Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, JJ.
Arun Saxena - Appellant
Vs.
Dr. A.P.J.Abdul Kalam Tech. University Thru. Registrar & Ors - Respondents
P.I.L. CIVIL No.19162 of 2018
Decided on : 20-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ramesh Chandra Saxena, Adv.
For the Respondent: Brijesh Kumar Shukla, Dr.L.P.Misra, Manish Kumar, Adv.
The U.G.C. Regulations, 2013 were held to be not applicable to the technical university, as they had not been adopted and the university did not receive funds from U.G.C.
Headnote:
Public Interest Litigation - Appointment of Vice-Chancellor - U.P. Technical University Act, 2000, U.G.C. Regulations, 2013 - Section 9 of U.P. Technical University Act, 2000 - Clause 7.3.0 of U.G.C. Regulations, 2013
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an advocate, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the nomination of a member of the Search Committee for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor of a technical university, citing violation of U.G.C. guidelines and U.P. Technical University Act, 2000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Public Interest Litigation to be not maintainable due to non-compliance with the provisions of the court rules. On the merits, the court held that the U.G.C. Regulations, 2013 were not applicable to the technical university as they had not been adopted, and the university did not receive any funds from U.G.C. Therefore, the nomination of the committee member was not in violation of the regulations.
Issues: Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation, Applicability of U.G.C. Regulations, 2013
Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation as not maintainable due to non-compliance with court rules. On the merits, the court held that the U.G.C. Regulations, 2013 were not applicable to the technical university, as they had not been adopted and the university did not receive funds from U.G.C.
Final Decision: The Public Interest Litigation was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability and lack of merit.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Sri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsels representing opposite party No.1, whereas learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has sent out of station slip.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the opposite party No.3.
3. We have proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of opposite party No.2 as his interest is well protected in the directions issued by us.
4. By means of present writ petition i.e Public Interest Litigation (here-in-after referred to as the 'P.I.L.'), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the nomination of opposite party No.3 as one of the members of Search Committee made by the opposite party No.2 for appointment on the post of Vice-Chancellor of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow, opposite party No.1 after summoning the original record regard the same.
(b) Issue a writ, director or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 not to give effect to the recommendations made by the illegally constituted Search Committee in any manner what so ever and after re-nomination of some other member of Search Committee in place of opposite party No.3, the further process for appointment of Vice-Chancellor may be proceeded with.
5. The petitioner who happens to be an Advocate and so as to apprise his credentials, he has submitted that he is a practicing Advocate in Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and is also a conscious citizen of the country and he is fully competent to file the present P.I.L.
6. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the nomination of the opposite party No.3, Professor S.G. Dhandey as one of the members of Search Committee made by the opposite party No.2, Chancellor, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Technical University, Lucknow (here-in-after referred to as the 'Technical University') for appointment on the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University is in violation of the guidelines so issued by the University Grants Commission vide notification dated 13.06.2013, which is contained as Annexure No.2 to the P.I.L.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 9 of U.P. Technical University Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as the Act, 2000) provides the necessary formalities for making appointment of Vice-Chancellor of the Technical University. Section 9 (2) provides about the committee for making selection/appointment on the post of Vice-Chancellor. Section 9 (2) of the Act, 2000 is being reproduced here-in-below:-
(9) (2) The committee referred to in sub-section (1) shall consist of the following members, namely;
(a) Principal Secretary or Secretary, as the case may be, to the State Government in the Technical Education Department who shall also be the convener of the Committee;
(b) One person nominated by the All India Council for Technical Education;
(c) One person nominated by the Chancellor.
8. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the nomination of Professor S.G. Dhandey has been made by the Chancellor under Section 9 (2) (c) of the Act, 2000.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred para-4 of the University Grants Commission's notification dated 13.06.2013 wherein clause 7.3.0 of the Principal Regulations have been mentioned, in which, the qualification and formalities for making appointment of Vice-Chancellor has been given. Clause 7.3.0 of the notification is being reproduced here-in-below:-
7.3.0. VICE-CHANCELLOR:
i. Persons of the higher level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as 'Vice-Chancellor'. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an e
