Back
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN & V.M. VELUMANI, JJ.
K.V. Jeyaraj & Another
Versus
The Chancellor of Universities & Others
Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 11350 of 2012 & Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 3318 of 2013
Decided on: 26-06-2014
Writ petition filed to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto to direct the person holding the office of Vice Chancellor in the Madurai Kamaraj University, to show cause under what authority she continues to hold the office of the Vice Chancellor of the University. The court held that the post of Associate Professor held by the fourth respondent was not equivalent to that of Professor and that Paragraph 7.3.0 of Annexure to the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 have a binding effect the Chancellor, in view of the fact that it occupies a field left vacant by the State enactment.
Fact of the Case:
The fourth respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University in 2012. Two writ petitions were filed challenging her appointment on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010. The main contention was that the fourth respondent did not have a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor in a University system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the post of Associate Professor held by the fourth respondent was not equivalent to that of Professor. The court also held that Paragraph 7.3.0 of Annexure to the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 have a binding effect the Chancellor, in view of the fact that it occupies a field left vacant by the State enactment. Therefore, the court held that the fourth respondent did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 and her appointment as Vice Chancellor was liable to be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the post of Associate Professor held by the fourth respondent was equivalent to that of Professor? 2. Whether Paragraph 7.3.0 of Annexure to the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 have a binding effect the Chancellor, in view of the fact that it occupies a field left vacant by the State enactment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the post of Associate Professor held by the fourth respondent was not equivalent to that of Professor. The court relied on the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010, which clearly distinguish between the posts of Professor and Associate Professor in terms of qualifications, pay scales, and selection procedures. 2. The court held that Paragraph 7.3.0 of Annexure to the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 have a binding effect the Chancellor, in view of the fact that it occupies a field left vacant by the State enactment. The court noted that the Madurai Kamaraj University Act and the Statutes issued thereunder do not prescribe any qualifications, either educational or otherwise, for a person to be appointed as Vice Chancellor. Therefore, the court held that the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010 could fill this vacuum.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the appointment of the fourth respondent as Vice Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University.
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. These Writ Petitions are for the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto to direct the person (who is arrayed as the fourth respondent in the first writ petition in W.P(MD)No.11350 of 2012 and the second respondent in the second writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3318 of 2013) holding the office of Vice Chancellor in the Madurai Kamaraj University, to show cause under what authority she continues to hold the office of the Vice Chancellor of the University.
2. We have heard M/s. T.Lajapathi Roy and G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the State, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the incumbent holding the post of Vice Chancellor, Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the University and Mr.Y.Krishnan, learned counsel for the impleaded party.
3. When the post of Vice Chancellor of the Madurai Kamaraj University fell vacant in 20112012, the Government constituted a Search Committee to appoint a suitable candidate. The names of 104 persons were considered. The Search Committee appears to have short-listed the names of three persons by name (1) Dr.R.Jayaraman, Professor of Management Studies (Retd.,), Member Secretary, Centre for Entrepreneurship Development, Madurai (2) Dr.Kalyani Mathivanan, Head of the Department of English, Ethiraj College for Women, Chennai-8 and (3) Dr.T.Ramasamy, Professor of History(on lien) Registrar, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli.
4. Eventually, by G.O.(1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2) Department, dated 09.04.2012, the fourth respondent in the first writ petition was selected and appointed as Vice Chancellor for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption of office. Challenging her selection, one of the aspirants by name Dr.K.V.Jeyaraj came up with the first writ petition in W.P(MD) No.11350 of 2012, praying for the issue of Writ of Quo Warranto. Subsequently, another aspirant by name Dr.I.Ismail came up with the second writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3318 of 2013 for the very same relief. Therefore, both the writ petitions were taken up together for disposal.
5. Fortunately, there is less of a factual dispute than of a legal dispute in this case. The short ground on which the entitlement of the fourth respondent to hold office of the post of Vice Chancellor is questioned, is that as per the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010, the person to be appointed as Vice Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum 10 years of experience as Professor in a University system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization. The contesting respondent admittedly did not have a minimum of 10 years of experience as "Professor" but she claims to have had about 31 years of teaching experience as "Associate Professor" and that the same is equivalent to the post of Professor in a University system.
6. All the respondents including the State, the University as well as the contesting respondent admit the factual position that the fourth respondent did not hold the post of Professor at any point of time in her entire academic career. They also admit that as per the University Grants Commission Regulations 2010, the person to be appointed should have a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor. But the contention of the respondents are two fold namely;
a) that the fourth respondent was holding an equivalent position and hence, the requirement of University Grants Regulations 2010 stands satisfied; and
(b) that in any case the Statutes of the University did not prescribe such a qualification and hence, the UGC Regulations cannot overrule the prescription contained in the Statutes of the University.
7. In the light of the above admitted factual position and the two contentions advanced by the respondents, we think that two questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions
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
