Court for inclusion of Chancellor, Registrar in case against MKU VC
The case was filed challenging appointment of P.P. Chellathurai
The
Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday directed a writ petitioner who
had filed a case challenging the appointment of P.P. Chellathurai as
Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University to include the
university’s Chancellor (Governor) as well as the Registrar as
respondents to the case by Wednesday.
Justices K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan pointed out to petitioner’s counsel G. Prabhu Rajadurai that only the Chancellor, being the appointing authority, and the university Registrar would be in a better position to place the records based on which Mr. Chellathurai was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor.
M. Lionel Antony Raj, a former student of the university and now the district secretary of People’s Rights Protection Centre, a private body, had filed the petition seeking a writ of quo warranto directing the Vice-Chancellor to show cause under what authority he was holding the office.
He also sought to quash the records related to the appointment.
The petitioner had alleged that Mr. Chellathurai had not fulfilled the requirement of being a professor for a minimum of 10 years and that his tenure as Director of Department of Youth Welfare could not be construed as an academic assignment though his request to redesignate him as professor was accepted by the Academic Council.
However, contesting the claim, Senior Counsel Isaac Mohanlal, representing Mr. Chellathurai, stated that it is sufficient if a candidate for the post of Vice-Chancellor had either been a professor or held an equivalent post for 10 years.
He also said that a writ of quo warranto could be issued only if there were statutory violations.
In his affidavit, the petitioner had alleged that the VC also suppressed the fact of having been one of the accused in a criminal case registered by the police in connection with brutal attack unleashed on a professor of the same university during the tenure of former Vice-Chancellor Kalyani Mathivanan in May 2014.
He contended that the Chancellor as well as a search committee constituted for recommending names for the post of Vice-Chancellor would not have considered Mr. Chellathurai’s name if the pending criminal case had been brought to their notice.
Justices K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan pointed out to petitioner’s counsel G. Prabhu Rajadurai that only the Chancellor, being the appointing authority, and the university Registrar would be in a better position to place the records based on which Mr. Chellathurai was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor.
M. Lionel Antony Raj, a former student of the university and now the district secretary of People’s Rights Protection Centre, a private body, had filed the petition seeking a writ of quo warranto directing the Vice-Chancellor to show cause under what authority he was holding the office.
He also sought to quash the records related to the appointment.
The petitioner had alleged that Mr. Chellathurai had not fulfilled the requirement of being a professor for a minimum of 10 years and that his tenure as Director of Department of Youth Welfare could not be construed as an academic assignment though his request to redesignate him as professor was accepted by the Academic Council.
However, contesting the claim, Senior Counsel Isaac Mohanlal, representing Mr. Chellathurai, stated that it is sufficient if a candidate for the post of Vice-Chancellor had either been a professor or held an equivalent post for 10 years.
He also said that a writ of quo warranto could be issued only if there were statutory violations.
In his affidavit, the petitioner had alleged that the VC also suppressed the fact of having been one of the accused in a criminal case registered by the police in connection with brutal attack unleashed on a professor of the same university during the tenure of former Vice-Chancellor Kalyani Mathivanan in May 2014.
He contended that the Chancellor as well as a search committee constituted for recommending names for the post of Vice-Chancellor would not have considered Mr. Chellathurai’s name if the pending criminal case had been brought to their notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment