IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.116 of 2019
(Through Video Conferencing)
Malireddy Venkata Raya Phaneendra, S/o.Babi Malireddy,
Aged about 48 years, R/o.G-5, Raja Ratna Residency,
Gandhinagar, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple,
Kakinada, East Godavari District ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District,
and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. J. Ugranarasimha
Counsel for respondents 1, 3 & 10 : The Advocate General assisted
by Mr. Venkat Challa, Asst. Govt.
Pleader
Counsel for respondent No.4 : None appears
Counsel for respondent No.5 : None appears
Counsel for respondent No.6 : None appears
Counsel for respondent No.7 : Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Nagi
Reddy
Counsel for respondents 8 & 9 : None appears
Date of hearing : 19.03.2021
Date of order : 07.05.2021
JUDGMENT AND O R D E R
(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. Venkat Challa, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, for respondents 1, 3 & 10 and Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Y. Nagi Reddy - learned counsel for respondent No.7. None appears for the other respondents.
2 HCJ & CPK,J
W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019
2. This Public Interest Litigation (for short, "PIL") is filed by one Mr. Malireddy Venkata Phaneendra. While filing the Writ Petition, prayer was made to issue a Writ in the nature of Quo Warranto, contending that respondent No.7 is an usurper of public office. Prayer was also made for a declaration that the appointment of respondent No.7 as Vice-Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada (for short, "JNTU"), is void ab initio and to set aside G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 25.10.2018. Subsequently, prayer was altered to one seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 25.10.2018 appointing respondent No.7 as Vice-Chancellor, JNTU, Kakinada, as illegal being in violation of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010 (for short, " the UGC Regulations, 2010"), University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (for short, "the UGC Regulations, 2018") and G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.22 dated 14.12.2018 constituting a Search Committee under the provisions of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991 (for short "the 1991 Act"), for the purpose of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor of JNTU. However, the 1991 Act is not applicable and JNTU is governed by the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological Universities Act, 2008 (for short "the JNTU Act"). It is stated that the University Grants Commission (for short, "the UGC") framed the UGC Regulations, 2010 and Regulation 7.3 thereof provides for constitution of Search Committee, whose members shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of 3 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. It is pleaded that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016 for implementation of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and substituted the existing appendix to G.O.Ms.No.14, H.E. (UE) Department dated 20.02.2010 with a revised appendix, which, at para 2.6.5, deals with Vice-Chancellor. The UGC had issued the UGC Regulations, 2018 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2010, wherein aspects relating to appointment of Vice-Chancellors of State and Central Universities are enumerated. It is stated that in the Search Committee constituted for selection of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the Government had nominated the Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department as Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Executive Council and as Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Academic Senate and, as such, he being connected with the affairs of JNTU, constitution of the Search Committee is illegal.
4. Respondents 1, 3 and 10 have filed counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that appointment of the Secretary, Higher Education, in the Search Committee is in contravention of the UGC Regulations, 2010, which was adopted by the State vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016 and consequently, appointments made on the basis of such recommendations made by the Search Committee, would be void.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.7, it is stated that the petitioner has no locus standi and there is no element of public interest and, therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
6. It is stated that as per Section 7(2) of the JNTU Act, High Court has no jurisdiction to remove the Vice-Chancellor and no document is placed by the petitioner to establish that the State Government has adopted and implemented the UGC Regulations in its letter and spirit. It is stated that respondent No.7 is 4 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 fully eligible and qualified in all respects, as per the UGC guidelines and University Rules, to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor as he has fulfilled the eligibility criteria as prescribed by the UGC Regulations. The 1991 Act is not amended to give effect to the UGC Regulations and Search Committees are constituted and appointments are made duly following the statutory provisions prescribed under Section 11 of the 1991 Act. It is stated that the Special Chief Secretary of Higher Education Department is a person of eminence in the sphere of education and he is no way connected to any of the Universities or Colleges in particular and the PIL was filed with an inordinate delay and with an ill motive. He has been appointed by following the UGC Regulations, which are adopted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University by G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 25.10.2018 for a period of three years and since then he has been discharging his duties.
7. Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the nominee of the Government is a Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Executive Council under Section 11 of JNTU Act and a Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Academic Senate under Section 14 and, therefore, the Nominee of the Government is intimately connected with the University and, as such, Search Committee is constituted in violation of UGC Regulations, which lay down that a member of the Search Committee shall not be connected with the University. Accordingly, it is contended that the appointment made by the Chancellor on the basis of recommendation made by such Committee, is invalid and, therefore, such appointment is liable to be set aside and quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Prof. P. Muniratnam Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others in W.P. (PIL) No.12 of 2019, disposed of on 02.11.2019, in which one of us (Justice C. Praveen Kumar), was a member. He has also referred to a judgment 5 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for PIL & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1 and a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Kashi Nath Misra v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad, reported in AIR 1967 ALLAHABAD 101.
8. Relying on the affidavit filed, Mr. S. Sriram, learned Advocate General, submits that appointment of Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education in the Search Committee is in contravention of the UGC Regulations 2010, which were adopted by the State vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016. He had placed reliance in the judgment rendered in the case of Prof. P. Muniratnam Reddy (supra). He has also relied on a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the case of D. Manohar Rao v. The State of Telangana and Ors., reported in 2017 (4) ALT 697, to contend that direction was issued in the aforesaid case to the respondents therein to adhere to the UGC Regulations, 2010 for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellors. He has also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 363.
9. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.7, abiding by the stand taken by respondent No.7 in the counter-affidavit, has submitted that the instant PIL is not maintainable as it relates to appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, which is a service matter. It is submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court belatedly and the constitution of the Search Committee was not challenged and selection was allowed to be continued on the basis of such Search Committee. There is no element of public interest and the petitioner does not have the credentials to file this PIL, he submits. He relies on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bholanath Mukherjee and others v. Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananada Centenary College 6 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 and others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 464 as well as a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Shaik Sana and another v. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Guntur and others, reported in 2019 (4) ALT 287 (DB) (AP), in which one of us (Justice C. Praveen Kumar), was a member. He has also relied on Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) and on P. Seshadri v. S. Mangati Gopal Reddy and others, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 484.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
11. At the outset, it will be appropriate to deal with the contention that this petition is not maintainable.
12. In P. Seshadri (supra), extension of service granted to the appellant as Officer on Special Duty in the establishment of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD), was set aside by the High Court in a PIL. While allowing the PIL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraphs 18 and 19, observed as follows:
"18. The High Court has committed a serious error in permitting Respondent 1 to pursue the writ petition as a public interest litigation. The parameters within which public interest litigation can be entertained by this Court and the High Court, have been laid down and reiterated by this Court in a series of cases. By now it ought to be plain and obvious that this Court does not approve of an approach that would encourage petitions filed for achieving oblique motives on the basis of wild and reckless allegations made by individuals i.e. busybodies, having little or no interest in the proceedings. The credentials, the motive and the objective of the 7 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 petitioner have to be apparently and patently aboveboard. Otherwise the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
19. The High Court ought to have satisfied itself with regard to the credentials of Respondent 1 before entertaining the writ petition, styled as public interest litigation. Even a cursory perusal of Para 2 of the affidavit filed in the High Court by Respondent 1 would clearly show that Respondent 1 has no special concern with the extension granted to the appellant. Respondent 1 had merely pleaded that he moved the writ petition as he is a devotee of Lord Venkateswara. He is an agriculturist by profession. The appellant (sic respondent) has failed to supply any specific particulars as to how he is in possession of any special information. The controversy with regard to the management and administration of the temple's properties and funds have been deliberately mixed up with the extension granted to the appellant by the TTD Board. It is an admitted position that different proceedings are pending with regard to the management controversy of the temple trust. The aforesaid controversy had no relevance to the extension granted to the appellant. The writ petition seems to have been actuated by some disgruntled elements. He has also failed to show as to how and in what manner he represents the public interest.
13. In Bholanath Mukherjee and others (supra), while reiterating the observations made in P. Seshadri (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not accept the submission advanced to treat the Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation, as the grievance of the appellants/writ petitioners was personal and as they were aggrieved for being compelled to serve under a Principal junior to them in service.
8 HCJ & CPK,J
W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019
14. In the case of Smt. Shaik Sana (supra), this Court, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had observed that it is settled law that PIL is not maintainable in service matters, including recruitment, appointment, transfers etc. The question that arose for consideration in the aforesaid case was that whether a PIL would be maintainable in respect of direction sought to repatriate a Municipal Commissioner to his parent department.
15. In Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the judgment rendered in the case of Suresh Patilkhede of Thane vs. Chancellor, University of Maharashtra, reported in 2012 (6) ALLMR 336, in a PIL where the petitioners had challenged the appointment of Search Committee for recommending the panel of suitable persons for selection of the Vice-Chancellor of Pune University, on the ground that the appointment of the Search Committee by the Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Maharashtra University Act is not in conformity with the provisions of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 made under the UGC Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while not agreeing with the finding of the Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 is not traceable to clause (e) or (g) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956 and that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 being a sub-ordinate legislation under the Act of Parliament cannot override the primary legislation enacted by the State Legislature, approved the finding recorded that Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as recommendatory in nature so far as it relates to the Universities and Colleges under the State Legislation.
16. In the case of Centre for PIL & Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that if public duties are to be enforced and rights and interests are to be protected, then the court may, in furtherance of public interest, consider it 9 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 necessary to inquire into the state of affairs of the subject-matter of litigation in the interest of justice.
17. The autonomy and independent functioning of the University, which is a centre for higher education, is of utmost importance and all endeavours will have to be made to protect such autonomy and independence. While considering the case of Suresh Patilkhede (supra), which is referred to in the judgment of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted that issue was raised by way of PIL with regard to appointment of Search Committee for selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of a University cannot be countenanced as a routine service matter. The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of a University is a matter of public importance. The petitioner is a Journalist by profession and is working as Editor, United News Network (electronic news media), Kakinada and he is also the Chairman of Consumer Protection and Rights Society, Kakinada and, therefore, in our considered opinion, he has the credentials to espouse the cause in the present petition. Accordingly, we are inclined to hold that this PIL cannot be jettisoned on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, we hold that the PIL is maintainable.
18. In a matter of the present nature, when the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is questioned on the ground that constitution of the Search Committee was not in accordance with law, it would be of little consequence that the constitution of the Search Committee was not assailed at the first instance, when the same was constituted. In the affidavit filed by respondent No.7, apart from saying that the petition is filed with vested interest and is motivated or for vindication of personal grudge or enmity, it has not been stated with material particulars as to what personal grudge the petitioner has against him. In the 10 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 circumstances, we are inclined to reject the contention of respondent No.7 that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of delay.
19. The UGC Regulations, 2018 were notified on 18.07.2018 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 were in force when the Selection Committee was constituted.
20. It is relevant to take note of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 relating to Vice-Chancellor, which reads as under:
"7.3.0. VICE CHANCELLOR:
XXX ii. The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public Notification or nomination or a talent search process or in combination. The members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance to be given in writing along with the panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the Search Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice-Chancellors of State/Private Universities.
21. It will also be relevant in this context to quote clauses 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 of the appendix to the UGC Regulations 2010, which read as under:
11 HCJ & CPK,J
W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019
"2.6. VICE-CHANCELLOR:
2.6.1. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. 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 equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organization.
2.6.2. The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public Notification or nomination or a talent search process or in combination. The members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance to be given in writing along with the panel to be submitted to the Chancellor.
2.6.3. The Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended."
22. In Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), amongst others, it was held that UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC and that UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the Universities, Colleges and other higher 12 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme.
23. G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016 at paragraph 3, reads as follows:
"In the above backdrop and after careful examination of the matter, the Government hereby order for implementation of U.G.C Regulations 2010 issued vide No. F.3-1/2009, dated.30.06.2010 and substitute the existing Appendix to G.O.Ms.No.14, H.E [UE] Department, dated.20-02-2010 with the Revised Appendix appended herewith. The revised appendix shall be effective from 30th June, 2010."
24. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.38 dated 23.06.2016 makes it abundantly clear that the Government had adopted UGC Regulations, 2010 and, therefore, have directed implementation of UGC Regulations, 2010.
25. The Search Committee was constituted by the Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(1) of the 1991 Act as amended by Notification dated 14.02.2018 and respondent No.7 was appointed by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and Chancellor, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7(1) and Schedule I (I-1) of the JNTU Act, as the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years from the date of his appointment, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Search Committee. Section 7(1) of the JNTU Act provides that Vice-Chancellor shall be the whole-time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor in the manner specified in Schedule I. Schedule I provides that for the post of Vice-Chancellor, the Government shall constitute a Search Committee consisting of (i) a nominee of the Executive Council (ii) a nominee of the University Grants Commission and (iii) a nominee of the State Government. The Search Committee 13 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 constituted by Notification dated 14.12.2018 was under the 1991 Act. The said Committee, otherwise, fulfils the requirement of Schedule I of the JNTU Act. The petitioner has contended that the 1991 Act has no application to a Technical University, such as JNTU. It is not necessary for us to enter into that controversy, having regard to the core issue involved. Under Section 18 of the 1991 Act, Secretary to the Government in Higher Education or any officer in the Education Department is a Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Executive Council. The Executive Council is an authority of the University and its powers are delineated in Section 12 of the JNTU Act. In terms of Section 11(1) of the JNTU Act, the Secretary to Government in Higher Education Department dealing with Technical Education or an officer of the Higher Education Department dealing with Technical Education nominated by the Government is a Class-I Ex-Officio member of the Executive Council. There is no denial of the averment made in the Writ Petition that Special Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department is a Class I Ex-Officio member in the Executive Council and that he is connected with the University as Class-I Ex-Officio Member of the Executive Council.
26. In D. Manohar Rao (supra), contention advanced on behalf of the State that though the composite State of Andhra Pradesh adopted the UGC Regulations, they did not amend relevant laws within six months as per Regulation 7.4.0 of the Regulations and, therefore, it had to be construed that the composite State did not adopt UGC Regulations 2010, was rejected. While disposing of the Writ Petition, apart from other directions, the Court also directed the respondents to adhere to UGC Regulations 2010 for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellors.
27. In the case of Kashi Nath Misra (supra), the Committee to submit names to the Chancellor for the purpose of appointment of Vice-Chancellor, amongst others, required a person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court.
14 HCJ & CPK,J
W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019
The Chief Justice nominated himself to the aforesaid Committee. The constitution of the Selection Committee was challenged, amongst others on the ground that the Chief Justice could not have nominated himself to the Committee. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Chief Justice could not nominate himself in the Selection Committee. On the aforesaid finding as well as on the finding that another member was not validly inducted to the Selection Committee, it was held that the Vice-Chancellor who was appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee was not validly appointed.
28. In Prof. Muniratnam Reddy (supra), challenge was made to various G.Os. appointing Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh as a State Government nominee in the Search Committee for selection of Vice-Chancellors to be appointed in respondents 5 to 9 Universities therein. This Court had held as follows:
"20. Therefore, once the UGC regulations are adopted by the State, the same are binding on the Government and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Rules as adopted by the State, disables a person to be a member of the Search Committee if he is otherwise connected with university or college in any manner.'
21. As stated above, the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education, who has every role to play in the administration of University and its colleges cannot be a Member of the Search Committee, more so, being the ex-officio Member of the Executive Council of the Universities.
29. Holding as aforesaid, all G.Os., constituting Search Committees, were set aside and the respondents were directed to reconstitute fresh Search Committees, 15 HCJ & CPK,J W.P. (PIL) No.116 of 2019 if not already constituted, in accordance with the UGC Regulations for appointment of Vice-Chancellors.
30. In view of the above discussion, it is manifest that appointment of Special Chief Secretary as the Government nominee in the Selection Committee has vitiated the constitution of the Selection Committee. Therefore, appointment of respondent No.7 based on the recommendation or selection made by such committee cannot be sustained in law.
31. Resultantly, this Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) is allowed, setting aside the appointment of respondent No.7. The State-respondents may take appropriate steps for appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J MRR