Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, JJ.
Anupam Bera - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondent
WPA (P). No. 170 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2022
Decided On : 14-03-2023
The Calcutta University Act, 1979 and other State University Acts were amended in 2012 and 2014 to align with the UGC Regulations of 2018. A challenge was made to the validity of these amendments and the subsequent appointments of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in various State Universities on grounds of non-compliance with UGC Regulations and the Acts themselves. The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the Acts, UGC Regulations, and various Supreme Court judgments to determine the legality of the VC appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, General Secretary of one Jatiyatabadi Adhyapak O Gabeshak Sangha, filed a public interest petition challenging the validity of West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Acts of 2012 and 2014 and the subsequent appointments of VCs in different State Universities. The challenge was based on non-compliance with UGC Regulations and the Acts themselves.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that: * The provisions of the amended Acts of 2012 and 2014 run counter to the UGC Regulations, 2018, particularly regarding the minimum qualifications and composition of the Search Committee for VC appointments. * The State Government cannot usurp the power of the Chancellor to appoint or reappoint the VC by resorting to the removal of difficulty clause, which is worded in a manner similar to Section 60 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, as settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Anindya Sundar Das and Ors. (supra). * The orders issued by the State Government extending the tenure of those VCs who were initially appointed by the Chancellor cannot be sustained as the power to reappoint or extend the tenure solely lies with the Chancellor and cannot be usurped by the State under the removal of difficulty clause. * The appointments of those VCs who were appointed/reappointed, given additional charge, or had their tenure extended by the State Government without the Chancellor's approval are unsustainable and without the authority of law.
Issues: * Whether taking recourse to the removal of difficulty clause, the State Government is competent to appoint the Vice-Chancellor? * Whether the State Government is empowered to extend the tenure of the Vice-Chancellor on expiry of his tenure? * Whether the UGC Regulations, 2018 are applicable in the State of West Bengal? * Whether the appointment of the respondent Vice- Chancellors not fulfilling the minimum eligibility conditions of 10 years experience as Professor as prescribed in Regulation 7.3.i of UGC Regulations, 2018 is a valid appointment? * Whether appointment of the respondents as Vice-Chancellor by a Search Committee constituted without having a nominee of Chairman of the UGC as required by Regulation 7.3.ii of UGC Regulations, 2018 can be said to be a lawful appointment? * Whether the provisions of the amended Acts of 2012 and 2014 to the extent they are in contravention of the provisions of UGC Regulations, 2018 can be enforced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The UGC Regulations, 2018 prevail over the conflicting provisions of the concerned State Universities Act relating to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. 2. The appointment of those respondent Vice-Chancellors who are appointed, reappointed, whose tenure extended or who are given additional charge by the order of the State Government or who do not possess minimum eligibility condition or appointed without following the due procedure are held to be unsustainable and without the authority of law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and it was directed that the provisions of UGC Regulations, 2018 will prevail over the conflicting provisions of the concerned State Universities Act relating to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. The appointments of those respondent Vice-Chancellors who were appointed, reappointed, whose tenure extended or who are given additional charge by the order of the State Government or who do not possess minimum eligibility condition or appointed without following the due procedure are held to be unsustainable and without the authority of law.
JUDGMENT
Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.
1. The petitioner being General Secretary of one Jatiyatabadi Adhyapak O Gabeshak Sangha, a registered society and organization of educationist, has filed the present public interest petition challenging the validity of West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 and West Bengal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 and has prayed for writ of quo warranto questioning the appointments of respondent nos. 5 to 35 as Vice-Chancellors of different Universities within the State of West Bengal.
2. The plea of the petitioner is that the provisions of the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 (for short, ‘Act of 2012’) and West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 (for short, ‘Act of 2014’) are ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India, University Grants Commission Act and the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2018. Further plea of the petitioner is that the respondent Vice-Chancellors have been appointed either by a Search Committee which was not properly constituted or without constituting any such Committee. Some of the appointments are also being challenged on the ground that they do not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria of 10 years experience as Professor in the University or 10 years experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization as prescribed in the UGC Regulation. Some of the appointments have also been questioned on the ground that the appointments have been made in defiance of specific order or without specific approval of the Chancellor, who in law, is the sole appointing authority for Vice-Chancellor post. A plea has also been taken that the appointment of some of the respondent Vice-Chancellors have been made contrary to the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations, 2018.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that provisions of the Act of 2012 and Act of 2014 run counter to the UGC Regulations, 2018 as the minimum qualifications prescribed in the impugned Acts for the post of Vice-Chancellors stands diluted and these provisions prescribed minimum qualification lower than the one prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2018. A further plea has been raised that in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Search Committee for appointment of Vice-Chancellors must have a nominee of the Chairman, UGC which was missing in the Search Committee formed for appointment of the respondent Vice-Chancellors. She further submits that the UGC Regulations have statutory force having being framed under the UGC Act, 1956 and that the UGC Regulations are applicable in the State of West Bengal even if the UGC Scheme has not been accepted by the State and the State has no option in this regard. In support of this submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473. She has also referred to relevant entries of List I and List III of Schedule 7 and Article 254 of the Constitution and has submitted that in case of conflict, the Central Legislation will prevail. In support of this submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 179. She has also submitted that some of the respondent Vice-Chancellors have been appointed by the State taking recourse to the removal of difficulty clause which is not permissible and in support of her submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das and Others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1382. She has submitted that the appointing authority for the office of Vice-Chancellor is the Chancellor, therefore, the appointments made by the State cannot be sustained and that if the initial appointment itself is defective, then extension by the proper auth
The UGC Regulations, 2018 prevail over the conflicting provisions of the concerned State Universities Act relating to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
Appointment as Vice-Chancellor of University – While preparing panel, Search Committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence; exposure to higher education system in country and abroad, an....
The appointment of Vice-Chancellors must comply with statutory provisions and UGC regulations, ensuring lawful and independent decision-making by the Chancellor.
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....
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.
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 viola....
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
