KOLKATA: Advocate DS Naidu, who appeared in court for the chancellor, said that the media reports that the observations made on Friday by the Supreme Court about the appointment of interim vice-chancellors (officiating VCs) in West Bengal universities are against the Governor as Chancellor, are misleading

Appointment of 'Interim' Vice-Chancellors / 'Officiating' VCs by the Chancellor in Universities has not been stayed by the Supreme Court, and they can continue. The court only observed that an application could have been made to the Supreme Court before the appointment order was issued as it was a case under the consideration of the court. The chancellor sought an explanation from the concerned regarding the situation and directed that it be done before the next sitting.

The Supreme Court has not quashed, modified or stayed the orders of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the position of the Chancellor in the case of 'Sanat Kumar Ghosh v. Chancellor, Kalyani University and others' challenging the Chancellor's decisions regarding the appointment of officiating VCs. In fact, the High Court upheld the Chancellor's authority and decision. The counsel for the petitioners requested that interim vice-chancellors be prohibited from taking administrative decisions, but the court not only did not accept it but clarified that it would not interfere.

The Supreme Court has not given any direction on signing the bill passed by the Assembly. In the last hearing, the court had observed that the court cannot interfere in this matter and cannot issue instructions to the government. The court also pointed out that the governor can take an appropriate decision in this regard.

At no time was there any remark on the part of the Court to refute the Chancellor. The court has directed all the parties to submit their revised list of nominees to be included in the search-cum-selection committee for the selection of regular VCs. The Chancellor has already done that. The court also opined that if it needs to be rectified, it can give instructions. The lawyer said that the interpretation that all the above are remarks against the chancellor is not correct.