Gujarat High Court Issues Notice to IITRAM Over Alleged Violation Of UGC Guidelines In Vice Chancellor's Appointment

The petitioner alleged that the appointment was illegal and in violation of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

Justice Nikhil Kariel, while hearing the petition, noted that the UGC guidelines specify that the search committee for the selection of a Vice Chancellor should not include anyone remotely connected with the university or its affiliated colleges.

Justice Kariel observed, “Considering the submissions made by learned advocate, it would appear that the regulations in question which specify about the selection of Vice Chancellor of the University as per the UGC Guidelines, should not consist of a person in any manner connected with the institute in question. It appears that the present Search Committee constituted of a person who was a member of the institute in question.”

The petition stated that as per rules and regulations issued by the University Grants Commission, there shall be a selection committee for the selection of the employee for the post of Vice-Chancellor and the selection committee shall not consist of any member in the committee which shall have a conflict of interest. Still, despite the same, Dr. Bhrigu was appointed as the Director General of the University.

It further stated that one of the members of the Said Search Committee was himself a Board Member of the said university. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to prefer the present petition.

Notably, IITRAM is an Autonomous University formulated by the State of Gujarat through IITRAM Act no. 5 of 2013, which is a 100% grant-in-aid institute and hence falls under the definition of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Section 33 of the IITRAM Act no. 5 of 2013 states that every officer, teacher, and employee of the University shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.

In 2022, the University issued an advertisement seeking aspirants for the post of Director General.

As the advertisement was vague and improper, the petitioner challenged the said Advertisement by way of a writ petition, which was disposed of by the High Court on the grounds of maintainability.

The petitioner had wanted to be an aspirant for the said post of Director General (Vice Chancellor) of the respondent institute; however, the petitioner was not able to apply within the time limit.

Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an application under the Right To Information Act seeking information about the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Governors, and the response received by him revealed the composition of the search committee and other details of the appointment of Dr Bhrigu Nath as Director General of the Respondent university.

The Respondent Institute thereafter replied to the petitioner, stating the details of the procedure adopted for the appointment of Dr Bhrigu Nath as Director General.

The petitioner then came to know Dr. Bhrigu Nath had joined as the Director General (Vice Chancellor) of the Respondent University, and thereafter, the petitioner also came to know about the details of the persons forming the search committee.

The petitioner also came to know that one of the members of the said search committee was itself a member of the Respondent University, which was contrary to the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. Hence the petitioner contended that the appointment of Dr. Bhrigu Nath was directly in violation of the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission.

It was further contended that it is mandatory that within the search committee, there has to be a member of UGC so that the entire procedure is performed in accordance with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission.

It was also contended that as per the best information of the petitioner, the committee formed for the said purpose did not consist of any member from the University Grants Commission.

The petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of Quo Warranto or a writ like Quo Warranto or any other appropriate writ, holding that the appointment of Dr. Bhrigu Nath was no longer entitled to remain as Director General of the Respondent University as the said appointment violated Guidelines issued by University Grants Commission.

He further sought direction from the authorities to undertake a fresh procedure in accordance with law to appoint a new Director General of Respondent University.

The Court in its order directed, “While it would appear that the present petitioner is not able to state anything with regard to the selection process having been vitiated on account of the respondent no.4 being in any manner closely connected with the respondent no.3 institute which had led to his selection and the petitioner also not being able to show that the inclusion of a member of the respondent no.3 institute had in any way resulted in the respondent no.4 getting any additional benefit, yet, prima facie since it appears that the regulations in question may have been violated, issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 22.01.2024.”

Appearance: Ullash N Gohil(8357) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5

Case Title: DR. Ashotosh Mishra Versus State Of Gujarat

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 198

Case No.: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20229 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement