The Kerala High Court is expected to examine the agenda and minutes of a Syndicate meeting of Calicut University held two months ago and the action taken report on them during the hearing on a petition that challenged the appointment of the Registrar on Wednesday.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran on November 17 asked the university authorities to submit the documents after it examined a fresh affidavit submitted by Vice Chancellor M.K. Jayaraj. After going through the affidavit, the court pointed out that the Syndicate appeared to have arrived at some kind of a view that the extension of deputation given to the Registrar was not in order, after “deliberations”. The Vice Chancellor, however, shied away from saying so in the affidavit. The court wanted to determine the nature of the “deliberations” and “discussions” of the meeting held on September 9, if the view gathered in it was that the extension of deputation to the Registrar was not proper and a permanent appointment was required to be done.
If such a view led to the argument put forward by the Vice Chancellor in his affidavit, the court would not have to consider the arguments of the petitioner on its merit, the Bench said. Another affidavit filed by the university in the meantime said that the proceedings of the meeting had not been recorded. The court said that the above scenario led to a prima facie inference that “there was more than meets the eye”.
The petition filed by Senate member N. Rajesh had questioned the Registrar’s appointment, alleging that the university authorities had provided incorrect information to the court. The statement filed by the university had said that “... the Syndicate in its meeting held on 09/09/2020 discussed the entire issue and authorised the Vice Chancellor to take action in the matter and based on the discussion in the Syndicate, the Vice Chancellor has issued an office order to take necessary action to notify the post of Registrar, Controller of Examinations, and Finance Officer on a permanent basis...”
The petitioner pointed out that the Syndicate had not discussed the appointment to the above posts and that the Vice Chancellor had not been authorised to take a call on it. Those posts had fixed tenures and the Syndicate did not have the power to make appointment to them, the petitioner had claimed. Later, the Vice Chancellor was asked to submit the fresh affidavit.
