The amendment aimed to ensure the independence of the search committee and avoid biases and favoritism in the appointment process.

ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – The petitioner has filed this petition as pro bono litigant challenging the constitutional validity of the gazette notification dated 23-1-2020 issued by the respondent No. 1 whereby Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya (Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 2019 (Act No. 6/2020) has been enacted by which in section 13(2)(i) and section 13(3) of Madhya Pradesh Vishvavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1973) the word “Executive Council” is substituted by the word “State Government”.

2. The petitioner is claiming himself to be an academician in the field of education and a practising advocate. According to him, he is a public-spirited person and interested in the maintenance of high standard education. According to him by way of the impugned amendment, the university will not be in a position to maintain a high standard in the matter of appointment of a vice chancellor (Kulpati). Section 13 of the Act of 1973 prescribes the procedure of appointment of Kulpati and as per the un-amended provision and UGC regulation of 2010, the committee for appointment of Kulpati consists of one nominated person elected from the Executive Council, one person nominated by the chairman of the University Grants Commission and one person nominated by the Chancellor (Kuladhipati). It is further submitted that the Executive Council is defined under section 23 of the Act of 1973. The Executive Council is nothing but a group of academicians such as Deans, Professors, Principals and Secretaries of the Government of Madhya Pradesh or Higher Education. It is further submitted by the learned counsel Shri Samwaskar that now the state government by way of amendment in section 13(2)(i) and section 13(3) of the Act has replaced the word Executive Council by the word State Government. It means that henceforth the Executive Council of the concerned university will have no say in the matter of selection or appointment of Kulpati. This power has been snatched and taken away by the State Government to defeat the independent power of the Executive Council to work for the betterment of the education in the university. No useful object is sought to be achieved by making such an amendment in section 13 of the Act. It is further submitted that clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulation 2010 highlights the importance of the search committee and mandates the inclusion of such members who are persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education. The apprehension of the petitioner that the state government may send representatives without verifying his expertise or experience in the field of education and selection of Kulpati or he may not be an eminence in the sphere of the higher education hence the petitioner has approached this Court under such apprehension challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid notification.

3. The respondents have filed the return by submitting that the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless and that by way of the impugned amendment the state government has taken away the autonomy of the university in the matter of appointment of Kulpati. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the impugned notification as he is nowhere connected with the functioning of the university. The present petitioner appears to be a sponsored litigation on behalf of the persons who are aspirants to become vice-chancellor in Vikram University Ujjain. It is further submitted that the subject of higher education and the university falls at entry No. 25 of the list 3 (concurrent list appended to the Schedule VII of the constitution) in terms of Article 246(2) of the constitution. Therefore, it is well within the competence of jurisdiction of the State Government to legislate on the said subject. The amendment has been made strictly in conformity and consonance with clause 7.3.0 (II) of the UGC Regulation, 2010 which specifically provides that