IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

Review Petition (Civil) No

of 2023

(D) No. 36675 of 2022

In

Civil Appeal No 6706 of 2022

State of West Bengal

…Petitioner

Versus

Anindya Sundar Das & Ors.

…Respondents

O R D E R

1.

Delay condoned.

2.

The State of West Bengal seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 11

October 2022. This Court upheld the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of

Calcutta by which a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-Chancellor ¹

of Calcutta University had been allowed. This Court upheld the High Court’s conclusion

that the State government did not have the authority to appoint or re-appoint the VC

under Section 9 of the Calcutta University Act 1979² or by taking recourse to the

residuary provisions of Section 60. Consequently, the order issued by the Special

Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on 27 August 2021 re-appointing the then

1 VC

2 the Act

1

Digitally signed by

Sanjay Kumar

Date: 2023.03.16

11:35:47 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

incumbent VC of Calcutta University was set aside.

3.

While the appointment was liable to be set aside purely on the basis of the

provisions of the Act, the High Court also took note of additional submissions by the

petitioner before it, relating to the University Grants Commission (Minimum

Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and

Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)

Regulations 2018³. Accordingly, the High Court held that the UGC Regulations 2018

envisage that the appointment of a VC can be made only by a Visitor / Chancellor. This,

in the view of the High Court, also came in the way of the State government making the

appointment and, in this context, it relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ghambirdan

K Gadhvi v State of Gujarat.⁴

4.

On the basis of submissions made before this Court and analysis of the

provisions of the Act, this Court held that the order issued by the Special Secretary to

the Government of West Bengal on 27 August 2021 re-appointing the then incumbent

VC of Calcutta University was violative of the provisions of the Act and observed that:

49. The State government chose the incorrect path under Section 60

by misusing the “removal of difficulty clause” to usurp the power of the

Chancellor to make the appointment. A government cannot misuse the

“removal of difficulty clause” to remove all obstacles in its path which

arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be

antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to

make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for

making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the

statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation.

50. Accordingly, the High Court in our view was justified in coming

to the conclusion that “in the guise of removing the difficulties,

the State cannot change the scheme and essential provisions of

the Act”.

3 UGC Regulations 2018

4 (2022) 5 SCC 179

2

5.

As the High Court had dealt with the submission relating the UGC Regulations

2018, we noted that while it was not necessary for this Court to rely upon them, this

Court was dealing with them for purposes of completeness. Accordingly, we held that:

51. In the view taken above on the construction of the provision of the

Calcutta University Act 1979, while it is not necessary to advert to the

provisions of the UGC Regulations which were also relied upon by the

High Court in support of its conclusion, for the purposes of

completeness, they are dealt with as well.

[…]

56. In view of the decision in Gambhirdan K Gadhvi, even if the

provisions of the Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by

the State government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations.

The Regulat