No relief to ousted MKU VC: Supreme Court refuses to stay Madras HC order
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday while admitting an appeal filed by P. P. Chellathurai against a verdict of the Madurai Bench of the Madras high court quashing his appointment as the vice- chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University, refused to stay the operation of the order.
A vacation Bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Ms Indu Malhotra after hearing senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan for the appellant and senior counsel R. Venkataramani for the Tamil Nadu government in a brief order said “appeals admitted. Issue notice on application for stay. Post the matter in the third week of July, pleadings to be completed in the meantime.”
Mr Vaidyanathan submitted that the high court order was erroneous as it was against the various decisions of the Supreme Court. The order cannot be sustained, he said and prayed for an interim stay. Mr Venkataramani, however, submitted that pursuant to the HC order, the functions of the Vice Chancellor had been taken over by a committee. He opposed stay of the order.
On June 14 the Madras HC set aside the appointment of Mr Chellathurai while allowing a petition filed by M. Lionel Antony Raj challenging his appointment on the ground of violation of procedure.
The HC agreeing with the petitioner held that there is a clear violation of statute of Madurai Kamaraj University Act 1965 and, more importantly, such violation pertains to the selection process and procedure.
While unseating the VC, the court issued certain directions for redoing the selection process and appointment of VC of MKU in accordance with the statute and by following the process and procedure for selection in letter and spirit. The process shall be completed within a period of three months, it said.
Assailing the verdict, Mr Chellathurai, in his appeal said there are no materials to suggest his involvement in the criminal case, which was foisted on him falsely and the investigation report had given him a clean chit.
The high court erred in not appreciating that the scope of writ of quo warranto is very limited and that the court ought not to get into suitability or what weighed in the minds of the persons responsible for selection.
He said once the search committee recommends a panel to the Chancellor, the committee becomes functus officio. The members of the search committee, thereafter, cannot be heard to contend that the process of selection is improper or anything contrary to the recommendations made therein.
The function of selection committee comes to an end when the process of selection is completed and the proceedings are drawn. It is not a bonafide act on the part of the members of the Committee to say, after the selection, that he/she had overlooked certain qualifications. Such an act would tantamount to travesty of the selection process, he said and prayed for quashing the verdict and an interim stay of its operation.
