JUDGMENT : W.P. (C) No. 42637/2024 1. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Kerala challenging Ext.P4 notification bearing No. GS3-2194/2024 dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 1st respondent-Chancellor of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) appointing the 3rd respondent to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2021 Act’) pending appointment of a Vice-Chancellor on a regular basis. I have, through my judgment in W.P. (C) No.42527/2024, considered a similar issue in the context of the provisions contained in the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Act'). On a consideration of the provisions of the 2015 Act and, in particular, sub-section (7) of Section 13 of that Act which, also deals with the method of appointment of a Vice- chancellor on temporary basis, I have held that the procedure for appointment contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act must be followed. In other words, I have found, on the basis of the provisions contained in sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act and, also on the basis of the findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No. 1847/2022 that the notification issued by the 1st respondent appointing a person as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University was bad since the said notification did not follow the procedure contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act. However, it has also been clarified that the person appointed must have the qualifications contemplated by the University Grants Commission Regulations (On Minimum Qualifications for appointment of teachers in Universities and Colleges 2018). 2. It was contended for the State that the findings of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No. 1847/2022 actually cover the issue raised in this case as well. If that were the case, this Writ Petition must also be disposed of in the lines of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 42527/2024. 2. It was contended for the State that the findings of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No. 1847/2022 actually cover the issue raised in this case as well. If that were the case, this Writ Petition must also be disposed of in the lines of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 42527/2024. However, I find that the provisions of sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the 2021 Act are not in pari materia with the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act. The provisions are extracted below:- Sub-Section 10 of Section 11 of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology Act, 2021. Sub-Section 7 of Section 13 of the A.P.J Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. “(10) In the event that a temporary vacancy occurs in the post of Vice-Chancellor due to any unforeseen or casual reason or if the Vice-Chancellor has to be temporarily abstained himself from the said position, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice- Chancellor of any other University or the Secretary of Electronics and Information Technology Department, as recommended by the Government, to be the Vice- Chancellor, for a period of not exceeding six months, in the aggregate.” “(7) Where the vacancy of Vice- Chancellor arises in any of the following circumstances, the Chancellor may appoint the Vice-Chancellor of any other University or the Pro-Chancellor of this University or the Secretary to Government. Higher Education Department, recommended by the Government, to be the Vice-Chancellor for a period not exceeding six months in the aggregate, namely:- (i) where the committee appointed under sub-section (1) is unable to recommend any name within the time- limit specified by the Chancellor; (ii) where vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice-Chancellor because of death, resignation or otherwise and it cannot be filled up conveniently and expeditiously in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (5); (iii) where the vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor arises temporarily because of leave, illness or of other causes: (iv) where the term of office of the Vice-Chancellor expires; or (v) where there is any other emergency: Provided that the person so appointed shall cease to hold such office on the date on which the Vice-Chancellor resumes office.” 3. Thus, it can be seen that while sub-section (10) of Section 11 of 2021 Act empowers the 1 st respondent to appoint a person to act as the Vice-Chancellor in any of the contingencies contemplated by the provisions, the provision does not contemplate any recommendation of the State Government preceding such exercise of authority by the 1st respondent whereas sub- section (7) of Section 13 of the 2015 Act contemplate that the power to appoint a temporary Vice-Chancellor shall be exercised only on the basis of the recommendation of the Government. Therefore, I hold that the 1st respondent has exercised authority in terms of the provisions of the 2021 Act. Consequently, I find no ground made to interfere with Ext.P4 notification. I also take note of the fact that the term of appointment of the 3 rd respondent is to expire by 27.5.2025. 4. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dr. Sreejith P.S. and others v. Dr. Rajasree , 2022 (6) KLT 147 and also the findings rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.A. No. 1847/2022 , I hold that the procedure and qualification laid down in the UGC Regulations will apply notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the 2021 Act. Therefore, this writ petition will stand disposed on the basis of the findings rendered in the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 42527/2024 without interfering with Ext.P4 notification and directing that, if the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University is being filled up on temporary basis or on a regular basis, the same shall be done in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the 2021 Act read along with the provisions of the UGC Regulations. In case of any conflict, the UGC Regulations will prevail over the provisions of the Statute. Taking into consideration the importance of the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University; as observed by the Supreme Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat , (2022) 5 SCC 179 which was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Dr. Sreejith (supra), I also direct that the steps shall be taken to fill up the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University on a regular basis without undue delay.