The power of reappointment of the Vice Chancellor was held to be vested with the Chancellor and not the State government, and the State government's order re-appointing the VC was held to be in violation of the Calcutta University Act 1979.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. By its judgment dated 13 September 2022, a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta allowed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-Chancellor¹ [VC] of Calcutta University. The High Court held that the State government had no authority to appoint or re-appoint the VC under Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act 1979² [the Act] or by taking recourse to the residuary provisions of Section 60 of the Act. As a consequence, the order issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on 27 August 2021 re-appointing the incumbent VC of Calcutta University was set aside. The High Court has held that the VC had no authority to hold that office on the basis of the order of appointment. Both the State of West Bengal and Dr Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee, the VC whose appointment has been set aside, are in appeal.

2. By a notification dated 28 August 2017, the Chancellor of Calcutta University appointed Professor Dr. Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as the VC of Calcutta University. The notification was in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8(1)(a) read with Section 8(2)(a) of the Act. The term of appointment was for a period of four years with effect from the date on which she joined office or until she attained the age of sixty-five or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.

3. The term of office of the VC was to end on 27 August 2021. The State government in the Higher Education Department submitted proposals for the reappointment of the VC for a period of four years to the Chancellor on 4 June 2021 and 17 June 2021 which were not accepted as the Chancellor sought certain clarifications.

4. On 17 August 2021, the Chancellor suo moto accorded an extension to the tenure of the VC for a period of three months under Section 8(2)(b) of the Act.

5. The State government issued a notification on 27 August 2021 stating that:

(i) While extending the tenure of the VC, the Chancellor had invoked Section 8(2)(b) without consultation with the Minister, which was mandatory.

(ii) The step taken by the Chancellor of the University was void ab initio, particularly in light of provisions of Rule 9 of the West Bengal State Universities (Terms and Conditions of Service of the Vice Chancellors and the Manner and Procedure of Official Communication) Rules 2019.

(iii) The Chancellor of the University had not agreed with the proposal of the State government and initiated a step without fulfilling the requisite legal pre-condition of consultation with the Minister.

(iv) The provisions of the Act are “silent to deal with the situation.”

(v) The State government “has no other option but to invoke the provisions of Section 60.”

(vi) The incumbent VC was being re-appointed with effect from 28 August 2021 for a period of four years or until she attains the age of seventy, whichever is earlier, in terms of the provisions of Section 60 read with Section 8(2)(b) of the Act as amended in 2019.

6. The order of the State government re-appointing the VC was questioned in a public interest petition instituted by an alumnus of Calcutta University who is also a practicing advocate. The submissions before the High Court in support of the petition under Article 226 were that:

(i) The State government had no power to re-appoint the VC since both the power to appoint and re-appoint is vested with the Chancellor.

(ii) In terms of Section 8(6), the procedure which is prescribed in Section 8(1) for initial appointment has to be followed for the purpose of reappointment as well.

(iii) The amended provisions of Section 8(2) do not constitute a complete code and the entire section has to be interpreted.

(iv) The provisions of the Act could not have been by-passed by invoking Section 60.

(v) The re-appointment of the VC without following the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) eliminates competition and was in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(vi) The app