JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Writ Appeal is preferred against the interim order dated

21.03.2024 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.10667 of 2024. Briefly stated, the challenge in the Writ Petition, which was filed by the Vice Chancellor of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit was against Ext.P11 order, by which his appointment as Vice Chancellor was found to be void ab initio on the ground that it had been made in contravention of Regulation 7.3 of the 2018 UGC Regulations. By the said order, the Chancellor of the University directed the appellant herein to vacate the office of the Vice Chancellor. It is clear from a reading of the order of the Chancellor impugned in the Writ Petition that it was based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S v. Dr. Rajasree M.S & Ors. [2022 SCC Online SC 1473], where the Supreme Court found that in as much as the UGC Regulations contemplated that the Search Committee had to send a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst eminent persons in the subject concerned to be placed before the Chancellor for the latter to select one among them as the Vice Chancellor, the action of the Search Committee in the case of sending only one name was contrary to the Regulations and illegal. On the facts of the instant case also, the learned Single Judge found that the Search Committee had sent only one name for consideration by the Chancellor for appointment as Vice Chancellor of the University, and hence the initial appointment of the appellant as Vice Chancellor itself was illegal as void. The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to grant a stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Chancellor pending final disposal of the Writ Petition.

2. Before us, the contention of Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel for the appellant is twofold. He would submit that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S (Supra) is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as there is material available with the appellant to show that the Chancellor had effectively waived the requirement of sending a panel of names, and had instructed the Search Committee to send only one name for consideration. Secondly, he points out that Regulation 7.3 of the 2018 UGC Regulations is itself ultra vires the provisions of Section 26 of the UGC Act, and hence the Chancellor could not have relied on the said regulation for the purposes of finding the appointment of the appellant void ab initio.

3. On a consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, as also after hearing Sri.S. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel instructed by Adv. Sri.S. Prasanth on behalf of the Chancellor, Sri. Krishnamoorthy the learned Standing counsel for the 5th respondent UGC, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State, Sri. Dinesh Mathew J Murikken, the learned Standing counsel on behalf of the University and Sri.Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Central Government counsel for the Union of India, We are of the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge insofar as it is adverse to the appellant herein does not warrant any interference.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Regulation 7.3 of the 2018 UGC Regulations is ultra vires the parent Statute is one that can be agitated before the learned Single Judge at the time of adjudication of the Writ Petition. Even assuming that the said argument succeeds before the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the action of the Chancellor impugned in these proceedings will nevertheless be saved by the defacto doctrine that will apply to protect the actions taken by various authorities under the extant Regulations till such time as they are declared as ultra vires and void. As regards the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Chancellor of the University did not have the jurisdiction to nullify his own earlier order in