‘Kannur University Row Unnecessary’: Kerala minister justifies letter to Governor

NEW DELHI: Kerala higher education minister R Bindu on Sunday condemned the opposition by a section over her communication with the Chancellor. In a series of tweets, the minister also justified her letter to Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed in which she sought service extension of Vice-Chancellor of Kannu University, Gopinath Raveendran.

The justification by the minister came in the backdrop of the Kerala Governor’s statement on Friday that asserted that the state higher education minister had no authority to write to him seeking service extension of Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University.

Also read | Kannur University row: Higher Education Minister has no authority to write to me, says Kerala Governor

“The Chancellor of the University is the Governor and the pro-Chancellor is the minister of higher education. These are legally established positions. It is natural for people in these two positions to communicate,” Bindu wrote on Twitter.

“Despite the government's stance on the re-appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University, the ongoing controversy is unnecessary,” she said.

She said that the case is pending in the Kerala High Court and yet some continue to campaign that the minister of higher education, who is also the pro-Chancellor, interfered in the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, without understanding the University Act or the authority of the Pro-Chancellor post.

ഇതു സംബന്ധിച്ച കേസ് ഹൈക്കോടതിയുടെ പരിഗണനയിലുമാണ്.
എന്നിട്ടും പ്രോചാൻസലർ കൂടിയായ ഉന്നതവിദ്യാഭ്യാസമന്ത്രി വൈസ് ചാൻസലർ നിയമനത്തിൽ ഇടപെടൽ നടത്തിയെന്ന നിലയിൽ ചിലർ പ്രചാരണം തുടരുന്നത് സർവ്വകലാശാല നിയമങ്ങളെ സംബന്ധിച്ചോ പ്രോചാൻസലർ എന്ന നിലയിലുള്ള അധികാരം സംബന്ധിച്ചോ മനസ്സിലാകാതെയാണ്.

— Dr R Bindu (@rbinducpm) December 19, 2021

“Therefore, as a pro-chancellor, the minister of higher education can inform the Chancellor in writing regarding the matters relating to the University. This is only a natural step in a situation where the position of Pro-Chancellor is specifically defined in the University Act,” she added.

Justifying her letter and defining the post, she further said that the Chancellor has the power to accept or reject any proposal submitted by the pro-Chancellor.

“The Honorable Court itself said that there was no malpractice in the appointment. Yet the controversy continues to be reprehensible,” she said.