JUDGMENT : P.V. ASHA, J. 1. The Pro Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University has filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the termination of his services ordered on the basis of the recommendation made by the Vice Chancellor consequent to retirement of the petitioner from the post of Professor on 30.04.2019, on superannuation. Exts.P6, P10 and P12 are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Pro Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University, as per Ext.P2 order, while he was working as Professor in the Department of Management of Studies in that University. He took charge on 27.03.2018, on his appointment made in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 7.1.0 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UGC Regulations, 2010’). The terms and conditions of his service were fixed as per Ext.P4 order dated 03.09.2018, fixing his pay at Rs. 67,000/- with academic grade pay of Rs. 10,000/- and special allowance of Rs. 4,000/- per month. It further provided that in the event of his retirement on superannuation from the parent post during his tenure as Pro-Vice Chancellor, his pay should be re-fixed under Rule 100 of Part III KSR after deducting his pension. On attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from the post of Professor on 30.04.2019. Thereafter the Vice Chancellor 2nd respondent as per Ext.P5 note dated 03.05.2019 recommended to the syndicate for appointment of a new Pro-Vice Chancellor in the place of the petitioner, stating that petitioner did not meet the requirement of clause 7.1.1 of the UGC Regulation 2010, since he retired from the post of Professor. On consideration of that recommendation, the Syndicate as per Ext.P6 minutes, resolved to wait for the opinion of the Secretary to the Law Department, before proceeding further in the matter. Thereafter the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department as per Ext.P7 letter opined that the petitioner can continue despite his superannuation and made it clear that he can continue only for 4 years from the date on which he assumed charge. It is stated that the syndicate got opinion from the Standing Counsel of the University also which was also in tune with the opinion of the Government. 3. It is stated that the syndicate got opinion from the Standing Counsel of the University also which was also in tune with the opinion of the Government. 3. The 2nd respondent had requested for the opinion of the Chancellor also in the matter. The Chancellor considered the matter in the light of the provisions contained in Clause 7.1.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and the judgments of this Court in Dr. T. Asokan vs. Chancellor and Others, W.P. (C) No. 11058 of 2018 and in Dr. Abdul Rahiman vs. State of Kerala, W.P. (C) No. 19796 of 2018 and found that it is a mandatory requirement under Clause 7.1 of the UGC Regulation that Pro-Vice Chancellor shall continue to be a whole time Professor during the co-terminus period of his appointment. It was also found that the continuance of a Pro-Vice Chancellor depends on the pleasure of Vice Chancellor and it is the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to recommend a new Vice Chancellor. Accordingly as per Ext.P8 letter of the Principal Secretary to Governor, issued as per the orders of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor was directed to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of UGC Regulations. 4. Thereupon the syndicate in its meeting held on 18.07.2019, as per Ext.P10 minutes, decided to constitute a five member sub committee to consider the matter and to offer its comments on the opinion received from the Chancellor, the Department of Higher Education as well as from the Standing Counsel of the University. 5. While so apprehending that the Vice Chancellor may take action in tune with the opinion expressed by the Chancellor, without waiting for the decision of the Syndicate, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 24.07.2019. It is stated that Vice Chancellor had left the head quarters for the period from 24.7.2019 to 27.7.2019, giving charge to the petitioner, to attend to his duties. 6. Petitioner further submitted that after the Writ Petition came up for admission on 25.07.2019 and was posted for instructions to 26.07.2019, the 2nd respondent sent an e-mail on 25.7.2019 instructing the Registrar to relieve the petitioner and that the Registrar had thereupon issued Ext.P12 order dated 25.07.2019 relieving the petitioner from the post of Pro Vice Chancellor on 25.07.2019 AN. Petitioner further submitted that after the Writ Petition came up for admission on 25.07.2019 and was posted for instructions to 26.07.2019, the 2nd respondent sent an e-mail on 25.7.2019 instructing the Registrar to relieve the petitioner and that the Registrar had thereupon issued Ext.P12 order dated 25.07.2019 relieving the petitioner from the post of Pro Vice Chancellor on 25.07.2019 AN. It was stated that Ext.P12 order was served on him at 8.45 P.M. Referring to an email dated 25.07.2019 of the Vice Chancellor, it was ordered as follows in Ext.P12 order: “As per reference cited, the Vice Chancellor has informed that exercising the powers vested with him as per clause 7.2.0 of the UGC Regulations in force and the advice received from the Secretary to Governor/Chancellor, Kannur University, as per letter no. GS3 1303/2018 dated 0.07.2019, Dr. T.P. Raveendran is relieved from the post of Pro- Vice-Chancellor, Kannur University, on 25.07.2019 AN. Vice Chancellor has further instructed that Prof. (Dr.) C. Sadasivan, Dean Faculty of Science and Seniormost Professor of the University will officiate as Vice Chancellor on 26 and 27 July 2019 and directed to issue necessary orders, to this effect, immediately. The following orders are, therefore, issued on the matter. 1. Dr. P.T. Raveendran is relieved from the post of Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Kannur University, on 25.07.2019 AN. 2. As Vice Chancellor is away from the head quarters, Prof. (Dr.) C. Sadasivan, Dean, Faculty of Science and the senior most Professor of the University will officiate as Vice Chancellor on 26th and 27th of July 2019. 3. The matter will be reported to the next meeting of the syndicate. 7. In these circumstances, when the Writ Petition came up for consideration again, on 26.07.2019, an interim order was issued directing that petitioner shall be allowed to function as Pro Vice Chancellor for a period of two weeks. The University thereupon issued Ext.P14 order on 27.07.2019 allowing the petitioner to continue as Pro-Vice Chancellor for a further period of two weeks; at the same time withdrawing all his powers as Pro-Vice Chancellor other than to be in charge of Vice Chancellor on 27.7.2019. The Writ Petition was amended incorporating challenge against Exts.P12 and P14 orders also. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. The Writ Petition was amended incorporating challenge against Exts.P12 and P14 orders also. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the appointment of the Pro-Vice Chancellor is made from among Professors of the University as mandated under the UGC Regulations and one can hold office as Pro-Vice Chancellor only as long as he holds the post of Professor. The petitioner was appointed while he was holding the post of Professor on recommendation by the Vice Chancellor. On his superannuation from service as Professor on 30.04.2019 he lost his title to hold the office of Pro-Vice Chancellor and hence to continue in the co-terminus appointment. It is further stated that the office of the Pro-Vice Chancellor is not a tenure post and that no vested right is created on the petitioner to continue as Pro-Vice Chancellor. It is also their case that the Vice Chancellor has every power to recommend a new Pro- Vice Chancellor any time. It is stated that when petitioner superannuated from the post of Professor, the 2nd respondent recommended for his replacement, in exercise of the powers vested in him. The respondents have further stated that Government of Kerala has, as per Ext.R1(b) order, implemented only the scale of pay under the UGC Regulations 2018 and that those Regulations are not adopted or implemented in full. It is also their contention that petitioner who was appointed in terms of the 2010 Regulations cannot seek the benefit of 2018 Regulations. It is stated that there is no fixed tenure for appointment; there was no question of any premature termination and there is no malafide exercise of power. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has not issued any order in respect of fixation of petitioner's pay after his superannuation, though petitioner had recommended for the same. 9. In the reply affidavit the petitioner has stated that 2018 Regulations were implemented in full in the State as per Ext.P15 order issued by the Government on 29.06.2019 and that paragraph 9.9 thereof make those Regulations applicable in respect of various selection process, appointments, service conditions, etc in the Universities and Colleges. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that when 2018 Regulations apply to his case and that as per those Regulations there is no provision which requires that Pro-Vice Chancellor should be a Professor. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that when 2018 Regulations apply to his case and that as per those Regulations there is no provision which requires that Pro-Vice Chancellor should be a Professor. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P17 minutes of the meeting of the syndicate held on 19.09.2018 in which decision was taken for fixing the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner in the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor before and after superannuation as per item no. 2018.698. 10. Heard Sri. P. Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.C. Sasisadharan, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 11. The contention of the petitioner is that continuance of Professorship is not at all mandatory to continue as Pro-Vice Chancellor. Moreover 2018 Regulations do not require a Professor for appointment as Pro-Vice Chancellor. It is his contention that the judgments relied on by the Chancellor in Ext.P8 letter based on which the replacement is ordered are totally inapplicable. 12. On the other hand the contention of respondents 1 and 2 is that when the petitioner ceased to be a Professor and ceased to be a member of the source from which he was appointed he can no longer continue as Pro-Vice Chancellor. Apart from that it is the prerogative of the 2nd respondent to retain or replace the Pro-Vice Chancellor. 13. The question to be considered in this case is whether retirement from the post of Professor incapacitates or disqualifies an incumbent Pro-Vice Chancellor from holding the post or whether it is necessary to replace the Pro-Vice Chancellor on the mere ground of his retirement on superannuation from the parent post of Professor. 14. As the appointment of Pro-Vice Chancellor is governed by the UGC Regulations, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions in the UGC Regulations, relating to Pro-Vice Chancellor, Regulation 7.1 and 7.2 of 2010 Regulations under which petitioner was appointed read as follows: “7.1. The Pro-Vice Chancellor may be a whole time Professor of the University and shall be appointed by the executive council on the recommendation of Vice Chancellor. 7.2. The Pro-Vice Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co-terminus with that of the Vice Chancellor. However it shall be the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice-Chancellor to the executive council, during his tenure. 7.2. The Pro-Vice Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co-terminus with that of the Vice Chancellor. However it shall be the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice-Chancellor to the executive council, during his tenure. These regulations for selection shall be adopted by the concerned University through the amendment of their Act/statute. ” 15. Therefore as per the 2010 Regulations, under which petitioner was appointed, the requirement was that the Pro-Vice Chancellor “may be a whole time Professor.” The words and expressions “may be” used therein would indicate that it is not mandatory that he should be and should continue to be a whole time Professor. While clause 7.2 specifies the appointment to be co-terminus with that of Vice Chancellor, it does not limit the tenure till the date of superannuation. A reading of these Regulations would only indicate that the appointment has to be made on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor. It would be desirable if he is a whole time Professor. There is nothing which indicates either that he should continue to be a Professor during his co-terminus appointment or that he shall cease to be in office once he ceases to be a Professor. 16. After amendment of 2010 Regulations by way of Ext.P11-2018 Regulations, Regulation 7.1 and 7.2 read as follows: 7.1. The Pro-Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the executive council on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor. 7.2. It shall be the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to recommend a person to be the Pro-Vice-Chancellor to the executive council. The Pro-Vice Chancellor shall hold office, for a period which is co-terminus with that of the Vice Chancellor. ” Therefore consequent to the implementation of Ext.P11 Regulations 2018, with effect from 18.07.2018, as per Ext.P15 order, the requirement that “the Pro-Vice Chancellor may be a whole time Professor” no longer exist. However it is the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to choose the person to hold office. It is upto the Vice Chancellor to decide whether one should be retained or replaced during his tenure. 17. The amended Regulations do not even mention that Pro-Vice Chancellor may be or shall be or even preferably be a Professor. However it is the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to choose the person to hold office. It is upto the Vice Chancellor to decide whether one should be retained or replaced during his tenure. 17. The amended Regulations do not even mention that Pro-Vice Chancellor may be or shall be or even preferably be a Professor. It is seen that at the time of superannuation of petitioner i.e. as on 30.04.2019 as well as on the date when the 2nd respondent recommended replacement of petitioner giving Ext.P5 note to the syndicate, the regulations which were in force relating to Pro-Vice Chancellor were Ext.P11 Regulations of 2018, in which Professorship is not given any relevance. However, the choice of the person to be the Pro-Vice Chancellor is entirely that of the Vice Chancellor under the 2010 as well as 2018 Regulations. Though the appointment of Pro-Vice Chancellor is one co-terminus with that of the Vice Chancellor, there is nothing which obligates him to have the very same Pro-Vice Chancellor throughout his tenure. Nothing prevents him from recommending appointment of a new Pro-Vice Chancellor, to the executive council during his tenure. 18. But in this case the petitioner has been relieved on the ground that he retired from service from the post of Professor on attaining the age of superannuation. The only ground on which Ext.P5 note was put up and orders relieving him from the post of Pro Vice Chancellor were issued, was that he ceased to be a Professor. The respondents do not have a case that there is any other infirmity in the continuance of the petitioner other than his retirement on superannuation. Even as per the Regulations 2010, there was no requirement for the Pro-Vice Chancellor to continue to be a Professor during the entire period of his appointment. 19. After the 2018 Regulations came into force in 2018 Professorship is no longer a source of appointment. Similarly the Regulations 7.1 or 7.2 before or after amendment do not indicate that the co-terminus appointment shall be put to an end as soon as the incumbent ceases to be a Professor or that he ceases to have any connection with the parent institution or Department. It only provides that the appointment is made on recommendation by the Vice Chancellor and that it would be coterminous with that of Vice Chancellor. It only provides that the appointment is made on recommendation by the Vice Chancellor and that it would be coterminous with that of Vice Chancellor. It also provides that it is the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to permit the continuance or otherwise of the Pro Vice Chancellor and it is upto the Vice Chancellor to decide whether a new person has to be appointed or not. 20. But in this case the 2nd respondent has chosen to state the reason for replacing the petitioner viz. he retired from the post of Professor. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether a replacement is necessary on that ground. The 2nd respondent has got Ext.P8/Ext.R1(a) opinion of the Chancellor also and he has relied on the same for relieving the petitioner. The Chancellor has furnished the opinion relying on the judgments in Abdul Rahiman vs. State of Kerala, 2018 (4) KLT 716 and Professor T. Ashokan vs. Chancellor the judgment in WP (C) No. 11058/2018. Therefore it is also necessary to examine the applicability of those judgments to the present case. 21. In Abdul Rahiman's case the question which came up for consideration was whether the Pro-Vice Chancellor has to vacate his office, when the Vice Chancellor demitted the office even before the expiry of his fixed tenure and also whether the Chancellor has any authority to direct the Pro-vice Chancellor to vacate the office. In that case it was found that the Pro-Vice Chancellor can be removed only in accordance with the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations, according to which appointment is to be made by the executive council on recommendation by the Vice Chancellor and that the Chancellor does not have any role in the matter of appointment, under the UGC Regulations. It was found that Pro-Vice Chancellor need not vacate his office in case the Vice Chancellor resigned from the post and it is for the incoming Vice Chancellor to take a decision in either way. The question whether the Pro-Vice Chancellor should continue to be a Professor all along or whether he should be relieved as soon as he retires from the post of Professor did not arise in that case. 22. The question whether the Pro-Vice Chancellor should continue to be a Professor all along or whether he should be relieved as soon as he retires from the post of Professor did not arise in that case. 22. Similarly in the judgment dated 28.09.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 11058 of 2018, the appointment of the Pro-Vice Chancellor was made in 2015 for a period of 4 years as per the provisions in the University Act. The petitioner therein challenged the decision of the Chancellor that the Pro-Vice Chancellor has to vacate the office when the Vice Chancellor demitted his office, since the appointment is co-terminus with that of Vice Chancellor. It was held therein that the Pro-Vice Chancellor cannot as a matter of right claim the office for a fixed period and it is left to the discretion of the Vice Chancellor and therefore the only person who can decide whether the petitioner therein could continue in the office is the Vice Chancellor as his continuance would depend upon the prerogative to be exercised by the incoming Vice Chancellor. It was found that he can no longer continue in the office as the Pro- Vice Chancellor since the new Vice Chancellor had recommended another person. The issue arising in this case is different. 23. In the present case the note given by the 2nd respondent as well as paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit provide for the circumstances for taking the decision, as follows: “It is submitted that on noticing that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation the Vice Chancellor considered the entire issue and since he formed a definite opinion that in terms of the UGC Regulations the post of Pro-Vice Chancellor should be held by a whole time Professor of the University, recommended that a new Pro-Vice Chancellor be appointed in the place of the petitioner. Ext.P5 is the reporting of the fact of the petitioner being superannuated from the office and invoking the powers under clause 7.2.0 of the regulations making recommendations to appoint a new Pro Vice Chancellor.” 24. Therefore, admittedly the only reason for the decision to replace the petitioner is that he ceased to be a Professor. Ext.P5 is the reporting of the fact of the petitioner being superannuated from the office and invoking the powers under clause 7.2.0 of the regulations making recommendations to appoint a new Pro Vice Chancellor.” 24. Therefore, admittedly the only reason for the decision to replace the petitioner is that he ceased to be a Professor. As the provisions in the UGC Regulations do not provide that the Pro-Vice Chancellor can continue in office only as long as he continues to be a Professor or till his superannuation in the parent post, it can be concluded that the very basis on which the 2nd respondent exercised his prerogative is non-existent. 25. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents themselves had in Ext.P4 proceedings dated 03.09.2018, while fixing the conditions of service of petitioner ordered to fix his pay as per Rule 100 of KSR after his superannuation from the post of Professor. It is therefore evident that at the time of his appointment, the respondents were conscious of the retirement of the petitioner from the post of Professor during the period of his co-terminus appointment. Ext.R1(c) File notes read with Ext.P17 minutes in respect of the decision of syndicate in its meeting held on 19.09.2018 would show that the pay was fixed in accordance with the orders of the 2nd respondent. 26. Therefore Ext.P5 note given by the 2nd respondent and all the consequential actions including the opinion given by the Chancellor are seen to have proceeded on factors which are irrelevant. 27. Though the learned counsel for the respondents relying on the judgments of the apex court in B.P. Singhal vs. Union of India and Another, (2010) 6 SCC 331 and in J.S. Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2011) 6 SCC 570 argued that “pleasure doctrine” enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure and that an exercise of judicial review on such matters is not called for, I am of the considered view that all those contentions could have been accepted in case the 2nd respondent has not furnished any reason for replacement of petitioner. The pleadings on record reveal that the pleasure doctrine is applied on a totally irrelevant ground. It is relevant to note that the apex court while considering the issue relating to removal of Governors, explained the pleasure doctrine as follows in paragraph 33 and 34 of the judgment in B.P. Singal's case (supra): 33. The doctrine of pleasure as originally envisaged in England was a prerogative power which was unfettered. It meant that the holder of an office under pleasure could be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause. But where the rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountable action. The degree of need for reason may vary. The degree of scrutiny during judicial review may vary. But the need for reason exists. As a result when the Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should however necessarily be read as being subject to the “fundamentals of constitutionalism.” Therefore in a constitutional setup, when an office is held during the pleasure of any authority, and if no limitations or restrictions are placed on the “at pleasure” doctrine, it means that the holder of the office can be removed by the authority at whose pleasure he holds office, at any time, without notice and without assigning any cause. 34. The doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. It does not dispense with the need for a cause for withdrawal of the pleasure. In other words “at pleasure” doctrine enables the removal of a person holding office at the pleasure of an authority, summarily, without any obligation to give any notice or hearing to the person removed, and without any obligation to assign any reasons or disclose any cause for the removal, or withdrawal of pleasure. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the authority, but can only be for valid reasons. 28. The 2nd respondent has in the note Ext.P5 as well as in the counter affidavit revealed the reason for exercising the prerogative. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the authority, but can only be for valid reasons. 28. The 2nd respondent has in the note Ext.P5 as well as in the counter affidavit revealed the reason for exercising the prerogative. Though it cannot be disputed that it is the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor to recommend a new appointment, when that action proceeded from a non existent ground the entire action starting from Ext.P5 become illegal. Though the recommendation would be final, if it is on a valid/existent ground, in this case such a question does not arise because the retirement of the petitioner on superannuation from the post of Professor is stated to be the reason for the 2nd respondent to exercise his prerogative or pleasure doctrine. 29. Therefore, I find that the impugned orders Exts.P5, P6, P10 and P12 are liable to be set aside and it is ordered accordingly. The petitioner would continue to hold office as Pro-Vice Chancellor in accordance with the provisions contained in regulation 7.2.0. 30. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.