(8) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal academic
and executive officer of the University.
(9) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the Chairman of the
Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council, the
Students' Council and the Finance Committee and shall
be entitled to be present at and to address any meeting
of any authority of the University, but shall not be
entitled to vote there at unless he is a member of the
authority concerned.
(10) In the event of equality of votes at any meeting of
the Senate, the Syndicate or the Academic Council or of
any other authority, at which the Vice-Chancellor is the
Chairman, he shall have and exercise a casting vote.
(11) It shall be duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure
that the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the
Ordinances, the Regulations, the Rules and the Bye-
laws are faithfully observed and carried out, and he shall
have all powers necessary for this purpose.
(12) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the right of
visiting and inspecting colleges and other institutions
maintained by, or affiliated to the University.
(13) If at any time, except when the Syndicate or the
Academic Council is in session, the Vice-Chancellor is
satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to
take immediate action involving the exercise of any
power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council
by or under this Act the Vice-Chancellor may take such
action as he deems fit, and shall, at the next session of
the Syndicate or the Academic Council, as the case may
be report the action taken by him to that authority for
such action as it may consider necessary.
(14) Subject to the provisions of the Statutes and the
Ordinances the Vice-Chancellor shall have power to
appoint, suspend, dismiss or otherwise punish any
member of the establishment of the University below
the rank of Deputy Registrar:
Provided that he may delegate any of his powers
under this sub-section to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor or the
Registrar.
2025:KER:46149
(15) The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to convene
meetings of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic
Council and any other authorities of the University.
(15A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act
or in the Statutes or Ordinances made or deemed to
have been made thereunder, the Vice-Chancellor may, if
he is satisfied that the number of examiners in the panel
of examiners approved by the Syndicate for the conduct
of an examination is not sufficient for the conduct of
the examination and that approval of another panel of
examiners by the Syndicate will entail delay in the
conduct of such examination, nominate such additional
number of examiners as may be necessary for the
conduct of such examination.
(15B) Any person nominated by the Vice-Chancellor
under sub-section (15A) shall be deemed to be an
examiner included in the panel approved by the
Syndicate.
(16) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see
that the proceedings of the University are carried on in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Statutes,
the Ordinance, the Regulations, the Rules and the Bye-
laws and to report to the Chancellor every proceeding
which is not in conformity with such provisions.
(17) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other
powers and perform such other functions as may be
prescribed by the Statutes.
(18) In the event of a temporary vacancy occurring in
the office of the Vice-Chancellor, or where the Vice-
Chancellor is temporarily absent, the Chancellor shall
make necessary arrangements for exercising the powers
and performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor.
2025:KER:46149
(19) In the event of a permanent vacancy occurring in
the office of the Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor shall
initiate action for the appointment of the Vice-
Chancellor, within one month of the occurrence of the
vacancy and pending such appointment make necessary
arrangements for exercising the powers and performing
the duties of the Vice-Chancellor."
***
The section sets out the process for the appointment, powers, duties, and
conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor and provides for interim
arrangements in case of vacancies.
5. Section 10 of the Act of 1974 contemplates different contingencies
under which the post of Vice-Chancellor may be held. The first is the
regular appointment, as envisaged under sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section
10. This is a full-term appointment made on the recommendation of a
committee constituted by the Chancellor. The second contingency under
Section 10(6) is the reappointment of a Vice-Chancellor. The third
contingency under Section 10(18) is an arrangement to be made to
discharge the functions of the Vice-Chancellor when a temporary vacancy
occurs in the office of the Vice-Chancellor or when the Vice-Chancellor
is temporarily absent. Fourthly, under Section 10(19), an arrangement to
be made to discharge the functions of the Vice-Chancellor in the event of
a permanent vacancy occurring in the office of the Vice-Chancellor.
These are the four different contingencies.
6. The present petition concerns Section 10(19), which stipulates that
2025:KER:46149
in the event of a permanent vacancy occurring in the office of the Vice-
Chancellor and where the Chancellor has initiated the process of
appointment, an arrangement has to be made for discharging the
functions of the Vice-Chancellor till a regular appointment is made. The
notification issued by the Chancellor under Section 10(19) of the Act of
1974 dated 24 October 2024, in respect of Respondent No.4 reads as
under:
"GOVERNOR'S SECRETARIAT
KERALA RAJBHAVAN
NOTIFICATION
No. GS6-2410/2023 (1)
Thiruvananthapuram, dated 24 October, 2024
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (19)
of Section 10 of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (Act 17 of
1974), the Chancellor hereby orders that pending the
appointment of a person as Vice Chancellor of University
of Kerala on a regular basis, Dr. Mohanan Kunnummal,
Vice Chancellor, Kerala University of Health Sciences, shall
exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice
Chancellor, University of Kerala, with effect from
26-10-2024 AN, in addition to his normal duties, until
further orders.
By order of the Governor/Chancellor
(Dr. Davendra Kumar Dhodawat IAS)
Additional Chief Secretary to Governor/Chancellor"
***
2025:KER:46149
By this notification issued under Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974, the
Chancellor has made an arrangement for the exercise of the powers and
performance of the duties of the Vice-Chancellor by directing the
Respondent No.4 to do so.
7. The Petitioners have sought a writ of quo warranto, contending that
Respondent No.4 is not entitled to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor, as it
is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1974 and
the UGC Regulations, 2018. The contentions of the Petitioners are briefly
as follows. Under Section 10(5) of the Act of 1974, no person who is
more than sixty years of age shall be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor.
The date of birth of Respondent No.4 is 29 November 1956, and as on
today, he is aged 68 years and thus cannot hold the post of Vice-
Chancellor of the University of Kerala. Regulation 7.3 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, specifies that the Vice-Chancellor should be a person
having a minimum of ten years' experience as a Professor in a University
or ten years' experience in a reputed research and or academic
administrative organisation. Therefore, the Vice-Chancellor of a
University must have served as a Professor for ten years. The
qualifications for appointment to the post of Professor are laid down
under Regulations 4.1(III) and 4.1(IV) of the UGC Regulations, 2018,
which require that the Professor has to possess a Ph.D. and be from the
relevant discipline of the University. Section 10(8) of the Act of 1974
states that the Vice-Chancellor is the principal academic and executive
2025:KER:46149
officer of the University and exercises the powers and functions of the
Senate and Syndicate, of which the Vice-Chancellor is the head, in
relation to the maintenance of academic standards. Respondent No.4,
who is a doctor holding MBBS and MD degrees, does not possess a Ph.D.,
and is, therefore, not qualified to be appointed as Professor in Arts,
Science, or Commerce colleges affiliated with the University of Kerala. In
the past, whenever a vacancy of Vice-Chancellor has arisen in the
University of Kerala or other Universities within the State of Kerala, the
Chancellor has given the charge to the senior-most Professor from among
the colleges affiliated to the respective University. Thus, the appointment
of Respondent No.4 is contrary to law, and he is not entitled to hold the
post of Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kerala.
8. Opposing the petition, learned Senior Advocate for the Chancellor
contended in short as follows. The stipulation that a person should not be
more than 60 years of age applies specifically to Section 10(5) and is not
applicable to other contingencies under Section 10 of the Act of 1974.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth and Another. v. The Chancellor, Kannur
University & Others.1. Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974 deals only with a
stop-gap situation, wherein the Chancellor is empowered to make
necessary arrangements in the interest of administration. It does not
contain any stipulation regarding the qualifications or age of the person so
AIR 2024 SC 135
2025:KER:46149
appointed. It is not necessary that the Vice-Chancellor has to be from the
same stream. Neither the UGC Regulations, 2018 nor the Act of 1974
stipulates such a position. Respondent No.4 has the prescribed
qualification of ten years' service as a Professor and has been serving as
the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS)
since 2019. There is, therefore, no violation of either the Act of 1974 or
the UGC Regulations, 2018. The circumstances in which the impugned
notification is issued and the bona fides of the Petitioners should be taken
into consideration even while examining the prayer for the issuance of a
writ of quo warranto as held by Division Bench decision of this Court in
the case of State of Kerala represented by the Additional Secretary to the
Government v. The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University and Others2. The Senate of the Respondent University, of
which the Petitioners are members, has consistently attempted to defer
the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, resulting in uncertainty and
significantly affecting the administration. Respondent No.4 is the only
regularly appointed Vice-Chancellor currently functioning in the State of
Kerala. Therefore, the Chancellor, as part of an interim arrangement till
the regular process is completed, has entrusted the task to Respondent
No.4. There is, thus, no merit in the challenge. The learned counsel for
Respondent No.4 has placed the credentials of Respondent No.4 on
record.
Judgment dated 16 February 2023 in WA No.1847/2022.
2025:KER:46149
9. Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974 uses both the terms
"appointment" and "arrangement". It is a well-settled rule of
interpretation of Statutes that when the Legislature uses two different
words or expressions in the same provision, it has to be presumed that
they are intended to convey different meanings. An "appointment" entails
a process leading to the selection of a person to hold the office of Vice-
Chancellor following the procedures laid down. An "arrangement" is an
interim or alternative administrative measure that may be adopted to
ensure the smooth functioning of the university while the regular
appointment process is being completed. The specific use of the word
"arrangement" (and not "appointment") in Section 10(19) of the Act of
1974 indicates the legislative intention of a broader and more flexible
scope, taking note of the temporary nature of this arrangement. The
mandate of starting the selection process within one month is also
pertinent. The primary purpose of making a temporary arrangement is
to ensure that the administration is not affected pending such an
appointment. Therefore, an arrangement is made as a temporary
administrative step taken to ensure continuity in governance and the day-
to-day functioning of the university. The Petitioners have completely
sidestepped this distinction between the phrases in the language of
Section 10(19). The Petitioners have advanced arguments as if the
appointment and arrangement are the same. If it had been so, then the
Legislature would have used the words "temporary appointment", which
2025:KER:46149
it has not. The chancellor is empowered, or rather is under a duty, to
make an arrangement to manage the affairs of the university and to
maintain continuity in its administration pending formal appointment.
10. Various factual situations may arise in the exercise of the power by
the chancellor under Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974. We are
concerned with the legality of the arrangement whereby Respondent
No.4, a Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University of Health Sciences, in
addition to his duties, is directed to exercise the powers and perform the
duties of the Vice-Chancellor, University of Kerala.
11. The central question in this Petition thus is whether the
arrangement made by the chancellor in asking the vice-chancellor of
another university to manage the affairs of the University of Kerala is
barred by any legal provision to issue a writ of quo warranto without
referring to any other factors. In writ jurisdiction, when we are called
upon to set aside such a temporary arrangement, we will have to consider
the surrounding circumstances in which the arrangement was made and
the larger institutional interest.
12. The Division Bench of this Court, in a similar fact situation, in the
case of The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
referring to the doctrine of necessity, held that the Court can examine the
circumstances under which a public office is occupied. While considering
a challenge in the exercise of writ jurisdiction to a temporary arrangement
2025:KER:46149
under Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974, the Court cannot remain
oblivious to the circumstances in which the chancellor was called upon to
make such an arrangement.
13. We will now briefly narrate the background facts, not to comment
on the merits of the disputes arising from them, but to provide the
context in which the Chancellor has issued the notification dated 24
October 2024 under Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974. The term of the
regular vice-chancellor of the University of Kerala was to expire on 24
October 2022. On 13 June 2022, the Chancellor called upon the
Registrar to provide a nominee of the Senate for constitution of the
Search-cum-Selection Committee. Reminders were issued. On 5 August
2022, the Chancellor issued a notification constituting the Selection
Committee with only the UGC nominee and the Chancellor's nominee,
stating that the Senate's nominee would be included once received. On
22 August 2022, the Registrar forwarded to the Chancellor the minutes
of the Special Senate meeting held on 20 August 2022. The Senate
resolved to request the Chancellor to withdraw the notification and issue
a new one in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1974. On 19
September 2022, the Chancellor sent a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of
the University of Kerala, directing urgent action to submit the name of
the elected nominee of the Senate for inclusion in the Search-cum-
Selection Committee for appointment of the next Vice-Chancellor.
Correspondence and the impasse regarding the Search Committee
2025:KER:46149
continued. On 29 September 2022, a reminder was sent that, since the
term of the Vice-Chancellor is expiring on 24 October 2022, any further
delay would adversely affect the interest of the University. Writ petitions
were filed in this court, which were disposed of directing the University of
Kerala to nominate a member for inclusion in the Search-cum-Selection
Committee for the post of Vice-Chancellor within one month, and upon
such nomination, the Chancellor shall issue a fresh notification and then
to proceed with the selection of the Vice-Chancellor. Respondent No.4
was asked to perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor of Kerala
University on 22 October 2022. On 22 December 2022, this judgment
was stayed by the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 1961 and 1973 of 2022.
On 10 April 2023, these writ appeals were withdrawn. On 28 June 2024,
the Chancellor issued a notification appointing a two-member committee
comprising a UGC nominee and a nominee of the Chancellor. On 24
October 2024, the Chancellor issued another notification, reproduced
above, directing Respondent No.4 to perform the duties of the Vice-
Chancellor of the University of Kerala, with effect from 26 October 2024
(AN), pending the appointment of a regular Vice-Chancellor.
14. Therefore, as the above events would show, though Section 10(19)
of the Act of 1974 contemplates an arrangement for a short duration, this
contingency has been prolonged due to various factors. The notification
dated 24 October 2024 issued under Section 10(19) is not the first
instance of such an arrangement by the Chancellor. In fact, the initial
2025:KER:46149
arrangement was made on 22 October 2022.
15. We are informed that at present out of 13 universities in the State of
Kerala where the Governor is the Chancellor, only one university has a
functional vice-chancellor, that is, Respondent No.4. If the Chancellor,
considering the importance of the post, had to call upon a functioning
vice-chancellor, only Respondent No.4 was available. In that context, the
learned counsel for the Chancellor has referred to the doctrine of
necessity.
16. The Petitioners have relied upon Section 10(5) of the Act of 1974,
which states that no person who is more than sixty years of age shall be
appointed as the Vice-Chancellor. It is not in dispute that when
Respondent No.4 was asked to perform the functions under Section
10(19), he was above sixty years old. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth held that the stipulation of 60 years
does not apply to the second contingency under Section 10(6), that is, re-
appointment and the stipulation that a person should not have attained
the age of 60 years applies to the first regular appointment. There is no
reference to age under Section 10(19). The arrangement is only to operate
pending a regular appointment. Even while considering reappointment
under Section 10(6) of the Act of 1974, which is a substantive
appointment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the stipulation of the
age limit of sixty years applies only to one part of the provision. Thus, the
2025:KER:46149
age stipulation of sixty years cannot be said to apply to all contingencies
covered under Section 10 of the Act of 1974. There is thus no merit in
this contention of the Petitioners.
17. The Petitioners then contended that Respondent No.4 lacks
qualifications prescribed under the Act of 1974 and the UGC
Regulations, 2018, to be appointed as a vice-chancellor of the University
of Kerala. The Petitioners contended that, as per Section 10(8) of the Act
of 1974, the vice-chancellor is required to be the principal academic and
executive officer of the University. Considering the functions and powers
of the Senate, Syndicate, and Academic Council, it is submitted that the
vice-chancellor must belong to the same academic stream as that of the
University. It is contended that, as per the UGC Regulation notification
dated 18 July 2018, the requirement of ten years' experience as a professor
must be from the same academic stream. Otherwise, it would not be
feasible for the vice-chancellor to perform his duties, which involve
making academic decisions regarding the discipline. According to the
Petitioners, as a matter of practice, the senior-most professor from among
the colleges affiliated with the University is asked to perform the duties of
the vice-chancellor. The Petitioners have placed these instances on record.
18. The learned Senior Advocate for the Chancellor contended that
neither under the Act of 1974 nor under the UGC Regulations, 2018
relied upon by the Petitioners themselves, there is a stipulation that a vice-
2025:KER:46149
chancellor has to hold a Ph.D. degree, or that the vice-chancellor has to be
a professor from the same academic stream or subject area as that of the
University. Our attention is drawn to Chapter 10 of the Kerala University
First Statutes, 1977 (Statutes of 1977), to point out that the University
comprises various faculties such as Arts, Social Sciences, Science, and
Engineering, and also includes Medicine, Dentistry, Ayurveda, and
Homoeopathy. It is also pointed out to us that Regulation 1.1 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, is not applicable to the field of medicine, which is
governed by qualifications and norms prescribed by the statutory
authorities established under the respective enactments regulating that
field. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that there have been
instances where vice-chancellors have been asked to perform the duties of
other vice-chancellors of other universities.
19. Section 10(19) of the Act of 1974 does not provide any guidelines
with respect to the temporary arrangement. Assuming both options for
making an arrangement were open to the Chancellor, that is, one,
professors from affiliated colleges who possess academic qualifications,
and second, a serving Vice-Chancellor of another University, section
10(19) of the Act of 1974 does not impose any bar prohibiting the vice-
chancellor of another university from being asked to perform the duties of
the vice-chancellor as an arrangement. Unless there is a legal bar or
statutory prohibition against this arrangement, a writ of quo warranto
cannot be issued. Further, the course of action taken by the Chancellor is
2025:KER:46149
consistent with administrative necessity and institutional continuity. If the
contention of the Petitioners that there is only one option with the
chancellor, that is, to appoint the senior-most professor, is accepted, it
would create a right in favour of a senior-most professor, when the statute
does not confer any such right, and it would amount to rewriting the
statute. Also disputes may arise regarding seniority, which may defeat the
purpose of an effective temporary arrangement. The post of vice-
chancellor of the University of Kerala is not promotional. To insist that
even interim arrangements must follow the full regular appointment
process would defeat the very purpose of the flexibility intended by the
statute in specifically using two different terms.
20. The bio-data of Respondent No.4 shows that Respondent No.4 has
served as a Professor for a period of ten years and holds the qualifications
of a Master's degree and a Doctorate. Respondent No.4 was appointed as
a Professor on 9 August 2006 before the UGC Regulations prescribed
Ph.D as a regular qualification for the post, which indicates that he
obtained his M.D. degree in 1991 and has held various positions,
including membership in the Indian Medical Council and serving as the
State President of the Kerala Government Medical College Teachers'
Association. He has guided and completed 19 research projects. In the
year 2016, he was conferred with the Best Doctor Award and the State
Award. He has also published several papers in international journals.
Respondent No.4 was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala
2025:KER:46149
University of Health Sciences on 26 October 2019. Respondent No.4 has
been discharging the additional responsibilities pending the finalisation of
the selection process. Nothing is placed before us that the institutional
interest of the University has suffered due to this arrangement. Therefore,
this is not a case where the exercise of power is entirely arbitrary.
21. The Petitioners have relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill
Pvt. Ltd. and Others3, Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Others v. State of Bihar
and Others4, and State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das and
Others5, which lay down the principles governing the issuance of a writ of
quo warranto, including the settled position that when a statutory
authority is required to perform a particular act in a prescribed manner, it
has to be done in that manner alone. There is no, and cannot be, any
dispute with regard to these settled legal propositions. The question,
however, is their applicability to the facts of the present case. In the
present case, the Petitioners have failed to point out any such statutory
embargo or stipulation.
22. The learned Senior Advocate for the Chancellor questioned the
bona fides of the petitioner, relying on the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth, stating that
(2003) 2 SCC 111
(2013) 8 SCC 633
(2022) 16 SCC 318
2025:KER:46149
the bona fides have to be examined even in the proceedings where a writ
of quo warranto is sought. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that
the Petitioners themselves are members of the Senate and the Senate has
adopted an attitude of non-cooperation with the Chancellor, resulting in
an impasse that has prolonged the process of regular appointment of a
Vice-Chancellor. He submitted that, after having delayed the
appointment of a regular vice-chancellor, the Petitioners are now seeking
to create difficulties even with respect to the arrangement made by the
Chancellor, who had no option but to call upon the Vice-Chancellor of
another University. He submitted that this is intended only to create
uncertainty and chaos in the functioning of the University of Kerala. The
learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners refuted these allegations,
submitting that the Petitioners were not parties to the earlier litigation
and were only opposing procedural irregularities. We do not wish to
comment on the merits or demerits of these allegations. However, the fact
remains that the Petitioners are members of the Senate, and it is due to
the disagreement between the Senate and the Chancellor that the
arrangement, which is otherwise intended to address a short-term
contingency, has continued. It may be that for various reasons, the regular
selection process has not been completed, and now questions are being
raised about the temporary arrangements made in its place. However, this
approach is not in the best interest of higher education, which must
remain the primary concern of all those involved in university
2025:KER:46149
administration. It is a matter of serious concern that twelve out of thirteen
universities in Kerala are currently functioning without regularly
appointed Vice-Chancellors, and that petitions are being filed in this
court at nearly every stage of the appointment process and even over
temporary arrangements. This situation risks weakening the quality of
higher education in the State. We sincerely hope that appropriate steps are
taken without delay to resolve the issues.
23. We find that no case is made out to issue a writ as sought by the
Petitioners.
24. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications,
if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
Nitin Jamdar,
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Basant Balaji,
Judge
krj/-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
2025:KER:46149
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43059/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. ELECTION/
SENATE/RECONSTITUTION/TP/2022-23 DATED 30.06.2023
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS6-2410/2023
DATED 28.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.07.2024
IN W.P.(C) NO.25727/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2024 IN W.P(C)
NO.25727/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS6-877/2019-1
DATED 26.10.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPOINTING
THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE
UNIVERSITY FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS6-1843/2024
DATED 05.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
CONSTITUTING THE SEARCH COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 12.09.2024
IN W.P.(C) NO.32739/2024.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14.10.2024
IN W.P.(C) NO.32739/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS6-1843/2024(2)
DATED 24.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
REAPPOINTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS VICE
CHANCELLOR OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS6-2410/2023(1)
DATED 24.10.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
GIVING ADDITIONAL CHARGE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS
THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE KERALA UNIVERSITY.
2025:KER:46149
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE UGC
REGULATIONS, 2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.24130/AD
A2/3/2019/AD A2 DATED 07.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY GIVING
ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE
MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO PROFESSOR DR. C.T.
ARAVINDA KUMAR, PROFESSOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS3-1585/2024
DATED 12.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT GIVING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF
POST OF VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALICUT TO DR. P.RAVEENDRAN, PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS5-3612/2022
DATED 20.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR OF
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
GIVING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE POST OF VICE
CHANCELLOR OF THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY TO DR. M.JUNAID BUSHIRI,
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GS3/2298/2023(1)
DATED 31.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR OF
KANNUR UNIVERSITY GIVING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF THE
POST OF VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY
TO DR. K.K.SAJU, PROFESSOR & HEAD OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, COCHIN
UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.12.2022
IN W.A. NO.1961/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.1961/2022 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
2025:KER:46149
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT R2A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.6.2022.
EXHIBIT R2B TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.7.2022.
EXHIBIT R2C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.8.2022.
EXHIBIT R2D TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.8.2022 RECEIVED
FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2E TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED DATED
5.8.2022.
EXHIBIT R2F TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.8.2022.
EXHIBIT R2G TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.9.2022 ISSUED BY
THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2H TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.9.2022 RECEIVED
IN THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S OFFICE.
EXHIBIT R2I TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.9.2022 ISSUED TO
THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R2J TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.9.2022 RECEIVED
FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2K TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.9.2022 ISSUED TO
THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2L TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.9.2022 ISSUED TO
THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2M TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.9.2022 ISSUED TO
THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2N TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.9.2022 ADDRESSED
TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 3 RD RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY.
2025:KER:46149
EXHIBIT R2O TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.10.2022 RECEIVED
FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2P TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER INTIMATING THE DECISION
OF THE SENATE HELD ON 4.11.2022.
EXHIBIT R2Q TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.35646 OF
2022.
EXHIBIT R2R TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE
3RD RESPONDENT REGARDING THE MEETING HELD ON
16.2.2024.
EXHIBIT R2S TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED ON 21.2.2024 BY
THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2T TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.6.2024
CONSTITUTING THE SEARCH COMMITTEE IN RESPECT OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT R2U TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.7.2024 IN
WP(C) NO.25727 OF 2024.
EXHIBIT R2V TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.42531 OF
2024 DATED 4.12.2024.
EXHIBIT A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 26.7.2019
R4[A] SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR THE POST OF
VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES.
EXHIBIT A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.GS6-1225/2022(3)
R4[B] DATED 24.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
