Appointment Of Vice Chancellor Of A University Even Under A State Legislation Cannot Be Contrary To UGC Regulations : Supreme Court

On Thursday, the Supreme Court held that appointment of a Vice Chancellor of a University, even under a State legislation, cannot be contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations. The Apex Court noted that in cases where the State legislature is repugnant to the Central legislation, Central legislation is to prevail as per Article 254 as 'education' is an item in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. In view of the same it was of the view that such an appointment would be considered to be in violation of the statutory provisions and hence a fit case for issuing writ of quo warranto. A Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna issued writ of quo warranto in a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and set aside the appointment of the present Vice Chancellor ("VC") of the Sardar Patel University ("SP University") in Gujarat as it held that his appointment was made contrary to the statutory provisions. Factual Background Apart from seeking issuance of writ of quo warranto, the petitioner had implored the Apex Court to pass directions to concerned authorities to recover all consequential benefits from the VC. As per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 ("2010 Regulations") and also 2018 Regulations, a person ought to have ten years of teaching experience as a professor for being eligible to be appointed to the post of VC. It is also required that a Search Committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of UGC, a nominee of the Chairman of UGC, a nominee of Syndicate/Executive Council of the University is constituted to recommend names of suitable candidates for appointment to the said post. The petitioner asserted that the selection of the VC of SP University was made on the recommendation of the Search Committee, which did not have the nominee of the Chairman of UGC in blatant derogation of the UGC Regulations. The Committee constituted under Section 10(2)(b) of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 ("1955 Act") had exceeded its jurisdiction and prescribed eligibility criteria for the post of VC diluting the 2010 Regulations. On the basis of the diluted eligibility criteria, the present VC was appointed to the post with effect from 08.03.2008. A Special Civil Application was filed before the High Court challenging the appointment, which was dismissed on the ground that Gujarat not having adopted the UGC Regulations, the eligibility criteria therein was not applicable to SP University. But, it asked the Government of Gujarat to adopt the UGC Regulations and amend the State law accordingly. However, thereafter no steps were taken by the State to adopt the regulations. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court. As the VC was at the fag end of his term when the matter came up for final hearing the Court refused to intervene. Again, in a similar manner, as claimed by the petitioner, by flouting the UGC Regulations, the VC was re-appointed. Contentions raised by the petitioner Senior Advocate, Mr. I.H. Syed, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, apprised the Court that the appointment was illegal and contrary to the UGC guidelines. It was contended that the Search Committee was also not constituted as per the mandate of UCG regulations. He submitted that when the first appointment was made, the present VC did not have ten years of teaching experience as a professor. It was argued that in absence of eligibility criteria in the 1955 Act, the Select Committee in the present case had decided the same. It was pointed out that by a communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed to the Governor of Gujarat, UGC sought compliance with its Regulations. Moreover, the direction of the High Court to adopt UGC Rules was also not acted upon. Mr. Syed argued that since the University was receiving central financial assistance and was included in the list of State universities receiving financial assistance under Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956, it ought to follow the UGC Regulations. Contentions raised by the respondents Avocate, Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha appearing on behalf of UGC supported the petitioner's case. Senior Advocate, Mr. Vinay Navare appearing for Sardar Patel University submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court had decided the issue against the petitioner which was not interfered with by the Apex Court and therefore had attained finality. The same issue cannot be revisited for appointment for the second term of the VC. It was argued that since the UGC Guidelines were not adopted by the State, the University was not bound by them. Mr. Navare contended that the appointment was based on the basis of the 1955 Act. The locus standi of the...

Appointment Of Vice Chancellor Of A University Even Under A State Legislation Cannot Be Contrary To UGC Regulations : Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags