UGC Regulations 2013| Appointment Of Vice Chancellor Illegal When Search Committee Recommended Only One Name Instead Of A Panel Of Names : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of a University will be illegal when the Search Committee recommended only one name instead of a panel of 3-5 names as mandated by the University Grants Commission Regulations 2013.A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar, while setting aside the appointment of Rajasree M.S. as the Vice-Chancellor of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University, held that the appointment of VC will be "void-abinitio" if it was not made as per the UGC Regulation In arriving at this finding, the top court held that even if an amendment to the UGC Regulations had not been specifically accepted by a State, it would still have binding force with respect to the relevant field in which the amendment operated. Thus, the submission that the State legislation would prevail in such a circumstance was soundly rejected by the court, which predicated its decision on the paramountcy of Central laws in terms of Article 254 of the Constitution. The Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar held – "If there is any conflict between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable and the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State cannot be accepted".However, in the present case, the Court noticed that the UGC Regulations were adopted by the Government as per order dated 10.12.2010. In the said Government Order, it was stipulated that Universities shall incorporate the UGC regulations in their statutes and rules. In this backdrop, the Court observed: "Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/State's Universities. Therefore also, the UGC Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the appointment of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time." This judgement came in an appeal filed against the Kerala High Court, which had earlier refused to issue a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment. The High Court had relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Kalyanji Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors, which held that the UGC regulations will not be binding on States unless specifically adopted by it. The questions that fell for determination were whether the appointment ought to be in compliance with the UGC Regulations or the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act 2015 which had been enacted by the State legislature in 2015, and if the search committee constituted to recommend Rajasree as the Vice-Chancellor was a "duly constituted" one.Search committee must recommend at least 3 suitable namesWhile dealing with the second question, the court noted that both the UGC Regulations and the University Act, 2015 required the search committee to recommend at least three suitable persons for the post of Vice-Chancellor, from among whom, the Chancellor would make the selection. However, in the present case, only Rajasree's name had been recommended by the committee, which is why the Chancellor "had no option to consider the names of the other candidates". Even as per Section13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before the Visitor/Chancellor.Assailing the legitimacy of the search committee and its recommendation on this ground, the court held – "The appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 1 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Search committee, which was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per the UGC Regulations and when only one name was recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable persons as required under Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to be illegal and void ab initio." Reliance was placed on Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242 in which an "identical question" regarding the applicability of the UGC Regulations vis-à-vis the State legislation was examined by the apex court. In this case, the Court had applied the doctrine of repugnancy to hold that the applicable UGC...

UGC Regulations 2013| Appointment Of Vice Chancellor Illegal When Search Committee Recommended Only One Name Instead Of A Panel Of Names : Supreme Court

Awstika Das

Tags