KU VC loses case in High Court for extension of term

KU VC loses case in High Court for extension of term
  • 677
    Shares

Srinagar: The High Court on Friday dismissed the plea of Vice Chancellor (VC) of Kashmir University, Professor Khurshid Andrabi, for extension of his services from three to five years.
The court said, “The petition has no grounds of merit and it shall stand disposed of.”
As per Section 12 of the Kashmir and Jammu Universities Act, 1969, Professor Andrabi was appointed as VC of Kashmir University by a government order dated 17 October 2014. The appointment was for a period of three years.
Meanwhile, the law was amended in 2015, substituting the three-year term with five years.
When the Chancellor of Kashmir University constituted a committee to select a new VC for Kashmir University, Professor Andrabi approached the High Court through his counsel, Zaffar Shah.
Professor Andrabi said in his plea that “he has a right to continue as Vice Chancellor of the university for five years from the day he took charge.”
Advocate Shah submitted before the court that Professor Andrabi is entitled to have benefits of the amendments brought in the Act.
“The amendment was retroactive and would apply to the in-service vice chancellor who was holding office when the amendment was brought into law,” Shah argued.
Advocate-General Jehangir Iqbal Ganai argued that the VC’s term will not be extended as the un-amended law was in place when his appointment was made.
“The amendment is prospective in nature and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the amended law,” Ganai argued.
Advocate DC Raina, representing the Chancellor of the University, also said that the amendment was not retrospective and hence was not applicable to Professor Andrabi.
Citing the Supreme Court’s orders, a single bench headed by Justice Diraj Singh Thakur ruled that “the argument that the amendment act of 2015 be given retroactive effect in the present case is without any legal basis and is accordingly rejected.”
The court observed that in the present case, the amendment of 2015 can only be said to be prospective in operation without any retroactive effects.