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 with the University in any manner cannot be a member of the Search Committee constituted for the selection of the Vice-Chancellor.

JUDGMENT

Arup Kumar Goswami, C.J. - Heard Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Venkat Challa, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, for respondents 1, 3 & 10 and Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy - learned counsel for respondent No.7. None appears for the other respondents.

2. This Public Interest Litigation (for short, "PIL") is filed by one Mr. Malireddy Venkata Phaneendra. While filing the Writ Petition, prayer was made to issue a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto, contending that respondent No.7 is an usurper of public office. Prayer was also made for a declaration that the appointment of respondent No.7 as Vice-Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada (for short, "JNTU"), is void ab initio and to set aside G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 25.10.2018. Subsequently, prayer was altered to one seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 25.10.2018 appointing respondent No.7 as Vice-Chancellor, JNTU, Kakinada, as illegal being in violation of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (for short, " the UGC Regulations, 2010"), University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (for short, "the UGC Regulations, 2018") and G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.22 dated 14.12.2018 constituting a Search Committee under the provisions of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short "the 1991 Act"), for the purpose of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor of JNTU. However, the 1991 Act is not applicable and JNTU is governed by the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Universities Act, 2008 (for short "the JNTU Act"). It is stated that the University Grants Commission (for short, "the UGC") framed the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Regulation 7.3 thereof provides for constitution of Search Committee, whose members shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. It is pleaded that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016 for implementation of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and substituted the existing appendix to G.O.Ms.No.14, H.E. (UE) Department dated 20.02.2010 with a revised appendix, which, at para 2.6.5, deals with Vice-Chancellor. The UGC had issued the UGC Regulations, 2018 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2010, wherein aspects relating to appointment of Vice-Chancellors of State and Central Universities are enumerated. It is stated that in the Search Committee constituted for selection of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the Government had nominated the Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department as Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Executive Council and as Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Academic Senate and, as such, he being connected with the affairs of JNTU, constitution of the Search Committee is illegal.

4. Respondents 1, 3 and 10 have filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that appointment of the Secretary, Higher Education, in the Search Committee is in contravention of the UGC Regulations, 2010, which was adopted by the State vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016 and consequently, appointments made on the basis of such recommendations made by the Search Committee, would be void.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.7, it is stated that the petitioner has no locus standi and there is no element of public interest and, therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.

6. It