'When Minister Takes Rigid View, Consultation Is Wasted Effort': Calcutta High Court Upholds Appointments Of Interim-VCs By Governor

The Calcutta High Court today dismissed a petition filed by a retired Professor, seeking directions to annul the appointments of thirteen interim Vice-Chancellors in State Universities, which were made by the Governor of West Bengal acting as Chancellor of the said Universities. The petitioner had challenged these appointments on the ground that they were bad in law for being made without consulting the relevant state ministry, as was statutorily required. While dismissing the plea, a Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that the petitioner had failed to show any public cause in their PIL and that the State’s support of the same may give rise to connotations that the petitioner was being used as a “tool” to indirectly challenge the orders of the Governor. It opined: “The writ petitioner has miserably failed to point out as to what is the public interest which has been affected and curiously enough the State of West Bengal which did not raise any objection to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor has now toed the line of the writ petitioner and outrightly supporting the case of the writ petitioner and virtually stepped into the shoes of the writ petitioner. Therefore, are well justified in forming an opinion that the writ petitioner has been used as a tool with a view to indirectly challenge the orders issued by the Hon’ble Chancellor. However, we do not wish to go deep into this matter and we leave it as such as we are satisfied that there is no illegality in the orders issued by the Chancellor in favour of the private respondent herein and a writ of quo-warranto would not lie.” While the Bench noted that the plea may have been dismissed as non-maintainable without going into its merits, they nevertheless went into the arguments advanced by both sides to determine whether the non-consultation of the minister-in-charge was indeed illegal. Brief background of the dispute:In 2022, the Government of West Bengal had appointed Vice-Chancellors for 24 State Universities under the West Bengal University Laws Amendment (Act) 2012 and the West Bengal University Laws Amendment (Act) 2014.The validity of these laws vis-à-vis the UGC regulations 2018, was challenged in a Writ Petition [WPA (P) 170 of 2022 Anupam Bera v. State of West Bengal and Others], and subsequently, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the UGC Regulations 2018 will prevail over the conflicting provisions of the concerned State University Acts relating to the appointment of Vice Chancellors.To comply with such directions, the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2023 was promulgated to make the University Laws in West Bengal in consonance with the UGC Regulations, 2018.Accordingly, the Minister-in-Charge, Department of Higher Education, sent a proposal to the Governor/Chancellor, proposing a list of 27 candidates to be appointed as interim-Vice Chancellors to the aforesaid vacant posts for a period of six months. The Governor subsequently made two appointments from the list proposed by the minister-in-charge, and the State government had assented to these appointments as well.As far as thirteen out of the remaining vacancies were concerned, the petitioners claimed that the Governor had made unilateral appointments to the same, without consulting the relevant state-ministry, and thus the petitioners and the State of West Bengal challenged such appointments.It was claimed by the petitioner that as a result of a division bench ruling in the case of Anupam Bera v State of WB, the appointments of 24 Vice-Chancellors was held to be unsustainable in law, due to not being in consonance with the relevant UGC statute. Subsequently, when these vacancies arose, the State of West Bengal, had sent a list of 27 eligible candidates for the post of interim VC, to the Governor, for his approval, as Chancellor of the Universities.It had been argued that, while the Governor selected 2 candidates from the state’s list of 27, many of the remaining vacancies were filled up by the Governor out of his own volition, and without any consultation with the State, as was required under Section 9(1)(a) of the West Bengal University Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013, as well as the various University Acts. As such, petitioners had prayed for a writ of quo warranto, to quash the said appointments.Governor's order only authorises a senior professor to discharge the duties of VC; only an interim arrangementTo examine this contention, the Court looked at the language used in the communication made by the Governor in making the impugned appointments. It was noted by the Bench that the words used therein were “authorise” and not “appoint.” It opined:“The question would be as to whether the order is in the nature of an appointment of an interim Vice Chancellor or otherwise. The order which was passed earlier [in appointing the two candidates recommended by the State] specifically uses the word “interim Vice...

'When Minister Takes Rigid View, Consultation Is Wasted Effort': Calcutta High Court Upholds Appointments Of Interim-VCs By Governor

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

'When Minister Takes Rigid View, Consultation Is Wasted Effort': Calcutta High Court Upholds Appointments Of Interim-VCs By Governor

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers