The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of statutory provisions governing the appointment and retirement of a Vice Chancellor.

ORDER :

Civil Appeal No.6825 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No. 9668 of 2017) :

1. Leave granted.

2. The Integral University, Lucknow, has approached this Court, to assail the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”), dated 7.3.2017, whereby the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor of the Integral University, was set aside.

3. Learned Senior Counsel representing the Integral University, invited our attention to the operative part of the impugned order, which is reproduced below:

“This is not disputed that vide order dated 21.03.2005, the eighth respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor of the Integral University for a period of five years w.e.f. 01.04.2005 even before his five years' tenure vide letter dated 22.08.2008, he was issued afresh appointment order again for five years w.e.f. 18.08.2008 and further vide office order dated 16.08.2013 his term has been extended for another five years w.e.f. 17.08.2013 to 16.08.2018. Section 10(1) of the Act, 2004 provides that the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor in such manner as may be prescribed for a period of five years. Regulations 3.03 of the first Regulation, 2006 framed by the University reads that a person appointed as Vice Chancellor for five years shall, if he completes the age of 65 during the term of his office, retire from office.

Admittedly, the eighth respondent has crossed the age of 60 years, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act, 2004 as well as Regulations 3.03 of the Regulations, 2006 framed by the University, we are of the view that the eighth respondent's appointment as well as his continuation as Vice Chancellor even after five years after his first appointment made for five years and particularly after completion of 65 years' age are in violation of statutory provisions of the Act as well as Regulations. Therefore, we arrived at conclusion that the answering respondent no.8 has failed to satisfy his authority to act as Vice Chancellor of the Integral University.”

(Emphasis is ours)

4. Based on the factual position indicated in the extract reproduced above, the High Court vide its impugned order, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :

“In the result, we hereby direct the competent authority to remove the eighth respondent from the post of Vice Chancellor of the University forthwith and stop his functioning as Vice Chancellor and further proceed for appointment of new Vice Chancellor in accordance with Rules expeditiously within one month from the date of communication of this order.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-University invited our pointed attention to the duration of appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar, which was sought to be set aside. It was submitted, that the instant appointment as Vice Chancellor was extended from 17.8.2013 to 16.8.2018. It was also submitted, that the solitary reason for setting aside the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor was, that he would cross the age of 65 years, during the term of his appointment. In fact, in the extract reproduced above, the High Court even noticed, that he had already crossed the age of 65 years.

6. We have examined the submission of the learned Senior counsel representing the appellants. It would be pertinent to notice, that the Integral University First Statutes, 2006, clearly prescribe the retirement of a Vice Chancellor on attaining the age of 65 years if he or she attains that age while in office. This is so provided for by Statute 3.03. The same is reproduced below :

“3.03 A person appointed as Vice Chancellor for five years shall, if he completes the age of 65 years during the terms of his office, retire from the office.”

(Emphasis is ours)

7. We are satisfied, that the High Court would have been correct in recording its conclusion, and the same would have been in conformity with Statute 3.03 of the Inte