47]
Kannur University Act, 1996 - s. 10(9) and s.10(10) - Whether the
outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor
as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act, 1996 is
to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the ViceChancellor for one more term of four years.
Held: On a plain reading of sub-section (9) of Section 10 of
the Act 1996, it appears that the person sought to be appointed as a
Vice-Chancellor must not be more than sixty-years of age at the time
of appointment i.e., it provides the outer age limit for appointment -
While sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 provides that upon
appointment, the term of the Vice-Chancellor would be for four years
and that he shall be eligible for reappointment - The proviso attached
to sub-section (10) stipulates that no person shall be appointed as ViceChancellor for more than two terms - Sub-section (9) of Section 10
of the Act 1996 will apply only at the stage of appointment of ViceChancellor and would have no application whatsoever when it comes
to reappointment of Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (10) - This is
reinforced from the words "shall be eligible for reappointment" occurring
in sub-section (10) which connotes that the same is an enabling provision
whereby the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of holding his offi ce is deemed
eligible for reappointment irrespective of the other provisions - If
the outer age limit provided in sub-section (9) would apply even to
reappointment, then the same would eff ectively mean that only those
persons who are appointed as Vice-Chancellor at the age of fi fty-fi ve or
below could be considered for reappointment - Such an interpretation
would result in conditions being read into sub-section (10) which have
379
not been prescribed by the legislature - Had the intent of legislature
been otherwise, sub-section (10) or the words "shall be eligible for
re-appointment" would have been specifi cally qualifi ed by or made
subject to the words "sub-section (9)" or "provisions of this section"
- If sub-section (9) is interpreted so as to be made applicable even to
reappointment as provided in sub-section (10), then the result would be
that any person who is appointed as Vice-Chancellor at the age of fi ftysix or more would not be eligible for reappointment, thereby rendering
sub-section (10) and its proviso completely otiose and meaningless in
such cases - A purposive construction may be taken recourse to for the
purpose of giving full eff ect to the statutory provisions - Thus, the outer
age limit of sixty years provided in sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the
Act 1996 will not apply, when it comes to reappointment under subsection (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996. [Paras 48, 50, 52, 53, 56, 57]
Kannur University Act, 1996 - s. 10(9) and s.10(10) - Whether the
reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as
a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under Section
10(1) of the Act 1996.
Held: Reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has been provided under subsection (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 - The proviso to sub-section (10)
of the Act 1996 further makes the intention of the legislature to provide for
reappointment more clear - The legislature has not thought fi t to prescribe
any particular procedure or any particular mode or manner of reappointment
- The UGC Regulations are also silent as regards the reappointment of
Vice-Chancellor - In the case at hand, sub-section (10) of Section 10 of
the Act, 1996, provides for reappointment and does not even contain the
words "subject to provisions of this section" - This is as good as to refl ect
the legislature's intention of permitting reappointment without following
the ordinary process of appointment of Vice-Chancellor - Thus, it is not
necessary to follow the procedure of appointment as laid down in Section
10 of the Act 1996 for the purpose of reappointment. [Paras 58, 65, 66]
Kannur University Act, 1996 - s. 10(9) and s.10(10) - Did the
Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment
of the Vice-Chancellor.
Held: The facts make it abundantly clear that there was no independent
application of mind or satisfaction or judgment on the part of the Chancellor
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY
380
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
and the respondent No. 4 came to be reappointed only at the behest of the
State Government - Although the notifi cation reappointing the respondent
No. 4 to the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor yet the
decision stood vitiated by the infl uence of extraneous considerations or to put
it in other words by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government
- It is the Chancellor who has been conferred with the competence under
the Act 1996 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 - Thus, it is the
decision-making process, which vitiated the entire process of reappointment
of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor - The decision making
process because in such a case the exercise of power is amenable to judicial
review - As a consequence, the notifi cation dated 23.11.2021, reappointing
the respondent no.4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University is
quashed. [Paras 81,84, 85,86,87,90]
Words and Phrases - 'Tenure' and 'Tenure post' - Discussed.
Interpretation of Statutes - Doctrine/Principle - Doctrine of
Purposive construction:
Held: The doctrine of purposive construction may be taken recourse
to for the purpose of giving full eff ect to the statutory provisions, and
the courts must state what meaning the statute should bear, rather than
rendering the statute a nullity, as statutes are meant to be operative and not
inept. The courts must refrain from declaring a statute to be unworkable -
The rules of interpretation require that construction which carries forward
the objectives of the statute, protects interest of the parties and keeps the
remedy alive, should be preferred looking into the text and context of the
statute - Construction given by the court must promote the object of the
statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and not eff ace
its very purpose - The courts strongly lean against any construction which
tends to reduce a statute to futility - The provision of the statute must be
so construed as to make it eff ective and operative - The court must take a
pragmatic view and must keep in mind the purpose for which the statute
was enacted as the purpose of law itself provides good guidance to courts
as they interpret the true meaning of the Act and thus legislative futility
must be ruled out. [Para 56]
381
Administrative Law - Principle:
Held: It is a well settled principle of administrative law that if a statute
expressly confers a statutory power on a particular body or authority or
imposes a statutory duty on the same, then such power must be exercised
or duty performed (as the case may) by that very body or authority itself
and none other - If the body or authority exercises the statutory power or
performs the statutory duty acting at the behest, or on the dictate, of any
other body or person, then this is regarded as an abdication of the statutory
mandate and any decision taken on such basis is contrary to law and liable
to be quashed - It is important to keep in mind that, in law, it matters not
that the extraneous element is introduced (i.e., the advice, recommendation,
approval, etc. of the person not empowered by the statute is obtained
or given) in good faith or for the advancement of any goal or objection
howsoever laudable or desirable - The rule of law requires that a statutory
power vests in the body or authority where the statute so provides, and
likewise, the discharge of the statutory duty is the responsibility of the
body or authority to which it is entrusted - That body or authority cannot
merely rubberstamp an action taken elsewhere or simply endorse or ratify
the decision of someone else. [Para 71]
Writ - Writ of Quo Warranto:
Held: Quo warranto is a remedy or procedure whereby the State
inquires into the legality of the claim which a party asserts to an offi ce
or franchise, and to oust him from its enjoyment if the claim be not well
founded, or to have the same declared forfeited and recover it, if, having
once been rightfully possessed and enjoyed; it has become forfeited for
mis-user or non-user - It is now well settled that a writ of quo warranto
lies if any appointment to a public offi ce is made in breach of the statute
or the rules - In the case on hand, this Court is not concerned with the
suitability of the respondent No. 4 - The "suitability" of a candidate for
appointment to a post is to be judged by the appointing authority and not
by the court unless the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules/
provisions. [Paras 30, 84]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr,
[1964] 4 SCR 575 - followed.
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY
382
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
High Court of Gujarat and Another v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor
Panchayat and Ors, [2003] 2 SCR 799: (2003) 4 SCC 712; B.
Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage
Board Employees' Assn, [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 462:(2006) 11 SCC
731; Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo
and Ors., [2013] 14 SCR 621: (2014) 1 SCC 161; J.S. Yadav v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [2011] 5 SCR 460: (2011) 6 SCC 570;
Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, (2004) 2 SCC 590: [2003] 6 Suppl.
SCR 526; Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities &
Exchange Board of India, [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 843:(2004) 8 SCC
524; Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India
(ALPAI) and Others v. Director General of Civil Aviation and Others,
[2011] 5 SCR 1019: (2011) 5 SCC 435 - relied on.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365 :(1981) Supp SCC
87:; State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das, (2022) SCC OnLine SC
1382; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, [1992] 1
SCR 917 :(1992) Supp (2) SCC 351; Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of
Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179; Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree
M.S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473; Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India
and Others, [1992] 3 SCR 567: (1992) 3 SCC 526; Dept. of Commerce
v. US House of Representatives, 1999 SCC OnLine US SC 10; State of
U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, [1961] 2 SCR 679; Express Newspaper
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1959] SCR 12; U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v.
NTPC Ltd., (2009) 6 SCC 235: [2009] 3 SCR 1060; Udai Singh Dagar
v. Union of India, (2007) 10 SCC 306: [2007] 6 SCR 707; State of T.N. v.
Hind Stone, [1981] 2 SCR 742: (1981) 2 SCC 205; Hotel Balaji v. State
of A.P., [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 182: 1993 Supp (4) SCC 536; Yogendra
Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, [2015] 14 SCR 1037:(2016) 3 SCC 183;
State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah, [1967] 2 SCR 361; Municipal Corpn.
of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101: [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 929;
State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., [1991] 3 SCR 64; B.R.
Kapur v. State of T.N. and Another (2001) 7 SCC 231: [2001] 3 Suppl.
SCR 191; Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2018) 6 SCC
162: [2018] 3 SCR 137; P. Venugopal v. Union of India,[2008] 8 SCR
1; M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa [1961] 2 SCR 295; S.P. Jain
v. Krishna Mohan Gupta [1987] 1 SCR 411; RBI v. Peerless General
383
Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., [1987] 2 SCR 1; Tinsukhia Electric
Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, [1989] 2 SCR 544 :(1989) 3 SCC 709:;
UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2008) 5 SCC 257: [2008] 5 SCR
775; Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys,
[2010] 10 SCR 779:(2011) 11 SCC 334; Bhuri Nath and Others v. State
of J&K and Others, [1997] 1 SCR 138: (1997) 2 SCC 745 - referred to.
Hardwari Lal, Rohtak v. G.D. Tapase, Chandigarh and others, AIR
1982 Punjab and Haryana 439 - referred to.
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 1 WLR
1155 : (1982) 3 All ER 141 (HL) - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL NO.7700
OF 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2022 of the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No.1698 of 2021.
Appearances:
Dama Seshadri Naidu, George Poonthottam, Sr. Advs., Atul Shankar
Vinod, Hiresh Choudhary, Ms. Surbhi Sharma, Kannan Gopal Vinod, K.
Sai Teja, M.P. Vinod, Advs. for the Appellants.
R. Venkataramani, AG, K. K. Venugopal, Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr.
Advs., Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K.
Joy, Alim Anvar, Shailesh Madiyal, Vaibhav Sabharwal, Akshay Kumar,
Ms. Divija Mahajan, Anirudh Sanganeria, Samarth Kashyap, Advs. for the
Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of the exposition, this judgement is divided in
the following parts: -
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
INDEX*
A.
Factual Matrix ...................................................................... 4
i)
Notifi cation dated 27.10.2021 constituting the Selection
Committee ...................................................................... 5
ii)
Notifi cation dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications for
selection of Vice-Chancellor .......................................... 6
iii) Letter of the Minister for Higher Education / Pro-Chancellor
dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment of the
Respondent No. 4 ........................................................... 7
iv)
Notifi cation dated 22.11.2021 withdrawing the Notifi cation
dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications from the elligible
candidates ...................................................................... 9
v)
Letter of the Minister for Higher Education / Pro-Chancellor
proposing reappointment of Vice-Chancellor ................ 9
vi)
Reappointment Notifi cation dated 23.11.2021 ............ 10
B.
Relevant observations made by the Ld. Single Judge ..... 11
C.
Relevant observations made by the Division Bench in
Appeal .................................................................................. 13
D.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant(s)........................ 15
E.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - State of
Kerala .................................................................................. 21
F.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 3 - Kannur
University............................................................................. 26
G.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 4 - ViceChancellor ........................................................................... 28
H.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1 -
Chancellor............ ........................................................... 29
I.
Relevant Provisions of the Kannur University Act, 1996 and
the UGC Regulations, 2018 ................................................ 35
J.
Writ of Quo Warran to ...................................................... 39
*Ed Note : Pagination is as per original judgment.
385
K.
Questions of Law Formulated ........................................... 45
L.
Analysis ................................................................................ 46
(i)
Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a Tenure
Post? ............................................................................. 46
(ii) Whether the outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section
(9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is applicable in the case
of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor? ......................... 48
(iii) Whether the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has to
follow the same process as a fresh appointment under
Section 10 of the Act 1996? ......................................... 54
(iv) Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power
of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor? ................... 58
M. Final Conclusion ................................................................. 70
" 'Intention of the Legislature' is a common but very slippery phrase,
which, popularly understood, may signify anything from intention embodied
in positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the Legislature
probably would have meant, although there has been an omission to enact
it. In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or
not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has
chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary
implication."
[Lord Watson in Salomon v. Saloman & Co., (1897) AC 22, 38]
1. We are tempted to preface our judgment with the aforesaid
observations of Lord Watson in Soloman (supra), as we need to keep in mind
the principle of law as explained therein for the purpose of interpretation of
Section 10(9) and Section 10(10) respectively of the Kannur University Act,
1996 (for short, "the Act 1996"). In other words, the object or the intention
behind enacting the two provisions referred to above.
2. This appeal is at the instance of two unsuccessful original writ
petitioners before the High Court. The appellant No. 1 herein in his capacity
as the elected member of the Senate of Kannur University and the appellant
No. 2 herein in his capacity as the member of the Academic Council of the
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
said University together questioned the legality and validity of reappointment
of the respondent No. 4 herein, namely, Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the
Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University by fi ling Writ Petition (C) No.
26975 of 2021 in the High Court of Kerala, primarily on the ground that the
respondent No. 4 was not eligible for reappointment as the Vice-Chancellor
of the Kannur University. The writ application referred to above came to be
rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the judgment
and order dated 15.12.2021. The judgment rendered by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court was challenged before a Division Bench of the
High Court by fi ling the Writ Appeal No. 1698 of 2021. The challenge in
the appeal also failed. The Division bench dismissed the appeal vide the
judgment and order dated 23.02.2022 thereby affi rming the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to issue a writ of Quo
Warranto.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The facts are jejune. The respondent No. 4 herein was appointed as
the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University vide the Notifi cation dated
24.11.2017 duly issued by the Chancellor of the Kannur University. The
tenure of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor was for a period of four
years. As the tenure of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the
University was coming to an end, the Chancellor initiated steps for selection
and appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor in the said University. The fi rst
step in the said process was the issue of a Notifi cation dated 27.10.2021
constituting a Selection Committee of three members. The Notifi cation
dated 27.10.2021 reads thus:
"No.G53 1283/2021
Governors Secretariat
Kerala Raj Bhavan
Thiruvananthapuram
27th October 2021
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10, read
with sub sections (1)(2) and (3) of the Kannur University Act,
1996, the Chancellor of the University is pleased to constitute a
Selection Committee comprising of the following members to make
387
recommendation (s) towards the selection and appointment of a new
Vice Chancellor in the said University.
1. Dr. B. Ekbal - (Nominee of the University Senate)
(Former Vice Chancellor, University of Kerala and former Member,
State Planning Board)
2. Prof. B. Thimme Gowda - (Nominee of the University Grants
Commission)
Vice Chairman, Karnataka State Higher Education Council
(Former Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University & Karnataka State
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj University
3. Prof. VK Ramachandran (Nominee of the Chancellor)
Vice Chairperson, Kerala State Planning Board
(Former HoD, Economic Analysis Unit, Indian Statistical Institute,
Bengaluru)
I, Prof. VK Ramachandran shall be the Convener of the Committee and
the Committee shall tender its recommendation within three months
from the date of this order as laid down in sub section (4), Section 10
of the Kannur University Act, 1996.
By Order of the Governor/Chancellor
Sd/-
(Dr. Devendra Kumar Dhodawat, IAS)
Principal Secretary to Governor/Chancellor"
4. Thereafter, Notification dated 01.11.2021 was issued by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, State of Kerala inviting
applications from eligible candidates. The Notifi cation dated 01.11.2021
reads thus:
"B2/88/2021/H. EDN

Dated: 1.11.2021
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19(1) (2) and (3) of
the Kannur University Act,1996, the Chancellor, Kannur University
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
has constituted a Selection Committee to make recommendations for
the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor, in the Kannur University.
Applications are invited by the Selection Committee for the selection
of Vice Chancellor, Kannur University from eligible candidates. The
qualifi cation and experience are as prescribed in Clause 7.3(i) of
the UGC notifi cation dated 18.7.2018. Applicants should not have
completed sixty years of age as on the date of notifi cation, as provided
in section 10 of Kannur University Act, 1996.
Applications in hard copy and soft copy (by e mail only) with bio data,
proof of experience, qualifi cations etc., in the attached format should
reach the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education
Department, Government Secretariat, Annexe II. Fourth Floor,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695001 and highereducationbdepartment@
gmail.com on or before 5 PM on 30.11.2021.
Sd/-
Dr. Venu, IAS
Additional Chief Secretary
Higher Education, Environment
Archaeology, Archives & Museum Departments."
5. It appears that in the meantime, the Minister for Higher Education
and Social Justice in her capacity as the Pro-Chancellor addressed a letter
to the Governor/Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment
of the respondent No. 4 herein for a second term as the Vice-Chancellor of
the University. The letter dated 22.11.2021 reads thus:
"D.O. LETTER NO. 401/2021/M (H.Edn & SJ) DATED
22/11/2021
Honourable Governor,
Kind attention of Honourable Governor is invited to the fact that the
term of offi ce of Ex. Vice Chancellor of Kannur University is ending
on November 23,2021 Notifi cation for the selection of new Vice
Chancellor was issued on November 1.2021.
389
Dr. Gopinath Raveendran is currently holding the post of Vice
Chancellor. He is an eminent academician and able administrator. He
has ushered the University to greater heights. A learned professor with
an excellent academic record, he was Professor of History of Jamia
Millia Islamia, Delhi. He has also been Academic Visitor, Dept. of
Social Police, London School of Economics and Political Science and
has administrative experience as Honorary Director, Nelson Mandela
Centre for Peace and Confl ict Resolution, Jamia Millia Islamia and
as Member secretary, ICHR. He has indeed been an asset to Kannur
University, an institution still in its infancy.
The remarkable achievements of the university in academic rating
is the result of the hard work put in by the faculty and staff of the
University under the able leadership of Dr. Gopinath Raveendran.
The NAAC has upgraded the status of the University from B to B. He
was instrumental in digitizing the University by introducing Digital
Document Filling System (DDFS) and enthusiastically directed the
University to amend its status in tune with UGC Regulations, 2018.
He also initiated steps for starting a separate Research Directorate
with the aim of improving research standards in the University.
During his tenure, the University signed several MOUs with reputed
national and international organization. Under his stewardship, the
University also started a Business incubation Centre and established
an Institution's Innovation Council to encourage the innovative
potential of researchers and students.
Kannur University under his able leadership, rose to eminence as one
of the premier university in the country. It is therefore my considered
opinion that Dr. Gopinath Raveendran may be allowed to continue
for another term as Vice Chancellor. Its continuation will immensely
benefi t Kannur University Section 10 (10) of Kannur University Act
provides for the reappointment of incumbent Vice Chancellor for a
second term and· does not stipulate any restriction on age.
I request your Excellency to be pleased to cancel the notifi cation dated
27.10.20 appointing a Search-cum-Selection committee for identifying
the person to be appointed as Vice Chancellor. I also request Your
Excellency's pleasure in cancelling the notifi cation dated 1.11. 2021
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
and in re-appointing Dr. Gopinath Raveendran for a continuous second
term as Vice Chancellor of Kannur University. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. R. Bindu
Minister for Higher Education and
Social Justice and Pro-Chancellor
Sri Arif Mohammed Khan
Excellency The Governor of Kerala Bhavan"
6. It is pertinent to note that on the very same day and date i.e.,
22.11.2021, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, recalled
the Notifi cation dated 01.11.2021 referred to above. The Notifi cation dated
22.11.2021 recalling the earlier Notifi cation dated 01.11.2021 inviting
applications from the eligible candidates reads thus:
"

NOTIFICATION

DATED: 22.11.2021
The notifi cation no. B2/88/2021/H.EDN dated 01/11/2021 inviting
application for the selection of Vice-Chancellor to Kannur University
is withdrawn.
Dr. V. Venu, IAS
Additional Chief Secretary to Government.
Higher Education Department."
7. On 22.11.2021, the Pro-Chancellor/Minister for Higher Education
addressed one another letter to the Chancellor which reads thus:
"D.O. LETTER NO. 406/2021/M (H.Edn & SJ) DATED
22/11/2021
Honourable Chancellor,
The term of Dr. Gopinath Raveendran, Vice Chancellor of Kannur
University will cease on 23 November 2021.
As per D.O. No. GS3-1283/2021 dated 22.11.2021 from the offi ce of
391
your Excellency, steps have been taken to withdraw notifi cation inviting
applications to select a Vice Chancellor for Kannur University. As
Pro Chancellor of Kannur University. I consider it my privilege to
propose the name of Dr. Gopinath Raveendran, the present incumbent
Vice Chancellor to be re-appointed as Vice Chancellor of Kannur
University for a second continuous term beginning from 24.11.2021.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Dr. R. Bindu
Pro-Chancellor, Kannur University
Minister for Higher Education
Sri Arif Mohammed Khan
His Excellency, The Governor of Kerala
Chancellor, Kannur University."
8. Ultimately the fi nal notifi cation came to be issued dated 23.11.2021
by order of the Governor/Chancellor reappointing the respondent No. 4
herein as Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University for a period of four
years w.e.f. 24.11.2021. The Notifi cation dated 23.01.2021 reads thus:
"GOVERNMENT'S SECRETARIAT
KERALA RAJ BHAVAN
NOTIFICATION
No.GS3.1283/2021(3)
Dated: Thiruvananthapuram 23rd November, 2021
In exercise of the powers conferred under the Kannur University
Act, 1996 and the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Chancellor of the
University is pleased to re-appoint Dr. Gopinath Ravindran (Professor,
Department of History, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi) as the Vice
Chancellor of the Kannur University, for a period of four years, with
eff ect from 24th November, 2021.
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
By order of the Government/Chancellor
(Dr. Davendra Kumar Dhodawat, IAS)
Principal Secretary to Government/Chancellor."
9. The above referred Notifi cation dated 23.11.2021 was made the
subject matter of challenge by the appellants herein before a learned Single
Judge of the High Court. The challenge to the notifi cation referred to above,
reappointing the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor for a further term
of four years was essentially on two grounds. First, in view of Section
10(9) of the Act 1996, no person who is more than sixty years of age can be
appointed as Vice-Chancellor. In other words, the outer age limit for being
appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the University being sixty years, the
respondent No. 4 could not have been reappointed as the Vice-Chancellor
having crossed the age of sixty years. Secondly, even for the purpose of
reappointment, the entire procedure necessary for being appointed as the
Vice-Chancellor for the fi rst time should have been undertaken. In other
words, the procedure prescribed in Section 10 of the Act 1996 ought to have
been followed even at the time of reappointment.
B. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. SINGLE
JUDGE
10. As noted above, the challenge before the learned Single Judge
failed. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge
holding as under:
"6. From the perusal of the provisions of Section 10, it is evident
that Vice-Chancellor can be appointed by Chancellor on the
recommendation of the committee appointed by him which consists
of three members with one elected by Senate, another by Chairman of
the University Grants Commission and third by the Chancellor. The
chancellor shall appoint one of the members of the committee to his
convenience and committee shall make its recommendation within a
period of three months of appointment. University is not precluded
to unanimously recommend the name of only one person and in that
process, Chancellor shall appoint that person to be Vice- Chancellor,
but, it may submit a panel of three names within the period and the Vice-
393
Chancellor shall be appointed from among the persons in the panel.
The aforementioned procedure at the time of the initial appointment,
for a period of four years, in 2017 was followed. The fi rst term was
expiring after the completion of four years and it is in that background,
notice Ext.P2 was published but the Secretary of Department of Higher
Education notifi ed of withdrawal with immediate eff ect, for as per
provisions of Sub section (10), Vice-Chancellor can be re-appointed,
but the term is restricted to two (2).
It is now to be seen as to whether on the basis of statutory procedure
provided in the Act ibid and on analysis of judgments cited, can this
Court interfere in the process of appointment or not.
xxx

xxx

xxx
10. The expression 'appointment' and 're-appointment' have
different connotation; for undergoing the re-appointment the
qualifications are prescribed under Clause 7.3 of the UGC
regulations ibid and there is no age bar and for reappointment,
criteria of age would not be applicable. No doubt, for
appointment, the entire procedure prescribed under Section 10
is to be followed. At the time of the initial appointment, in the
year 2007, all the parameters were considered for appointment
as per the procedure laid down therein but for re-appointment
as per proviso to sub-Section (10) there is no requirement for
undertaking the task of constitution of a Selection Committee as
was done during the initial appointment. As per the pleading and
submissions, there has not been any incident or lack of integrity,
transparency as provided in the UGC regulations. Considering
the provisions of applicable laws to my mind, notice Ext.P2 was
withdrawn vide Ext.P3 on 22.11.2021 for the simple reason the
party respondent i.e., the 4th respondent was not disqualified at
the time of initial appointment. It cannot be said that there was
any violation of the statutory provisions for reconsideration for
the purpose of re-appointment, thus, in such circumstances, writ
of quo-warranto cannot be issued."
(Emphasis supplied)
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR. v. THE
CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
C. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE DIVISION
BENCH IN APPEAL.
11. The writ appeal fi led by the appellants herein before the Division
Bench of the High Court also failed. The Division Bench in its impugned
judgment held as under:
"20. On an analysis of the said provision, it is clear that the Vice-
Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendation
of a committee appointed by him for the purpose. In the case on hand,
the appointment of the 4th respondent in the year 2017 for a period
of 4 years in contemplation of sub-Section 10 of Section 10, and in
contemplation of law is admitted. It is also an ·admitted fact that the
eligibility and qualifi cation of the 4th respondent at the initial stage of
appointment is undoubted. It is also quite clear and evident from the
provisions of Section 10 that a clear cut procedure and modalities are
prescribed in the said provision to select the Vice Chancellor.
21. One of the important aspects that is to be noted is that as per subSection 9 of Section 10, it is clearly specifi ed that no person who is more
than sixty years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. But, when
it comes to sub-Section 10 of Section 10, it is made explicit that the ViceChancellor shall hold offi ce for a term of four years from the date on which
he enters upon his offi ce and shall be eligible for re-appointment. However,
interdiction is made as per the proviso thereto, by making it clear that, a
person shall not be appointed as Vice Chancellor for more than 2 terms.
It is signifi cant to note that sub-Section 10 of Section 10 of Act, 1996 is
conjunctive in nature and not distinctive. Which thus means, the statute
itself has made a clear cut procedure with respect to the re-appointment
and has made it clear that the Vice Chancellor who holds the offi ce for
a term of 4 years consequent to the initial appointment, shall be eligible
for re-appointment.
22. No doubt, if there is any manner of shortcomings on the part of
the Vice Chancellor initially appointed, so as to aff ect the academic
excellence, moral issues or otherwise to have any adverse consequence
to hold the post of Vice Chancellor, it would be diff erent. But, this
is a case where the appellants have not raised any sort of such
allegations against the 4th respondent. Merely because a notifi cation
395
was issued to conduct a selection, that by itself will not dissuade the
Government/Chancellor to recommend and re-appoint the existing
Vice Chancellor."
xxx

xxx

xxx
30. Therefore, after assimilating the factual and legal situations and
understanding the issues, we are of the considered opinion that in the
matter of re-appointment, the age bar prescribed under Section 10(9)
for appointment of the Vice Chancellor would not come into play,
because the Vice Chancellor who has appointed before attaining the
age of 60 years, is entitled to continue for a term of four years and
shall be eligible for re-appointment.
31. Taking into account all the above intrinsic aspects with regard to
the appointment of the Vice Chancellor, eligibility, qualifi cation etc.,
and also the relevant inputs of the UGC Regulations, 2018, we have no
hesitation to hold that the learned single Judge was right in dismissing
the writ petition. Even though various contentions were advanced
and several judgments were cited by the respective Senior Counsel
in regard to the intricacies of issuance of a writ of quo warranto, we
are not inclined to go into that question, since we fi nd that the re-
appointment of the 4th respondent was made in accordance with law,
and therefore he can never be said to be an usurper to the post. Having
rendered the fi ndings as above, the arguments advanced strenuously
by the learned Senior Counsel Sri. George Poonthottam, relying upon
the term 'eligibility', contained under Section 10(10) of the Act 1996
in the matter of making reappointment by referring to various legal
dictionaries, we do not fi nd much force in the same.
32. Before we part with the judgment, it is only appropriate that the
Press release issued by the offi ce of the Chancellor (Honourable
Governor) of the University is discussed. On a perusal of Annexure
A2 Press Release dated 03.02.2022, it is clear that right from the
publication of selection notifi cation dated 01.11.2021 issued on behalf
of the selection committee uptill the reappointment are narrated.
33.