Chancellor’s Wide Discretion in Interim Vice-Chancellor “Arrangements” under §10(19) of the Kerala University Act – Age & Qualification Caps Held Inapplicable

1. Introduction

The Kerala High Court’s decision in Dr. Sivaprasad A. v. State of Kerala (WP(C) No. 43059/2024, decided 26 June 2025) tackles a vexed, recurring question in Kerala’s higher-education governance: Who can lawfully steer a State University when the post of Vice-Chancellor (VC) falls permanently vacant and the regular appointment process is stalled?

For nearly three years the University of Kerala lacked a regular VC. The Chancellor (the Governor of Kerala) invoked §10(19) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 (“KU Act, 1974”), directing Dr. Mohanan Kunnummal—already the regular VC of the Kerala University of Health Sciences—to additionally discharge the duties of VC, University of Kerala, pending a permanent appointment.

Two Senate members (Dr. Sivaprasad A. and Ms. Priya Priyadarsanan) challenged this “stop-gap” notification by a writ of quo warranto and mandamus, principally contending that: (i) Dr. Kunnummal is above 60, breaching §10(5); (ii) he lacks a Ph.D. and belongs to a distinct discipline (medicine) contrary to UGC Regulations, 2018; and (iii) customary practice favours entrusting charge to the senior-most professor of the same University.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Key Holdings

Section 10(19) uses the term “arrangement” not “appointment”; it confers a flexible, temporary power on the Chancellor distinct from the formal appointment regime in §10(1)-(6).
The 60-year age bar in §10(5) and the qualification matrix in the UGC Regulations, 2018 apply to regular appointments, not to interim arrangements under §10(19).
There is no statutory prohibition on assigning a sitting VC of another University to hold additional charge; therefore a writ of quo warranto does not lie.
Circumstances surrounding the vacancy, the doctrine of administrative necessity, and the overarching interest of sustaining University governance are relevant when courts exercise writ jurisdiction against such interim measures.
Petitioners’ challenge was dismissed; interim arrangement stands.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Statutory Framework Considered

Kerala University Act, 1974 – Especially §10(1)-(19).
UGC Regulations, 2018 – Regulation 7 (Vice-Chancellor qualifications) & Regulation 4 (Professor qualifications).
Kerala University First Statutes, 1977 – Composition of faculties and allied provisions.

3.2 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor, Kannur University (AIR 2024 SC 135) – Supreme Court held that the 60-year cap in §10(5) is confined to first-time regular appointments; re-appointments are outside its reach. The High Court extrapolated the same logic to §10(19) arrangements.
Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University v. State of Kerala (Ker DB, 16 Feb 2023) – Emphasised the doctrine of necessity and the need to examine the circumstances leading to interim occupation of a public office.
Classic quo warranto rulings: Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Bhavnagar University, Anindya Sundar Das – cited for the principle that courts interfere only on clear statutory violation. Court held no such violation exists.

3.3 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Textual distinction – “Arrangement” vs. “Appointment”: Different words in the same section signify different legislative intents. An “arrangement” is inherently temporary, instituted to avert administrative paralysis. Requiring it to satisfy all criteria of a regular appointment would reduce §10(19) to a dead letter.
Age & qualification bars: Since §10(19) does not reproduce or cross-refer to §10(5), the 60-year ceiling is inapplicable. Similarly, UGC Regulations arise only under the formal recruitment process—they do not fetter stop-gap measures.
Doctrine of administrative necessity: With 12 of 13 Kerala Universities lacking regular VCs, Respondent 4 was the only serving VC available. Choosing him ensured continuity, avoided disputes on seniority among professors, and respected academic autonomy.
Limits of quo warranto: The writ tests the legality of holding a public office; bona fides and surrounding circumstances, though peripheral, may tilt the discretion to entertain or refuse the writ. Here, no legal bar was demonstrated.

3.4 Impact on Future Cases and Academic Governance

Authoritative clarification of §10(19): Chancellor’s power to craft interim VC arrangements is now judicially recognised as wide and flexible.
Reduced litigation over age/discipline objections in future interim VC appointments, curbing governance stasis in Universities.
Encouragement to expedite regular appointments: Court expressed concern that frequent litigation hampers higher education quality; stakeholders are put on notice.
Spread to other statutes: Similar “stop-gap” clauses in other State University Acts may now be interpreted with comparable latitude.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Writ of quo warranto: A judicial order demanding a person holding a public office to show the legal authority under which they occupy it. Granted only when (i) the office is public and statutory, and (ii) the appointment violates a statutory provision.
Doctrine of Necessity: When legal or constitutional machinery stalls, authorities can adopt essential measures to preserve governance, even if ordinary rules cannot be strictly followed, provided no express prohibition exists.
UGC Regulations, 2018: Nation-wide norms issued by the University Grants Commission setting minimum qualifications and process standards for higher-education appointments. They apply primarily to regular selections, unless a statute/apex court extends them to interim scenarios.
“Arrangement” under §10(19): An ad hoc administrative measure taken by the Chancellor to ensure the University continues to function until a regular VC is appointed.

5. Conclusion

The Kerala High Court has decisively settled that the Chancellor’s interim “arrangement” power under §10(19) of the KU Act is not shackled by the age and qualification restrictions governing permanent appointments. By recognising the doctrine of administrative necessity and refusing to issue a writ of quo warranto absent a clear statutory embargo, the Court prioritised uninterrupted university governance over procedural rigidity. The ruling provides a pragmatic blueprint for other State Universities mired in leadership vacancies while simultaneously calling upon stakeholders to cease dilatory tactics and complete regular appointments expeditiously.