UGC Regulations Override State Law On Search Committee For University VC Appointment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today held that the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of a University Vice-Chancellor is part of the standards governing higher education falling within Parliament's exclusive legislative domain under the Union List, and any deviation from the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, renders the appointment process illegal.

With this reasoning, the Court upheld the Madras High Court's judgment striking down Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 and holding that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University as per the Act was illegal.

“Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, to the extent it prescribes a composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee contrary to the mandate of the UGC Regulations, 2018, has to be declared ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018, which have been framed under a Central enactment traceable to Entry 66 of List I, which occupies the field and therefore, possess overriding effect.”

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, however, allowed the incumbent Vice-Chancellor, Dr. S. Mohan, to continue in office till the end of his tenure or until a fresh appointment is made in accordance law, noting that there were no allegations against his qualifications, integrity or administrative acumen.

Section 14(5) of the PTU Act provided for a three-member Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor consisting of a nominee of the Chancellor, a nominee of the Government, and a nominee of the Board of Governors.

Dr. Mohan was appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor of PTU on December 17, 2021 for a term of five years, ending in December 2026. His appointment followed a selection process conducted by a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under Section 14(5) of the PTU Act. The Committee did not include a nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission.

Two writ petitions were filed before the Madras High Court challenging the appointment. One questioned Dr. Mohan's appointment, while the other challenged the constitutional validity of Section 14(5) of the PTU Act.

Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 requires the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor to include a nominee of the UGC Chairman and that members of the Committee should not be connected with the concerned university. The High Court found that the Committee constituted under the PTU Act violated both requirements.

The High Court struck down Section 14(5) of the PTU Act as ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018. It held that the Puducherry Government had failed to show that Presidential assent under Article 234 had been obtained specifically regarding this inconsistency. The High Court quashed Dr. Mohan's appointment. To avoid an administrative vacuum, it permitted him to continue in office until a duly selected successor took charge or until June 30, 2024, whichever was earlier. Thus, Dr. Mohan filed the present appeal.

The Court observed that any deviation from Regulation 7.3 in the composition of Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor renders the appointment process illegal.

Repugnancy test under Article 254 irrelevant here : SC

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's Article 254 analysis was unnecessary. The Court noted that the UGC Act, 1956 and the UGC Regulations, 2018 are traceable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule, which exclusively gives Parliament the power to legislate on coordination and determination of standards in higher education.

The Court observed that Article 254 applies only when both Central and State laws operate in the Concurrent List. Since the UGC Regulations are referable to the Union List, the question of curing the repugnancy through Presidential assent did not arise.

“the factual matrix does not give rise to any occasion to examine the issue of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, since the doctrine of repugnancy and the concomitant requirement of Presidential assent are attracted only where both the Central and State legislations operate within the Concurrent List. Undeniably, in the present case, the Central legislation occupies a field exclusively reserved for the Parliament under List I, and consequently the question of testing or determining repugnancy, or of curing the same by recourse to Article 254(2), does not arise at all”, the Court held.

The Court agreed with the High Court's conclusion that section 14(5) of the PTU Act was ultra vires the UGC Regulations, and the Committee constituted under it was illegal.

The Court noted that Dr. Mohan had been discharging his duties since December 2021 without any complaint and that an immediate removal would result in stigma to his career and disruption of university administration.

Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that Dr. Mohan shall continue as Vice-Chancellor till the end of his normal tenure in December 2026 or until a new Vice-Chancellor is selected in accordance with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, whichever is earlier. It also clarified that he would be entitled to participate in any fresh selection process without being prejudiced by the impugned judgment.

The Court further clarified that the Legislature of the Union Territory of Puducherry is at liberty to amend the PTU Act to bring it in conformity with the UGC Regulations, 2018.

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 54-55 of 2025

Case Title – Dr. S. Mohan v. Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry & Ors Etc.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 96

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment