1. Challenge to suspension and removal of a Vice-Chancellor under Section 11A of the MSBU Act, 2012. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 623
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Professor Ramesh Chandra, S/o. Shri Sunder Lal - Petitioner
Versus
The Chancellor, Maharaja Suraj Mal Brij University, Jaipur (Rajasthan) – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17624 of 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Major R.P. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Poonia Advocate, Ms. Aanchal S. Rathore Advocate, Ms. Rituraj Kaur Bhullar, Advocate & Mr. Prashant Chandra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Prasad Senior Advocate (Advocate General) assisted by Mr. Tanmay Goyal Advocate, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Advocate, Ms. Harshita Thakral Advocate & Ms. Dhriti Laddha Advocate.
For the Petitioner:Major R.P. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Poonia Advocate, Ms. Aanchal S. Rathore Advocate, Ms. Rituraj Kaur Bhullar, Advocate & Mr. Prashant Chandra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajendra Prasad Senior Advocate (Advocate General) assisted by Mr. Tanmay Goyal Advocate, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma Advocate, Ms. Harshita Thakral Advocate & Ms. Dhriti Laddha Advocate.
Headnote:(A) University Act, 2012 - Section 11A(1) and (2) - Removal and suspension of Vice-Chancellor - "Reasonable opportunity" of showing cause - Whether a full-fledged departmental inquiry is required for the removal of a statutory head of a university - A statutory head is not an ordinary employee and is governed by a distinct, self-contained mechanism for removal. The expression "reasonable opportunity" is contextual and does not equate to the elaborate disciplinary procedures applicable to civil servants, such as framing formal charges or recording oral evidence, provided the person is made aware of the material and given a fair chance to respond to it. (Paras 55, 57, 60, 65)
(B) University Act, 2012 - Section 9(2) - Visitation and inquiry powers of the Chancellor - Whether findings of a general inquiry into the affairs of the university can form the basis for removal of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 11A - Action under Section 11A can be initiated on the report of the State Government or "otherwise"; a fact-finding exercise into university affairs under Section 9(2) can lawfully provide the material basis for forming an opinion regarding the removal of the statutory head. (Para 66)
(C) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Scope of judicial review in university governance - Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself - The court will not sit as an appellate forum over factual findings unless they are perverse, based on no material, or vitiated by mala fides. (Paras 67, 74)
Facts of the case:
Statutory head of a university was placed under suspension following a preliminary inquiry into alleged financial irregularities and abuse of power. A detailed inquiry was subsequently conducted by a committee. The statutory head was supplied with the inquiry report, granted time to file a reply, and afforded a personal hearing. Following consultation with the State Government, the Chancellor issued an order removing the statutory head from office. The petitioner challenged both the suspension and removal orders, alleging violation of statutory procedures, breach of natural justice, and bias in the inquiry process.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suspension was preventive and not punitive, thus not requiring a prior hearing. The removal process complied with the statutory requirement of "reasonable opportunity" as the petitioner was given the inquiry report, time to respond, and a personal hearing. The statutory head occupies a high office of trust and is subject to more stringent standards of accountability. The use of a general university-centric inquiry report to initiate removal proceedings was held to be legally permissible under the "otherwise" clause of the Act.
Issues: Whether the removal of the Vice-Chancellor was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice or statutory requirements under Section 11A of the University Act; whether the
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- statutory interpretation
-
education law
- university governance
- mahara surajmal brij university act, 2012
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleged violation of natural justice and statutory procedure; respondents argued compliance with Section 11A and fair opportunity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
3. The removal process complied with Section 11A; reasonable opportunity requires context, not a full departmental inquiry. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 )
4. Section 11A is a self-contained code for removal; judicial review is limited to process, not merits of the decision. (Para 56 , 57 , 60 , 65 , 67 , 74 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; suspension and removal orders upheld as legally valid and procedurally compliant. (Para 75 , 76 )
6. What is the standard of 'reasonable opportunity' required under Section 11A of the MSBU Act before removing a Vice-Chancellor?
Reasonable opportunity under Section 11A is contextual and does not mandate a full departmental inquiry; it requires the office-holder be made aware of material and given a fair chance to respond. (Para 59 , 60 , 65 )
7. Can the Chancellor use findings from an inquiry under Section 9(2) of the MSBU Act for removal under Section 11A?
Yes, Section 11A permits action 'on the report of the State Government or otherwise,' allowing the Chancellor to act on any credible material, including a Section 9(2) inquiry report. (Para 66 )
8. What is the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in challenges to a Vice-Chancellor’s removal under Section 11A?
Judicial review is confined to examining the legality of the process—jurisdiction, procedure, natural justice, and arbitrariness—not the merits of the decision or sufficiency of evidence. (Para 67 , 74 )
9. Does the existence of vacant statutory posts like Registrar absolve the Vice-Chancellor from supervisory responsibility?
No, as the principal executive authority, the Vice-Chancellor is ultimately accountable for statutory compliance and financial discipline; administrative vacancies do not justify irregularities. (Para 69 )
10. Are interim orders or Single Bench judgments on similar provisions binding precedent?
An interim order carries no precedential value, and a Single Bench judgment on a pari materia provision, subsequently set aside as not a precedent by a Division Bench, does not bind the court. (Para 50 , 51 , 72 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following prayers :
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct:
(i) to declare the Sub Section (1) of Section 11A, MSBU Act,2012 unconstitutional being vague, ambiguous, arbitrary, and conferring un-canalized power to the Chancellor to remove a Vice-Chancellor in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure-23) terminating the petitioner and directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to function on the post of Vice Chancellor, Maharaja Surajmal Brij University, Bharatpur with all consequential benefits
(iii) also to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-1) suspending the petitioner and direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to function on the post of Vice Chancellor, Maharaja Surajmal Brij University, Bharatpur with all consequential benefits, and
(iv) to pass any other appropriate order, direction in favor of the humble Petitioner in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of the present case.”
2. Since vires of Section 11 -A (1) of the MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ UNIVERSITY ACT , 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the MSBU Act, 2012') was also questioned by the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition was listed before the Division Bench of this court on 16.12.2025. However, during hearing before the Division Bench, the petitioner did not press his challenge to vires of Section 11 -A (1) of the MSBU Act, 2012, therefore, the Division Bench passed following order:
“Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner upon instructions submits that the challenge made in the present petition is vires to Section 11 -A (1) of the MAHARAJA SURAJMAL BRIJ UNIVERSITY ACT , 2012 (hereinafter referred to as MSBU Act 2012) is not pressed.
Considering that the order which is under challenge is to be examined by the Single Bench of this Court.
The petition is therefore ordered to be listed before the Single Bench on 08.01.2026.”
3. Consequently, the matter was listed before the Single Bench for consideration of the challenge to the suspension order dated 28.03.2025 and the subsequent termination order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the Chancellor of the University. The petitioner further prayed for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. It has been contended by the petitioner in memo of writ petition that he was a distinguished biomedical scientist and academic administrator. After following the procedure contemplated in Section 11 of the MSBU Act, 2012, on the basis of recommendation of selection committee followed by the consultation with the State Government, he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Surajmal Brij University, Bharatpur (in short “MSBU”) on 08.03.2023 issued by the Chancellor for a term of three years. During his tenure, acting upon State directives to verify credentials of affiliated colleges, petitioner constituted committees to inspect and review the status of certain colleges, including Shri Ganga Saran Women’s College and S.N. College, Halena. The inspection and subsequent high-level committee reports found serious deficiencies in infrastructure and compliance and recommended for withholding or cancelling affiliation in accordance with the MSBU Act, 2012 and the MSBU (Affiliation of Colleges) Rules, 2015. Acting thereon, the University initiated de-affiliation proceedings.
5. Subsequently, complaints were made by representatives of the concerned colleges to the Hon’ble Governor/Chancellor. On 01.01.2025, the matter was referred to the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, who constituted a two- member committee, one member of which was alleged to have a conflict of interest. The petitioner objected to the constitution and jurisdiction of the said committee. Thereafter, on 07.03.2025, a four-member committee was constituted by the Chancellor under Section 9(2) o
