The amendments to State university Acts, removing Vice-Chancellor appointment power from the Chancellor to the Government, were found unconstitutional for conflicting with UGC Regulations, which have primacy under Article 254.

ORDER :

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

The petitioner herein is a practising lawyer. He filed this writ petition in public interest questioning the constitutional validity of the impugned Acts amending some of the provisions of the following Acts:

1. The Tamil Nadu Fisheries University Act, 2012.

2. The Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act, 1989.

3. The Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965

4. The Anna University Act, 1978

5. The Bharathiar University Act, 1981

6. The Bharathidasan University Act, 1981

7. The Mother Teresa Women's University Act, 1984

8. The Alagappa University Act, 1985

9. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Act 1990

10.The Periyar University Act, 1997

11.The Tamil Nadu Open University Act, 2002

12.The Thiruvalluvar University Act, 2002

13.The Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University Act, 2008

14.The Annamalai University Act, 2013

15.The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Act, 1996 16.The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University Act, 1987

17.The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Act, 1971

18.The Tamil University Act, 1982

2. By the impugned amendments, the power to appoint Vice- Chancellors for the aforesaid Universities has been taken away from the Chancellor and vested with the Government.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned amendments suffer from the vice of repugnancy since they are in direct conflict with Regulation 7.3 of the UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REGULATIONS on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. According to him, the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. He argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already upheld the primacy of UGC Regulations over State Laws in (2022) 5 SCC 179 (Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi -vs- State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 318 (State of West Bengal -vs- Anindya Sundar Das and Others), (2023) 17 SCC 338 (Professor Sreejith -vs- Dr.Rajashree MS and Others) and that therefore, the impugned amendments are unconstitutional. He pointed out that pursuant to the impugned amendments, search committees had been constituted for filling up the vacancies in the post of Vice Chancellor in respect of some of the Universities. Applications had been invited from eligible candidates. His case is that if the operation of the impugned amendments is not suspended, appointments would be made and that was the urgency for moving this Court during its Vacation Sitting.

4. The writ petition was listed for hearing on 14.05.2025 and was admitted. Even when the matter was taken up for admission, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu as well as Shri.P.Wilson learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Higher Education Department entered appearance. We put them on notice and informed them that the petition for interim relief will be taken up on 21.05.2025.

5. Today when the case was taken up, the learned Advocate General as well as Shri P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there was no pressing urgency for the Vacation Court to take up the matter. They sought further time to file counter affidavit. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu filed a memo setting out the following objections:

(a)The Public Interest Litigation is politically motivated.

(b)It challenges the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 08.04.2025 in State of Tamil Nadu -vs- Governor of Tamil Nadu (Writ Petition (Civil) No.1239 of 2023)

(c) It is not fit to be heard during Vacation.

(d)The vires of nine independent amendment Acts cannot be challenged in one w