IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24164 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.N.PRASANTHA KUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT SIVASAKTHI, FRIENDS VALLEY, THRIKKAKARA P.O. NOW WORKING AS READER IN DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AT SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. BY ADV. SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRO CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSRITY OF SANSKRIT, OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR.J.PRASAD, VICE CHANCELLOR, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT, KALADY. 5. PROF.ASOK KUMAR KALIA, VICE CHANCELLOR, SAMPURNANAD SANSKRIT VISHWAVIDYALAYA, VARANASI-221002. 6. SRI.V.N.VASAVAN, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, MLA QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. SRI.P.J.THOMAS, FOREMER CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT TC 15/2035, WOMEN'S COLLEGE LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.P.S.NISHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 25427 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P. (C) No.24164 of 2009 & W.P.(C) No.25427 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. Challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as the Vice Chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit these two public interest litigations have been filed. 2. The main thrust of argument is alleged violation of Section 24 of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short). It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel that though a selection committee was constituted as required under the said provision, they did not meet or recommend any candidate and as such without their meeting or recommendation the unilateral act of the Chancellor/Governor is illegal and in violation of the provisions contained in the Act. WP(C) 24164 & 25427/2009 - 2 - 3. In our view, the very provision itself is the answer to the argument of the learned counsel. Under Section 24 (3) of the Act, a procedure is prescribed for appointment of Vice Chancellor to the said University by constituting a committee and on the recommendations of the committee the Chancellor has to appoint the appropriate candidate. Taking into consideration the usual delays, a restriction of 60 days limitation is fixed for the recommendations by the said committee. No doubt, in the present case the committee was constituted by the Chancellor as long back as in July 17, 2008 and as per Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.25427 of 2009, it was made clear that the committee shall make its recommendations within sixty days from the date of the notification along with the bio data of the person or persons to be recommended. Admittedly, the selection committee, though constituted, has not made any recommendations and as such, having no other option, the Pro Chancellor as per the note Ext.P2, recommended the names of WP(C) 24164 & 25427/2009 - 3 - three persons including the 4th respondent along with the bio data, and amongst these persons, the Chancellor has appointed the 4th respondent as Vice Chancellor. Whatever may be the reasons for non-meeting or non-recommendations by the selection committee, once the limitation period of sixty days is over, it is open to the Chancellor to appoint a suitable person on the advice of the Governor as per Section 24(3)(e) of the Act and hence we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of appointment. 4. Moreover, these writ petitions are also barred by delay and laches inasmuch as, as per the notification dated 9th December, 2008 itself, the Vice Chancellor has assumed his office and after a lapse of nearly ten months these two petitioners have approached this Court in the present public interest litigations. There is no cause shown for such delay and laches. Even on this count also, the writ petitions are devoid of merits. It is also to be noted that there is no allegation of WP(C) 24164 & 25427/2009 - 4 - personal bias or mala fides against the Pro Chancellor or the Governor. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly the same are dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns/vgs