Anoop Kumar is suitable to hold post of....

Anoop Kumar is suitable to hold post of....

The affidavit while quoting Section 12(7) of the MU Act slated that Chancellor has sole right in any of the following circumstances and exigencies which may arose when the search committee is unable to recommend any name within the time limit specified by the Chancellor; where the vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice-Chancellor because of death, resignation or otherwise, and it can not be conveniently and expeditiously filled, because of leave, illness of V-C or other causes; upon expiry of term of regular V-C and where there is any-other emergency. In such eventualities, the Chancellor may appoint any suitable person, to act as the Vice-Chancellor or for a term not exceeding six months, in the aggregate as he may specify in his order.

The matter is slated for hearing on Thursday before a division bench consisting of Justice Bhushan Gavai and Justice V M Deshpande.

Divisional Commissioner Anoop Kumar was appointed as officiating V-C following sudden resignation of Dr Vilas Sapkal as V-C of RTMNU following a major row over ban on 250 colleges and his tiff with academic heavyweights and members of statutory bodies. The petitioner has sought interpretation of Section 12(7) of the MU Act which gives power to the Chancellor to appoint any suitable eligible person as officiating Vice-Chancellor. According to the petitioner, the

Chancellor is duty bound to appoint only eligible candidate which as per rules means an academician with a doctorate, at least 15 years of leaching experience, minimum live publications and administrative experience as Vice-Ciuincellor. Questioning the March 30, 2014 order issued by the Chancellor appointing                  Divisional

Commissioner Anoop Kumar as officiating V-C of RTMNU, the petitioner claimed that after the rules were framed specifying the qualification of V-C. the Chancellor ought to have appointed an academician who is eligible and suitable to hold the post of V-C. Clarifying that he had nothing personal against any individual including Divisional Commissioner, die petitioner claimed that even the Chancellor can not go beyond the statute and regulations framed thereunder.

Prior to framing of rules specifying the eligibility of candidates aspiring to become V-C, the Chancellor could nominate administrative officers like Divisional Commissioners or senior IAS officers or a senior Principal of an affiliated college. But now the Chancellor has no option bin Co appoint a lull-time V-C, the petitioner claimed while making it clear that any suitable and eligible candidate be appointed as V-C at the earliest. The affidavit has cited many such appointments in the past.

Posted in: News 2014