Madras High Court stays TN government amendment to take away Governor's power to appoint VCs

At a time when the state government is gearing up to reform the universities and appoint new vice-chancellors, the Madras High Court seems to have put a temporary halt to these actions. A bench of justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshmi Narayanan on Wednesday stayed the amendments passed by the Tamil Nadu government to make the state the appointing authority for vice-chancellors of various state-run universities. 

 

 

 

The summer vacation bench granted the stay after hearing the arguments in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Kutty alias K. Venkatachalapathy, a BJP functionary from Tirunelveli. The PIL sought the court to declare all the amendment Acts null and void. The bench passed the orders after hearing the arguments put forth by senior counsel Dama Seshadri Naidu, assisted by V.R. Shanmuganathan, for the petitioner and advocate general P.S. Raman and DMK Rajya Sabha MP and senior counsel P. Wilson represented the state government.

 

 

 

Raman and Wilson on behalf of the chief secretary and the education department of the state urged the court to grant time for filing a counter affidavit. The counsels for the government contended that there was absolutely no urgency in taking up the stay petition for hearing by a summer vacation bench. But the justices rejected the request and issued an interim stay. They also said that the state has already filed a petition before the Supreme Court. The counsels also urged the Madras High Court to transfer the PIL to the Supreme Court along with the state’s plea pending in the top court.

 

 

 

The interim stay has come as a huge embarrassment for the state government which has been fighting the Governor on all fronts -- particularly with regard to the varsity administration. In this context, Tamil Nadu higher education secretary C. Samayamoorthy also filed a memo before the Madras High Court stating that the PIL petition was “politically motivated.” In the memo he stated that a mention was made before the bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on May 19, seeking early listing of the transfer petition. Samayamoorthy also mentioned that CJI had asked the state government’s counsel to inform the Madras High Court about the transfer petition. 

 

 

 

In his PIL the petitioner had contended that the state laws were repugnant, on 56 grounds, to Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges. 

India