9 Kerala VCs refuse to quit, governor sends notice to 2 more

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Kerala governor Arif Mohammed Khan served show-cause notices to two more vice chancellors on Tuesday, asking them to explain why their appointments shouldn’t be considered “illegal” in the light of a recent Supreme Court verdict that said hiring of university VCs in the state must strictly follow UGC regulations.
The latest order is among a series of actions Raj Bhavan has taken lately, starting with asking vice chancellors of nine universities in the state to resign by 11.30am on Monday. The crackdown by Khan, who is chancellor of all Kerala universities, has deepened a rift with the LDF government, which has accused him of pushing the “Sangh’s agenda” into the state’s higher education institutions.
The show-cause notices were served to Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology VC Saji Gopinath and Sreenarayanaguru Open University VC PM Mubarak Pasha. The notice quoted the SC order that cancelled the appointment of KTU VC for procedural violation in her selection. The VCs were told to give a reply on or before November 4.
The VCs were appointed by the chancellor based on government’s recommendations, which are not by a search/selection committee as prescribed by the UGC rules. Since these universities were functioning fully, Khan held that these should have properly selected VCs.
Kannur University VC Gopinath Ravindran said he has received a notice, but does not know how to reply because it is up to the appointing authority to explain why the appointment was made. He said the chancellor can remove a VC, in accordance with Kerala university law, only after seeking an explanation and after a two-member committee comprising sitting or retired judges of HC or SC conducted an inquiry and submitted its report.
The Kerala high court, which heard on Monday the petitions submitted by eight VCs, had refused to intervene. It said the VCs can continue till the chancellor removed them. “Until such time as the chancellor issues a final order against any of the petitioners, if it is so necessary, they will be eligible to continue in their present positions,” the court said.