Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 831
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
S. C. Sharma, Virender Singh, JJ.
DR. SHANKAR LAL GARG - APPELLANT
Versus
KULADHIPATI, VIKRAM UNIVERSITY & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W. A. No. 631 of 2019
Decided On : 18-07-2019
For Appellant : A. M. Mathur, Vaibhav Asawa
For Respondent: Purushaindra Kaurav, Shrey Raj Saxena, Koustubh Pathak, R. S. Chhabra, Ambar Pare, Vivek Sharan, Akash Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor must be made in consultation with the State Government, as required by the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. Additionally, the judgment clarifies that a writ of quo warranto is maintainable when it alleges a breach of statutory provisions.
Headnote:
Appointment - Vice-Chancellor - Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 - Section 52(1), Schedule III - The judgment discusses the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor for Vikram University, Ujjain, in light of the statutory provisions under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. It highlights the process of consultation between the Chancellor and the State Government, the interpretation of the statutory provisions, and the legality of the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired Principal, filed a writ appeal seeking to quash the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Vikram University, Ujjain, made by the Chancellor without consultation with the State Government, as required under the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was made in consultation with the State Government, as required by the statutory provisions. It upheld the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor while setting aside the finding that the writ of quo warranto was not maintainable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, the process of consultation between the Chancellor and the State Government, and the maintainability of the writ of quo warranto.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was made in consultation with the State Government, as required by the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. It also determined that the writ of quo warranto was maintainable in this case, as it alleged a breach of statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor while setting aside the finding that the writ of quo warranto was not maintainable.
ORDER S. C. SHARMA, J. – The appellant before this Court has filed present writ appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by order dated 3-4-2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6735/2019 (Dr. Shankar Lal Garg vs. Kuladhipati, Vikram University and others).
2. The appellant before this Court, who is a retired Principal, has approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of quo warranto. A prayer was made for quashment of appointment of respondent No. 4, who has been appointed as Vice-Chancellor, Vikram University by the Chancellor (Kuladhipati), Vikram University, Ujjain. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, against which the present writ appeal has been filed.
3. It has been stated by the appellant that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31-12-2015. It has been further stated that he is a highly qualified academician. The appellant has further stated that the respondent No. 2 State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of power conferred under section 52(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Adhiniyam of 1973”) has forwarded the name of the petitioner for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of respondent No. 5, Vikram University, Ujjain.
4. It has been further stated that the State Government has issued an order on 15-2-2019 under section 52(1) of the Adhiniyam of 1973 in respect of Vikram University, Ujjain and by virtue of the aforesaid statutory provision, a Vice-Chancellor has to be appointed keeping in view section 13 and 14 read with Schedule III of the Adhiniyam of 1973.
5. The petitioner has further stated that the State Government on 15-2-2019 proposed a panel of three persons including the petitioner to respondent No. 1 Chancellor for appointment of one of them as Kulpati of Vikram University, Ujjain and name of the petitioner was at serial No. 01. The petitioner has further stated that Chancellor in utter violation of section 13 and 14 of the Schedule-III of the Adhiniyam of 1973, rejected the names proposed by the State Government and forwarded a panel of four names to the State Government for consultation.
6. The appellant has further stated that the Law Department has given an opinion in the matter that the Vice-Chancellor can only be appointed from the panel of candidates recommended by the State Government and in utter violation of section 13 and 14 of the Schedule-III of the Adhiniyam of 1973, the Chancellor has appointed respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor of Vikram University, Ujjain by an order dated 13-3-2019. The appellant has further contended that the order appointing respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor is illegal as the State Government was not consulted by the Chancellor.
7. It has also been contended that the order dated 13-3-2019 has not been passed in consonance with section 52(3) of the Adhiniyam as the Chancellor cannot appoint a Vice-Chancellor for indefinite period. The petitioner’s contention is that order appointing respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor is illegal, contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.
8. It has been stated that the writ Court has failed to consider that the order 13-3-2019 has been passed by the Chancellor in colourable exercise of powers. It has also been stated that writ Court has failed to consider that the order dated 13-3-2019 passed by the Chancellor is violative of section 52 of the Adhiniyam of 1973. Other grounds have also been raised in the matter and the most important ground which has been raised by the petitioner is that there was no process of consultation and the Chancellor has appointed the Vice-Chancellor without their being any consent of the State Government. A prayer has been made for quashment of the order dated 13-3-2019 passed by the Chancellor appointing respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor as well as the order passed by the
