1 month ago
1
It was the State legislature which had enacted laws empowering the Governor, successful his/her capableness arsenic Chancellor, to name vice-chancellors to assorted State-run universities and hence, the aforesaid legislature is afloat entitled to amend those laws and marque the authorities arsenic the appointing authority, the Tamil Nadu authorities has argued earlier the Madras High Court.
The submission was made successful a antagonistic affidavit filed earlier the archetypal Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan by Higher Education Secretary P. Shankar. The antagonistic was filed successful effect to a 2025 writ petition that had challenged the validity of 9 amendment Acts passed by the Assembly with respect to assorted universities.
Advocate General P.S. Raman and elder counsel P. Wilson told the Bench that the High Court had connected May 21, 2025 stayed the cognition of the 9 amendment Acts to the grade to which the provisions instrumentality distant the powerfulness of the Governor to name vice-chancellors. However, the Supreme Court had connected February 4, 2026 acceptable speech the interim bid of the High Court.
Since the main lawsuit had to beryllium argued astatine magnitude astatine present, the A-G requested the tribunal to hole a day sometime during the period of June. However, erstwhile the petitioner’s counsel insisted connected a abbreviated adjournment, the judges decided to database the lawsuit connected April 9, 2026 and past instrumentality a telephone connected fixing a day for last hearing. Mr. Wilson told the tribunal the pleadings person been completed with the filing of the antagonistic affidavit.
In his counter, Mr. Shankar told the tribunal the writ petition filed by Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli was a politically motivated litigation since the petitioner had suppressed the information that helium was a territory caput of Bharatiya Janata Party. The Secretary besides contended determination was nary question of the amendment Acts being successful contravention of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.
He said, a vice-chancellor was an serviceman and not a teaching unit of the assemblage successful bid to use the UGC Regulations with respect to his/her appointment. He relied upon the Supreme Court’s 2015 determination successful Madurai Kamaraj University erstwhile vice-chancellor Kalyani Mathivanan’s lawsuit to buttress his submission that a vice-chancellor was an serviceman of a university.
Further, highlighting the Centre’s powerfulness was constricted to determination of standards with respect to higher education, Mr. Shankar said, specified a powerfulness would not see the functions of regularisation and medication of universities which autumn nether the legislative competence of the State. “The mandates of the appointing authorization of a vice-chancellor does not person immoderate nonstop bearing to standards of higher education,” helium said.
He urged the tribunal to disregard the writ petition by imposing exemplary costs.
