- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Judgment Holding UGC Regulations To...
Judgment Holding UGC Regulations To Be Binding On State Universities Ignored Earlier Precedent? Supreme Court To Examine
Shruti Kakkar
23 March 2022 4:08 PM GMT
While issuing notice in a petition challenging the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam University in Kerala, the Supreme Court observed that its recent judgment, which held that UGC regulations are binding on State Universities even though they are not expressly adopted by the State Government, did not discuss an earlier judgment which took a contrary view.A bench...
While issuing notice in a petition challenging the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam University in Kerala, the Supreme Court observed that its recent judgment, which held that UGC regulations are binding on State Universities even though they are not expressly adopted by the State Government, did not discuss an earlier judgment which took a contrary view.
A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai was referring to the judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna on March 3, 2022, in the case Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242. In Gambhirdan case, the bench set aside the appointment of VC of Sardar Patel University in Gujarat observing that such appointment, even under a state legislation, cannot be contrary to the UGC norms.
The petitioner in the case against VC of APJ Abdul Kalam University submitted that the Kerala High Court had rejected his challenge by relying on the judgment in Kalyani Mathivanan v KV Jeyaraj (2015) 6 SCC 363 in which it was held that UGC Regulations are not binding unless adopted by the State Government.
The bench led by Justice Nageswara Rao noted that the judgment in Gambhirdan has not discussed the Kalyani Mathivanan judgment. While issuing notice in the special leave petition, the bench observed :
"The impugned judgment of the High Court is based on the law laid down by this Court in Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors. reported in 2015(6) SCC 363 in which it was held that UGC Regulations are not binding unless adopted by the State Government. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat (Writ Petition (Civil) No.1525 of 2019 dated 03.03.2022) held otherwise. Though there is a reference to the judgment of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) at para 3.7 of the Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi judgment, there is no discussion about the law laid down therein"
The Special Leave Petition assailed Kerala High Court's order dated August 2, 2021 wherein the High Court had dismissed the writ challenging VC's appointment referring to the Top Court's judgement in Kalyani Mathivanan v KV Jeyaraj 2015 in which it was held that UGC Regulations are not binding unless adopted by the State Government dismissed the writ.
The Single Judge also introduced a proposition that since UGC had not taken any penal action under Section 14 of the UGC Act the University for including in its Act provisions inconsistent with UGC Regulations 2010, Section 13 of the University Act would prevail.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the High Court relied on Kalyani's judgement but the Top Court in Gambhirdn K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat And Ors. had 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.
Counsel had further submitted that proposition laid down by the Division Bench that since the UGC Regulations Amendment of 2013 was not adopted, it would not apply, but at the same time, it would amend and substitute the Principal UGC Regulations 2010, was glaringly erroneous.
It was stated in the plea that the issues that required to be considered by Court were:
1. Whether each and every amendment to the UGC Regulations 2010 is required be separately adopted by a State Government
2. What is the legal effect of non adoption of a particular amendment to the UGC Regulations 2010 by particular State
3. Whether non adoption of an amendment will lead to a pre - 2010 Regulation stage, wherein, the Principal UGC Regulations 2010 which had already been adopted would cease to operate
Factual Background
Professor Dr Sreejith PS was an applicant for VC of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University which was advertised by the State two times. The petitioner was included in the short list prepared by as per the first notification but since the "Search Committee" constituting the VC was dissolved a 2nd notification was issued in December 2018. In the 2nd notification the petitioner did not find his name and he came to know through newspaper reports that Chancellor on February 19, 2019 had appointed Dr Dr Rajashree MS. By way of RTI, the petitioner got to know that there were several vitiating facts which made the selection process invalid. Some of them were that the composition of the Search Committee disregarded the mandatory requirements of Regulation 7.3.0 (ii) of UGC Regulations, 2010.
Case Before Kerala High Court
The petitioner thereafter approached the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of Quo-Warranto calling upon the appointed Chancellor to reveal what authority of law she was holding on to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The petitioner had also sought relief for revoking her appointment as she was an usurper of a public office, was selected without following the due process of law and for a declaration that her appointment was ab initio void and that her further continuance in the post was illegal.
The Single Bench while referring to the Top Court's judgement in Kalyani Mathivanan v KV Jeyaraj 2015 in which it was held that UGC Regulations are not binding unless adopted by the State Government dismissed the writ.
The Single Judge also introduced a proposition that since UGC had not taken any penal action under Section 14 of the UGC Act the 3rd respondent University for including in its Act provisions inconsistent with UGC Regulations 2010, Section 13 of the University Act would prevail.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Division Bench of the High Court which was dismissed.
Dismissal of the writ appeal resulted in the petitioner preferring SLP before the Top Court.
Case Title: Professor Dr Sreejith PS v Dr Rajashree MS & Ors| SLP(Civil) 21108/21109 of 2021
Coram: Justice LN Rao and BR Gavai
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate(s) Dr. Amit George, Shyam Krishnan, Mobashshir Sarwar, Piyo Harold, Amol Acharya, Rayadurgam Bharat, Iram Peerzada, Alim Anvar and Mohammed Sadique TA
Click Here To Read/Download Order
