IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Aleyamma Kuruvila D/o. K. Kurian - Petitioners
Versus
Mahatma Gandhi University Represented By Its Registrar - Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 22124 Of 2021
Decided On : 25-10-2022
Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 - Section 59(3) - University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018 - Selection Committee - Post of Principal by Educational Agency - Supreme Court has delivered its judgment to unmistakable effect that only a person who is appointed in terms of “UGC Regulations, 2018” can continue to be a Teacher of a College, or that matter as an Officer of the University, petitioners cannot rely upon Section 59(3) of “MG University Act”, to maintain that “promotion” as Principal, on basis of seniority cum fitness is tenable. (Para 4).
Findings of the Court: Court cannot come to aid of the petitioners and that College must be directed to take appropriate action in terms of “UGC Regulations, 2018”, if they want a full time Principal to occupy post.
Result: Writ Petition dispose of.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners, who are the Principal-in-charge of St.Thomas College, Ranny and its Manager respectively, have approached this Court on the assertion that the former among them has been validly promoted to the post of Principal by the Educational Agency, under the sanction of Section 59(3) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, following the seniority cum fitness principle; and hence, praying that the Mahatma Gandhi University (MG University) – to which the College is affiliated be directed to approve such appointment forthwith.
2. Sri.K.B.Gangesh – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that the only reason stated by the University in refusing the afore plea is that the “University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018” ('UGC Regulations, 2018' for short) do not provide for the appointment of Principal through promotion, but only through Direct Recruitment and therefore, that a Selection Committee ought to have been constituted in terms of the stipulations therein. Sri.K.B.Gangesh – vehemently argued that since the “UGC Regulations, 2018” provide only for constitution of a Selection Committee for the appointment of a Principal by direct recruitment and since there is no prohibition therein for making such appointment by an Educational Agency through promotion, the provisions of Section 59(3) of the MG University Act alone will apply. He concluded arguing that, there is no inconsistency between the two Statutes, since the MG University Act fills up a lacuna, which is found in the “UGC Regulations, 2018”.
3. Sri.Surin George Ipe – learned Standing Counsel for the MG University, on the other hand, submitted that, it is his client's specific case – which is guided by the various judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, including the latest one delivered on 21.10.2022, namely, Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.C. v. Dr.Rajasree M.S & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.7634-7365 of 2022) -that any appointment of a teacher to a College, in violation of the applicable UGC Regulations is void abinitio. He predicated that, therefore, his client was fully justified in having informed the College that they must appoint an appropriate person as Principal, only after selection through a valid Committee as stipulated under the “UGC Regulations, 2018”.
4. I must say that I find substantial force in the afore submissions of Sri.Surin George Ipe because, once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered its judgment to the unmistakable effect that only a person who is appointed in terms of the “UGC Regulations, 2018” can continue to be a Teacher of a College, or that matter as an Officer of the University, the petitioners cannot rely upon Section 59(3) of the “MG University Act”, to maintain that “promotion” as Principal, on the basis of seniority cum fitness is tenable. This is not a case where the “MG University Act” or the “UGC Regulations, 2018” operate on different fields, but one in which the latter excludes the appointment of Principal in a College through promotion.
5. Obviously, therefore, the submissions of Sri.K.B.Gangesh, that wherever there is a lacuna in the “UGC Regulations, 2018”, the “MG University Act” can apply, cannot appeal to me because, as I have already said above, said Regulations exclude the appointment of Principal otherwise than by selection and recruitment.
6. In the afore circumstances, I am left with little doubt that this Court cannot come to the aid of the petitioners and that the College must be directed to take appropriate action in terms of the “UGC Regulations, 2018”, if they want a full time Principal to occupy the post.
In the afore circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions:
Any appointment of a teacher to a College, in violation of applicable UGC Regulations is void abinitio.
Section 59(2) of Mahatma Gandhi University Act provides for appointment to post of Principal by promotion as well, in addition to direct recruitment.
Hon'ble Supreme Court, to effect that two candidates cannot be evaluated for inter se merit, but that it should be confined to whether any of them are disqualified or without minimum qualification; s....
Point of Law : Irrespective of whether the University Acts under Entry 25 of List III or the Statutes framed there under are amended in line with the UGC Regulations or not, in view of its adoption b....
Point of Law : UGC regulations - There was no provision in the M.G. University Law for fixing the tenure of appointment of Principals as deemed to be permanent nature.
The presence of the Chairperson is mandatory for the validity of a Selection Committee under UGC Regulations, and failure to comply invalidates the committee's proceedings.
The University has the power to appoint an ad hoc Principal In-charge and exercises overall supervisory control on an affiliated college.
The University has the power to appoint an ad hoc Principal In-charge of an affiliated college, and the appointment must be in accordance with the relevant statutes and regulations.
UGC Regulations on appointment of teachers prevail over conflicting State Government Orders, mandating adherence to UGC standards for designation and pay fixation post-tenure.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.