Pondicherry varsity V-C barred from taking decisions
THE HINDU 23 June 2012
The Madras High Court on Friday restrained the Vice-Chancellor of Pondicherry University from taking any policy decision or making appointments for a week.
It passed the order on a petition by K. Kaliaperumal, general secretary of the Pondicherry University Non-Teaching Staff Welfare Association.
The petitioner stated that J.A.K. Tareen was appointed the Vice-Chancellor for five years from April 16, 2007. His term ended on April 16 this year. As per rules, the V-C should continue in office until his successor is appointed and joins office.
The Visitor may direct the V-C whose term of office had expired to continue in office for a period not exceeding one year. In the case of Prof. Tareen, he could continue in office until his successor was appointed.
Mr. Kaliaperumal said there was a doubt as to whether the V-C was continuing in office validly and whether this had been permitted by the Visitor. The university registry was silent on the issue.
An RTI application by S. Adhavan had received a reply from the President’s Secretariat by a letter dated June 1 this year, which clearly confirmed that Prof. Tareen was continuing in office. This was not in accordance with the legal requirements.
He prayed the court to grant an injunction restraining the V-C from continuing in office and show cause as to under what authority he was continuing after his term ended.
In his order, Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar said that he heard senior counsel V.T. Gopalan appearing for the petitioner. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, took notice for the Union Human Resources Development Ministry. The petitioner should take notices to the university Registrar and the V-C.
The Judge said that it appeared that the relevant rule of the university’s statute had not been complied with as per the information furnished by the Presidential office. It had been stated in the affidavit that the V-C was taking policy decisions and making appointments contrary to the instructions of the Union HRD Ministry of June 19 and February 7. Hence the restraint order.