1. Challenge to High Court order setting aside Vice Chancellor's appointment based on statutory retirement age and mandatory appointment procedures. (Para 2 , 3 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1719
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.
Integral University and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Junaid Ahmad and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6825 of 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9668 of 2017) With SLP (C) Nos.9162-9163 & 9158 of 2013
Decided On : 03-05-2017
Important Points
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.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Officials and Employees
Act Referred
Act, 2004: S.10(1)
first Regulation, 2006 framed by the University: Reg.3.03
Integral University First Statutes, 2006: Reg.3.03, Reg.3.02
first Regulation, 2006 framed by the University: Reg.3.03
Integral University First Statutes, 2006: Reg.3.03, Reg.3.02
Headnote
Appointment - Vice Chancellor - Section 10(1) of the Act, 2004, Regulations 3.03 of the Regulations, 2006 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Act, 2004 and Regulations 3.03 of the Regulations, 2006, which prescribe the appointment and retirement of a Vice Chancellor. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to set aside the appointment of the Vice Chancellor based on the age limit.
Fact of the Case:
The Integral University appealed against the High Court's order setting aside the appointment of Shri S.W. Akhtar as Vice Chancellor due to his age exceeding the statutory limit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Vice Chancellor did not exceed the age limit prescribed by the relevant statutes at the time of his appointment, and therefore, set aside the High Court's order.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Vice Chancellor's appointment based on age limit and the recommendation process for the appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions regarding the appointment and retirement of the Vice Chancellor, and the finding that the Vice Chancellor did not violate the age limit at the time of his appointment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter for adjudication of all issues raised by the appellant.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. University argued the Vice Chancellor had not reached retirement age; Respondent contended the appointment violated the requirement to recommend a panel of three candidates. (Para 5 , 9 , 11 )
3. The Vice Chancellor had not attained the statutory retirement age during his tenure, but the appointment process failed to follow the mandatory panel recommendation requirement. (Para 7 , 11 , 14 )
4. Appointment to a statutory post must strictly adhere to the prescribed recommendation process, and retirement is triggered only upon actually attaining the statutory age. (Para 7 , 11 , 14 )
5. High Court order set aside and matter remanded for adjudication of all issues, without reinstating the Vice Chancellor. (Para 8 , 12 , 14 , 16 )
6. Under what condition must a Vice Chancellor retire based on age during their term?
A Vice Chancellor appointed for a five-year term must retire from office if they complete the age of 65 years during the term of their office. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the statutory requirement for the recommendation of a Vice Chancellor?
The Vice Chancellor must be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of at least three persons recommended by a Committee comprising two Executive Council members and one nominee of the Education Society President. (Para 9 , 11 )
8. Is the appointment of a Vice Chancellor valid if only one candidate is recommended instead of a panel?
No, recommending only one candidate instead of a panel of at least three persons is a violation of the statutory appointment process, rendering the appointment infirm. (Para 11 , 14 )
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
