DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR versus THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 30-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 24 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 377 : 2023 INSC 1032
377
CASE DETAILS
DR. PREMACHANDRAN KEEZHOTH & ANR.
v.
THE CHANCELLOR KANNUR UNIVERSITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7700 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J.B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The respondent No. 4 herein was appointed 
as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University, his tenure was for a 
period four years. As the tenure of the respondent No. 4 was coming to an 
end, the Chancellor initiated steps for selection and appointment of a new 
Vice-Chancellor. The Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, State 
of Kerala issued notiﬁ cation inviting applications from eligible candidates. 
However, the respondent no. 4 herein was re-appointed as Vice-Chancellor 
of the Kannur University after the Minister for Higher Education and Social 
Justice addressed a letter to the Governor/Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 
recommending re-appointment of the respondent No. 4 herein for a second 
term. (i) Whether re-appointment is permissible in respect of a tenure 
post; (ii) Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of 
Vice-Chancellor as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the 
Kannur University Act, 1996 is to be made applicable even in the case of 
re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor for one more term of four years (iii) 
Whether the re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same 
process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under 
Section 10(1) of the Act 1996 (iv) Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender 
his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
Kannur University Act, 1996 – s. 10(9) and s.10(10) – Whether 
reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post:
Held: The ordinary meaning that can be ascribed to the term 
“reappointment” is the act or process of deciding essentially that someone 
should continue in a particular job – Ordinarily, the object behind providing 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
for reappointment is twofold – First is “retention” i.e., where the incumbent 
to the oﬃ  ce/post during his term is found to be extraordinary and has 
established himself or herself to be an asset to the institution, then in such 
circumstance, such person is retained with a view to allow him to continue 
on the same post for one more term – Secondly, having regard to the nature 
of the post the organization or institution may not be in a position to ﬁ ll up 
the post in a time bound manner and in such circumstances, the provision 
for reappointment may enable the organization or institution to relieve itself 
of the tedium of going through the entire selection process afresh every time 
the post becomes vacant – Therefore, the reappointment is permissible even 
in case of a tenure post. [Paras 46 and 47]
Kannur University Act, 1996 – s. 10(9) and s.10(10) – Whether the 
outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor 
as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act, 1996 is 
to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the Vice-
Chancellor for one more term of four years.
Held: On a plain reading of sub-section (9) of Section 10 of 
the Act 1996, it appears that the person sought to be appointed as a 
Vice-Chancellor must not be more than sixty-years of age at the time 
of appointment i.e., it provides the outer age limit for appointment – 
While sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 provides that upon 
appointment, the term of the Vice-Chancellor would be for four years 
and that he shall be eligible for reappointment – The proviso attached 
to sub-section (10) stipulates that no person shall be appointed as Vice-
Chancellor for more than two terms – Sub-section (9) of Section 10 
of the Act 1996 will apply only at the stage of appointment of Vice-
Chancellor and would have no application whatsoever when it comes 
to reappointment of Vice-Chancellor under sub-section (10) – This is 
reinforced from the words “shall be eligible for reappointment” occurring 
in sub-section (10) which connotes that the same is an enabling provision 
whereby the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of holding his oﬃ  ce is deemed 
eligible for reappointment irrespective of the other provisions – If 
the outer age limit provided in sub-section (9) would apply even to 
reappointment, then the same would eﬀ ectively mean that only those 
persons who are appointed as Vice-Chancellor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.