"State Of West Bengal Usurped Powers Of Chancellor" : Supreme Court Affirms Quashing Of Calcutta University VC's Reappointment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the State of West Bengal usurped the powers of the Chancellor (WB Governor) while re-appointing Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University.Holding so, the Court dismissed the petitions filed by the State of West Bengal and Banerjee assailing the order of the Calcutta High Court, whereby the decision of the State to re-appoint Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University was set aside.The Supreme Court observed that the judgment of the High Court was correct both in facts and in law. The Court noted that State misused the "removal of difficulty" clause under the Calcutta University Act to "usurp the power of the Chancellor" to make the appointment."The Government cannot misuse the removal of difficulty clause to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such action would be antitethical to the rule of law misusing the limited power granted", Justice Chandrachud read out the excerpts from the judgment.A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli had reserved judgment on September 16 on the petitions filed by the State Government and the ousted Vice-Chancellor against the High Court verdict.Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the State, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for Sonali Chakravarti and Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the person who challenged the re-appointment.By way of a notification dated August 27, 2021 the Vice-Chancellor had been re-appointed to the post with effect from August 28, 2021 for a period of 4 years or till she attains 70 years, whichever is earlier.A practicing advocate of the Calcutta High Court, Anindya Sundar Das had filed a public interest litigation before the Calcutta High Court contending that the Vice-Chancellor had been reappointed to the post in August 2021 by the Principal Secretary of the State's Higher Education Department in violation of the provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. The High Court had allowed the petition holding that the State Government lacked authority to make the re-appointment without the approval of the Governor.Case detailsState of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831 | CA 6706 of 2022| 11 October 2022 | Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima KohliAlso Read - Centre Not Entitled To Segregate Collegium Resolutions, Supreme Court Should Act Tough Against Executive For Sitting Over Proposals : Justice MB LokurCounsel: Sr. Adv Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sr. Adv Jaideep Gupta for appellantsHeadnotesCalcutta University Act, 1979 ; Section 8 - Upheld Calcutta High Court order that set aside the decision of the State to re-appoint Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University - The State government could not have issued the order re-appointing the VC - The power of appointment including of reappointment is entrusted to the Chancellor and not to the State government. The amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a) cannot therefore be construed to mean that the power of reappointment has been taken away from the Chancellor and entrusted to the State government - Amended Section 8(2)(a) which provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term does not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) has to be followed for re-appointment. (Para 29-57)Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - The writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law - Referred to Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2018) 6 SCC 162. (Para 28)University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 - Vice Chancellor Appointment - Even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. - Referred to Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242. (Para 56)Interpretation of Statutes - A government cannot misuse the "removal of difficulty clause" to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation - Where there is a specific provision, it is not open to the State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties. (Para 48- 49)Interpretation of Statutes - A statute must be read to avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or terms meaningless or redundant. (Para 41)Click here to Read/Download Judgment

"State Of West Bengal Usurped Powers Of Chancellor" : Supreme Court Affirms Quashing Of Calcutta University VC's Reappointment

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags