Chennai: The operation of Tamil Nadu’s 10 state university legislations, the passage of which by the Supreme Court triggered a rare presidential reference plus a renewed Centre-State power tussle, was stayed by a vacation court of the Madras high court on Wednesday.The bench of Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the interim orders amidst vociferous objections made by Tamil Nadu advocate-general P S Raman and senior advocate P Wilson, both representing the state.The public interest writ petition filed by advocate K Venkatachalapathy of Tirunelveli assailed the legislations saying the amendments were contrary to the objectives of regulations and functions of the University Grants Commission (UGC).“Through Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations for teaching staff, the commission granted power to the Chancellor (Governor) to appoint the VCs. However, the state, through the amendments, replaced the power of the Chancellor with the govt, which is contrary to the process stipulated for appointing the VCs,” he said.“The state universities are recognised as universities within Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act and are also recognised by the commission under the applicable regulations. Therefore, any amendments made by the state affecting such universities, especially in areas already covered by the regulation concerning the appointment of VCs, constitute a violation of the constitutional distribution of powers,” he said.Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the petitioner, contended on Wednesday that universities must be protected from political powers. The chancellor is apolitical like a Speaker of an assembly, and, therefore, education should be in the hands of an authority above politics, he submitted.In response, advocate-general Raman said, “a legislation passed by a state Assembly can be stayed only when there is glaring unconstitutionality or if it is manifestly arbitrary. In the present case, a state legislation prevails over the regulations framed by the UGC.” So long as it does not contravene a law legislated by Parliament, the state law prevails, he said.The amendments got indirect assent from the governor due to the interference of the Supreme Court. The stand of the state is that the UGC does not have the power to constitute a search committee to appoint vice chancellors, Raman added.Wilson sought adjournment saying a petition to transfer of all the related cases to the Supreme Court was pending in the apex court and that arguing the matter now before the high court would leave the pending pleas infructuous. Asserting that there was no urgency to hear the PIL in a vacation sitting, both requested the court to adjourn the hearing and provide time for the state to file its counter. However, refusing any adjournment, the bench heard the petition until 7pm on Wednesday and passed the interim order.In his submissions, Wilson said the governor was waging a war against the state govt. “The PIL is politically motivated. Except for a grudge to stay the selection process, there is no urgency in the issue,” he said.“Only the process for the appointment of vice-chancellors has commenced. The last date to receive applications is only on June 5. There is no urgency; the apprehension of the petitioner that something will happen tomorrow is unfounded,” the AG said.Wilson said the petitioner, a BJP district secretary from Tirunelveli, chose to move this particular second vacation court, and added: “This is forum shopping. It will be judicial impropriety if the petitioner is allowed to argue,” Wilson said.