Big setback for Pinarayi govt, SC slams ‘unwarranted intervention’ in Kannur V-C extension

Soon after the Court order, Ravindran resigned as V-C. He said he had never sought the post and would not go in appeal against the Supreme Court order.

In November 2021, Ravindran, who had crossed the retirement age of 60, was reappointed V-C for another four years, even after the Raj Bhavan had issued a notification for fresh appointment. Following the government move, the notification calling for eligible candidates was withdrawn and the selection panel was dissolved.

The issue went on to see repeated bouts of tension between the LDF government and Khan.

After the Supreme Court order came Thursday, there was a fresh war of words between the two, with both passing the buck.

The reappointment of Ravindran had come close on the heels of the controversial selection of Dr Priya Varghese as associate professor in the Malayalam department of Kannur University. She is the wife of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s private secretary K K Ragesh. The Opposition had alleged that Ravindran got the extension as a quid pro quo for selecting Varghese.

In its order, the Supreme Court said that the Governor as the Chancellor held the power to appoint or reappoint a vice-chancellor, and that “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”.

The Bench noted that Khan had initiated the steps for appointment of a new V-C, and that “it appears that at that point of time, reappointment (of Ravindran)… was not in the mind of the Chancellor”. It went on to mention the two letters written by the government to Khan stating that Ravindran be reappointed, and says: “We have reached the conclusion that although the notification re-appointing the Respondent number 4 (Ravindran)… was issued by the Chancellor (the Governor), yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous consideration, or to put it in other words, by the unwarranted intervention of the state government.”

Soon after the Court order came, Khan said he had cleared the appointment on “pressure from the Chief Minister’s Office”. He said he did not even blame Higher Education Minister R Bindu. “The Chief Minister directly came to me saying that Kannur is his home district. After the process of selecting the V-C started, the CM’s legal advisor and his officer on special duty came to me. They wanted to curtail the selection process. They said they have the opinion from the Advocate General. I told them it was illegal. The Higher Education Minister sent a letter that the V-C should be reappointed. I said it was illegal and irregular, but I went by the AG’s advice. Next day, I wrote to the minister that it was illegal,’’ he said.

Khan added: “I am not going to demand anyone’s resignation. Karma will haunt you and there is no escape from Karma.”

Minister Bindu said the government would respect the Supreme Court verdict, but sought to pass the buck to the Governor. “The government had given the proposal (to reappoint Ravindran) along with the advice of the Advocate General. It is the discretion of the Governor as to who should be appointed as the V-C.”

Incidentally, it was after this row that the LDF government passed a Bill to curtail the Governor’s role in appointment of V-Cs of state universities. The CPI(M) also called Khan “an RSS agent’’ who was implementing the Sangh Parivar agenda in higher education.

Senior CPI(M) leader and the party’s Kannur district secretary, M V Jayarajan, said the Governor should quit. “The Court has talked of extraneous influence… It has not stated the source of the external influence. But if the Governor acted as per extraneous influence, he should quit. The Court observation is against the Governor,’’ Jayarajan said.

Senior Congress legislator and Leader of the Opposition V D Satheesan demanded the resignation of Bindu. “The Supreme Court verdict has ratified the allegations raised by the Opposition. The Governor succumbed to pressure from the government. UGC norms were violated and there was illegal interference on the part of the government and the Higher Education Minister,’’ he said.

In its order, the Court also said that the Bench is not concerned with the suitability of Ravindran for the post, which had to be “judged by the appointing authority”.