Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday expressed its anguish at the Telangana government in appointing vice-chancellors to various universities despite pending PILs against its action in amending the AP Universities Act, 1991 and Acts of other universities in the state to make appointments of vice-chancellors without consulting the Governor.
The court observed that the GO issued for appointment of V-Cs and the Act seemed to be paving way for MPs, MLAs and even board members of Panchayats defeated in elections to be appointed as V-Cs.
A division Bench comprising acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice A.V. Sesha Sai was reserving its orders on two PILs by Dr D. Manohar Rao, a retired professor of Osmania University, challenging amending the Acts taking away the power of the chancellor (Governor) to make appointments, and bestowing it on the state government.
During the hearing, Mr S. Sriram, counsel appearing for the petitioner, brought to the notice of the Bench that the government had issued orders on Monday appointing vice-chancellors to certain universities in the state.
Reacting to the submissions of the counsel, Justice Bhosale asked why the government had not waited for another two or three days when it had kept it pending for the past two years.
The Bench expressed its displeasure at the government’s counsel for making allotments despite an assurance given to the court that no appointments would be made till finalisation of the petitions.
Additional advocate general J. Ramachandra Rao submitted that the government had earlier given assurances that no appointments would be made for three days. Since three days were over, it had appointed the V-Cs, he added.
He submitted that due to non-appointment of Vice-Chancellors, administration in the varsities was getting effected and the High Court had ordered immediate appointment of V-Cs in another petition.
The AAG submitted that the appointments would be subjected to the final order of the High Court, but the Bench pointed out that while the current government may not make appointments, what was the guarantee that successive governments would not implement the Act?
The petitioner counsel informed the Bench the government had brought the amendment to the Acts through a GO issued on September 11, 2015 claiming that it had amended the provisions under Section 101 of the AP Reorganisation Act 2014 after adapting the AP Universities Act, 1991. He told the court that the government had subsequently brought out legislation.
He said that the UGC had fixed certain qualifications for professors to be appointed as vice-chancellors, but the new amendment envisaged that those having administrative experience could be appoint as the V-C of a varsity, which was nothing but intent to politicise the appointments, and this would pave way for IAS officers and even section officers of the Secretariat to become V-Cs. While asking how a state government could amend UGC rules, the Bench declared that the orders were reserved.
