SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

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.

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.

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.

Table of Content
1. constitutional framework for vice-chancellor appointment (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. challenges to appellant's appointment under ugc regulations (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
3. ugc regulations enforceability and state action limits (Para 15 , 30 , 40)
4. appellant's arguments against high court's ruling (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. respondent's perspective on educational standards legislation (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
6. judicial reasoning validating high court's findings (Para 31 , 32 , 44 , 46)
7. court's directive on appellant's tenacity in position (Para 52 , 54 , 55)

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top