1. Challenge to Vice-Chancellor's appointment due to non-compliance of the statutory search committee composition with higher education standards mandated by central regulation. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Dr. S. Mohan – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary To The Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry & Ors Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 54-55 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 4593-4594 of 2024)
Decided On : 30-01-2026
Important Points
State legislation cannot override UGC standards in higher education. The appellant's appointment was invalid as the Search Committee did not comply with UGC Regulations, but he is allowed to continue until a successor is appointed.
Subject
Educational Law - Higher Education Administration
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.136, Art.246, Art.254(2), Art.254, Entry.66 List I, Art.142
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT: S.3
Puducherry Technological University Act: S.3, S.14
UGC ACT: S.26(1)(e), S.26(1)(g), S.14
UGC REGULATIONS: Reg.7.3
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT: S.3
Puducherry Technological University Act: S.3, S.14
UGC ACT: S.26(1)(e), S.26(1)(g), S.14
UGC REGULATIONS: Reg.7.3
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 - Section 14 - Appointment of Vice-Chancellor - High Court held that constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee was not in conformity with UGC Regulations, 2018; invalidating appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor, leading to a challenge in this Court - The Search Committee's composition required adherence to UGC provisions mandating an independent nominee, and any failure renders the process void. (Paras 14-16, 40-42)
(B) Legislative Competence - The Court examined the legislative powers under Article 246 of the Constitution, ruling that the State cannot legislate on matters impacting national educational standards governed by Union laws. (Paras 28-30, 39-40)
(C) Continuity of Administration - Despite finding the appointment invalid, the Court permitted the appellant to continue until a successor takes charge, preventing leadership vacuum. (Paras 51-52)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's appointment challenged for purported non-compliance with UGC norms and failure to include required committee members, leading to High Court's ruling of unconstitutionality based on legislative overlap and insistence on standards in higher education.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling against the Search Committee's constitution but allowed the appellant to fulfill his term until June 2024 or until a new incumbent is appointed, underscoring continuity in governance.
Issues: The main questions were related to the legality of the Search-cum-Selection Committee's formation and the legislative validity of the PTU Act vis-à-vis UGC Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acknowledged that State legislation cannot contravene established national standards under the UGC, validating the High Court’s decision that the Search Committee composition violated statutory norms.
Result: Appeals partly allowed; the appellant may continue in office until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed.
(B) Legislative Competence - The Court examined the legislative powers under Article 246 of the Constitution, ruling that the State cannot legislate on matters impacting national educational standards governed by Union laws. (Paras 28-30, 39-40)
(C) Continuity of Administration - Despite finding the appointment invalid, the Court permitted the appellant to continue until a successor takes charge, preventing leadership vacuum. (Paras 51-52)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's appointment challenged for purported non-compliance with UGC norms and failure to include required committee members, leading to High Court's ruling of unconstitutionality based on legislative overlap and insistence on standards in higher education.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling against the Search Committee's constitution but allowed the appellant to fulfill his term until June 2024 or until a new incumbent is appointed, underscoring continuity in governance.
Issues: The main questions were related to the legality of the Search-cum-Selection Committee's formation and the legislative validity of the PTU Act vis-à-vis UGC Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court acknowledged that State legislation cannot contravene established national standards under the UGC, validating the High Court’s decision that the Search Committee composition violated statutory norms.
Result: Appeals partly allowed; the appellant may continue in office until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G. Balaji, AOR
For the Respondent(s): M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. G. Balaji, AOR
For the Respondent(s): M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Parties disputed whether state education legislation requires compliance with central university standards and if presidential assent cures repugnancy or lack of legislative competence. (Para 18 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 )
3. The High Court correctly identified that central standards under Entry 66, List I override state legislative framework when they occupy the field, irrespective of presidential assent. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
4. State education statutes must align with central regulations enacted under Entry 66, List I, and deviations in constitution of search committees render appointments ultra vires. (Para 41 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
5. Appointment of Vice-Chancellor invalidated; however, appellant permitted to continue until end of tenure or new selection to prevent administrative vacuum. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 )
6. Can a state legislature enact provisions for Vice-Chancellor appointment that conflict with UGC regulations?
No. Regulations framed by the UGC under Entry 66, List I are mandatory. State enactments must comply with these standards, and any deviation in the composition of a Search-cum-Selection Committee renders the provision ultra vires, regardless of presidential assent, as the field is exclusively occupied by Parliament. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 )
7. Does the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 apply to conflicts between state law and central regulations under Entry 66, List I?
No. The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 applies only when both central and state laws fall within the Concurrent List. Since central regulations under Entry 66, List I occupy a field reserved for Parliament, state laws conflicting with them fail for lack of legislative competence, not repugnancy. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 )
8. Does the inclusion of a government official in the Search-cum-Selection committee constitute a conflict of interest?
Yes. Inclusion of a government official who serves as Pro-Chancellor or member of the Governing Body violates the mandate that committee members be independent and unconnected to the university, creating a conflict of interest and contravening central regulations. (Para 42 , 43 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant, Dr. S. Mohan1[Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant”.], has approached this Court by way of the instant appeals with special leave, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 19502[Hereinafter, referred to as “Constitution”.], for assailing the common judgment and order dated 19th December, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras3[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in Writ Petition Nos. 28147 of 2022 and 4174 of 2023, whereby the High Court allowed the two separate writ petitions filed by the Petitioners therein, i.e., respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 2025 and respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2025, and set aside the appointment of the appellant as the Vice-Chancellor of the Puducherry Technological University4[Hereinafter, referred to as “the University”.]. However, the High Court, in order to avoid a vacuum, permitted the appellant to continue in office until a duly selected incumbent assumes charge in accordance with law or until 30th June, 2024, whichever was earlier. The said common judgment and order dated 19th December, 2023, is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.
3. While entertaining the special leave petitions, this Court vide order dated 26th February, 2024 issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 19th December, 2023 and as a consequence, the appellant continues to hold the post of the Vice-Chancellor. His tenure of five years ends in December, 2026.
BRIEF FACTS
4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals are noted hereinbelow.
5. The Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Puducherry, in exercise of its legislative powers under Article 246 read with Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, enacted the Puducherry Technological University Act , 20195[Hereinafter, referred to as “PTU Act”.], which received the assent of the Hon’ble President on 31st March, 2020, thereby establishing the Puducherry Technological University under Section 3 of the PTU Act.
6. According to Section 14 of the PTU Act, the Vice- Chancellor shall be a whole-time officer of the University and shall be a person of academic eminence, competence, integrity, moral standing, and institutional commitment, to be appointed in accordance with the qualifications and norms prescribed in the Statutes. The appointment shall be made from a panel of three names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under Section 14 (5), and such panel shall not include the name of any member of the said Committee. The identification of candidates for inclusion in the panel shall be carried out by the Search-cum-Selection Committee through a public notification, or by nomination, or through a talent-search process, or by a combination thereof. The members of the Search- cum-Selection Committee shall be persons of eminence in the fields of Engineering, Technology, Management, and Advanced Sciences, and shall not, in any manner, be connected with the University.
7. Section 14 (5) of the PTU Act lays down the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee referred to above, and the same is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“(5) For the purpose of sub-section (2), the Search Committee shall consist of following members to recommend the names for the appointment as Vice-Chancellor, namely:-
| (a) | A nominee of the Chancellor, who shall be a person of eminence in the field of Engineering/Technology, not below the rank of Vice-Chancellor/Professor | Convener |
| (b) | A nominee of the Government | Member |
| (c) | A nominee of Board of the Governors | Member |
For the appointment of First Vice- Chancellor, Secretary to Government (Higher and Technical Education), Government of Puducherry shall be the member in place of the nominee of Board of the Governors.”
8. In accordance wi
