JUDGMENT :

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. By this public interest petition, the petitioner, who is an alumnus of the respondent, Calcutta University, and is also an advocate of this Court has prayed for the writ of quo warranto, questioning the appointment of the respondent no. 4 as Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus to initiate fresh process for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

2. Sans unnecessary details, the relevant brief facts are that the respondent no. 4, Smt. Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University on 28th August, 2017 for a period of 4 years and her term had expired on 27th August, 2021. The Chancellor, in terms of Section 8(2)(b) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 (for short, ‘the Act’) Act had extended the term of the Office of Vice-Chancellor for a period of 3 months with the rider that the selection process will commence and the Vice-Chancellor will be appointed by following the due process. Thereafter, the impugned notification dated 27th August, 2021 has been issued in the purported exercise of power conferred by Section 60 read with Section 8(2) of the Act under the signature of the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department, whereby the respondent no. 4 has been reappointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Calcutta with effect from 28th August, 2021 for a period of 4 years or till she attains the age of 70 years.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government has no power to reappoint the Vice-Chancellor as the power to appoint/reappoint lies with the Chancellor. His further submission is that in terms of Section 8(6) of the Act, the same procedure is required to be adopted for reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor as has been provided for initial appointment under Section 8(1) of the Act. He has further submitted that the amended Section 8(2) of the Act is not a complete code and entire Section is required to be looked into and that in any case, by invoking the provisions of Section 60 of the Act, the main provisions of the Act cannot be bypassed. He has further submitted that reappointment without following the procedure prescribed under Section 8(1) of the Act eliminates competition and is in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. He has also submitted that the appointment of Vice-Chancellor by the State is contrary to UGC Regulation, 2015. He has submitted that the violation of the UGC Regulation is a question of law which can be raised without pleading. In support of his submission that only Chancellor is empowered to appoint the Vice-Chancellor, he 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, in the matter of Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2009) 8 SCC 273, in the matter of Raghavendra Rao and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2009) 4 SCC 635. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 264 in support of his plea that no back door entry can be permitted. He has also submitted that the judgments of the Rajasthan and Kerala High Court relied upon by learned Advocate General are distinguishable as in those cases, no such provision for reappointment was existing as it exists in Section 8(6) of the Act.

4. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State, has referred to various amendments which have been made in Section 8 of the Act since inception and has submitted that earlier, under unamended Act, there was a provision to follow the procedure of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act for reappointment but the same has been deleted by way of amendment, therefore, the legislative intent of not to follow the provision of S