Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. - Appellant(s)
Versus
Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. - Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21108-21109 of 2021)
Decided On : 21-10-2022
Service Law – Appointment as Vice-Chancellor of University – [APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 – Section 13(4) read with Clause 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2013] – Recommendation for appointment as a Vice Chancellor should be sent by Search Committee duly constituted and Search Committee has to recommend names and thereafter Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint Vice Chancellor out of panel of names recommended by Search Committee – While preparing panel, Search Committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence; exposure to higher education system in country and abroad, and adequate Experience in academic and administrative governance – Appointment of respondent No. 1 on the basis of recommendations made by Search committee, which was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per UGC Regulations and when only one name was recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable persons as required under Section 13(4) of University Act, 2015), appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to be illegal and void ab initio and writ of quo warranto was required to be issued – Writ petition allowed and writ of quo warranto issued. (Paras 8.7, 8.10 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2021 and Order dated 24.09.2021 in Review Petition No. 634 of 2021 by which Division Bench of High Court has dismissed the said appeal and the review petition preferred by appellant and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio, original writ petitioner has preferred present appeals.
Findings of Court:
When only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be de hors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2021 and Order dated 24.09.2021 in Review Petition No. 634 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and the review petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals.
2. The appellant herein – original writ petitioner preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio inter alia on the grounds that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 dehors the provisions of the UGC Regulations; that the composition of the Search Committee was not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; even the recommendation and appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not in accordance with the UGC Guidelines; the Search Committee was required to recommend a panel of three to five names to the Chancellor, however, in the present case, only one name was recommended to the Chancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations; the provisions of the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations shall not be binding and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall prevail over the said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with the UGC Regulations.
2.1 The writ petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents. It was inter alia contended that unless the UGC Regulations are adopted by the State Government, the University Act enacted by the State shall prevail and that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities and colleges and for the other higher educational institutions under the provisions of the State legislature as the mater has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the scheme.
2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363 by observing that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the State legislation shall prevail. Therefore, the learned Single Judge opined that once the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 13 of the University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 therefore, can be said to be by a duly constituted Search Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be illegal.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the appeal before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, it was specifically argued and pointed out that in fact the UGC Regulations were adopted by the State Government, however, the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has observed that as the amendment to the UGC Regulations have not been adopted, the same shall not be applicable and/or binding while appointing the respondent No. 1. Again, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan (supra), the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to the present appeals.
3. Shri Amith George, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court are just contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 as well as the recent deci
The appointment of Vice-Chancellors must comply with statutory provisions and UGC regulations, ensuring lawful and independent decision-making by the Chancellor.
The UGC Regulations, 2018 prevail over the conflicting provisions of the concerned State Universities Act relating to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of a University must be made in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010, which are mandatory and binding on the State Government. A person who is connected wi....
Appointment as Vice-Chancellor of University – Post of Vice-Chancellor of University is a very important post and most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of University from and....
It is trite and settled law that a writ of quo warranto can be issued in the case of appointment of like nature which is contrary to the statute.
The court upheld that the appointment process followed statutory provisions, and the involvement of the Minister did not invalidate the appointment, establishing judicial review limits in administrat....
The UGC Regulations-2010, while important, are not mandatory for all universities and higher educational institutions, and the expertise of the search committee in making selections is crucial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
