Thiruvananthapuram, Feb 3 (UNI) Kerala Raj Bhavan on Thursday strongly refuted the claim in some news reports that it was on the direction of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan that the name of Dr Gopinath Ravindran was suggested for reappointment as Vice Chancellor, Kannur University. The truth is that the same was initiated by the Chief Minister and Higher Education Minister, a Raj Bhavan press release said this evening. To set the record straight, the Raj Bhavan would like to place the chronology of events on the November 21, 22 and 23, 2021,and said: The tenure of the Vice Chancellor, Kannur University was to end on November 23. A selection committee had already been constituted vide notification dated October 27, 2021 to select and appoint a new Vice Chancellor. The Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Kerala had also issued a notification dated November 1, 2021 on behalf of the Selection Committee to invite the applications to the post of the Vice Chancellor. While this process was on, on November 21, 2021, as deputed by Chief Minister K K Raveendranath, legal adviser to Chief Minister, met the Governor at Kerala Raj Bhavan at 1130 hrs. He conveyed to the Governor, the Government’s desire to reappoint Dr Gopinath Ravindran as Vice Chancellor and informed that a formal request to this effect from the Minister for Higher Education was on the way to Raj Bhavan. The Governor, who had a different view on the matter, informed him that the proposal appeared legally untenable since the due process of selection was already in motion. On this, the legal advisor informed that the Government has examined the matter in detail and that the request was legally sound to withstand any legal scrutiny. He informed that Government had the legal advice and produced some typed papers. The Governor inquired about its source, as it was unsigned. The legal advisor to the Chief Minister said it was the opinion of the Advocate General of Kerala and repeated the plea to consider the request of the Government to reappoint Dr Gopinath Ravindran as Vice Chancellor, Kannur University. At this juncture, the Governor said the instant opinion said to be from the Advocate General but without his signature and seal, was of no significance. To this, the legal advisor said that he will produce the legal opinion bearing the signature and seal of Advocate General without delay. As submitted by the legal advisor to the Chief Minister earlier, a letter written by Dr R Bindu, Minister for Higher Education reached Raj Bhavan at 1330 hrs on November 22, 2021. The letter had highlighted Dr Gopinath Ravindran’s capabilities and desirability to be appointed for another term as Vice Chancellor. In this letter, she had clearly requested the Chancellor to “be pleased to cancel the notification dated 27.10.2021 appointing a Search-Cum-Selection Committee for identifying the person to be appointed as Vice Chancellor”. She also requested the Chancellor’s “pleasure in cancelling the notification dated 01.11.2021 and in re-appointing Dr Gopinath Ravindran for a continuous second term as Vice Chancellor of Kannur University”. On 22nd November by 1210 hrs, R Mohan, Officer on Special Duty to Chief Minister and the Legal Advisor to Chief Minister had met the Governor, repeated their request and in support, submitted the signed legal opinion of the Advocate General which was addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department. This opinion of the Advocate General substantially endorsed the request made earlier by the legal advisor to Chief Minister in the personal meeting with the Governor and the request of the Higher Education Minister in her letter. The eight-page opinion of the Advocate General which is addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department says that there was no legal bar in reappointing Dr Gopinath Ravindran as Vice Chancellor, Kannur University, and that the age bar of 60 years fixed in the Kannur University Act, in as much as the same is contrary to the UGC Regulations, is without the authority of law and as such, inapplicable.
Comments are closed.