On 21st October 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed that merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/State’s Universities. (Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. Vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors.)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio inter alia on the grounds that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 dehors the provisions of the UGC Regulations; that the composition of the Search Committee was not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; even the recommendation and appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not in accordance with the UGC Guidelines. Only one name was recommended to the Chancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations; the provisions of the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations shall not be binding. The petition was dismissed while relying upon the case Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. and it was observed that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the State legislation shall prevail. Feeling aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed before the Division bench contending that UGC regulations were adopted. But while dismissing the appeal court observed that the amendment to the UGC regulations was not adopted. Hence, giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that “the judgment and orders of the court are contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. and State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. as well. Any provision of the State Act which are in conflict with the UGC Regulations shall be repugnant and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall have to be applied. The Search Committee constituted to recommend the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not duly constituted Search Committee as required under the provisions of the UGC Regulations and therefore the same was illegal and void ab initio. Even as per Section 13 of the University Act, the Search Committee was required to recommend a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences but here only one name was recommended which was sent to the chancellor. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be contrary to Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “as per the decision in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan, unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the state, the State is not bound by the UGC Regulations.” The counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that “even assuming that the UGC Regulations, 2013 shall be applicable, in that case also, even considering the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2013, the Search Committee constituted in the present case cannot be said to be contrary to UGC Regulations. The Search Committee was consisted of one member nominated by AICTE and the Chief Secretary of the State. The member nominated by AICTE can be said to be a person of eminence in the sphere of higher education. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Search Committee constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 was illegally constituted Search Committee.”
Observations and Judgement of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhv, the court held that the appointment of Vice Chancellor cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations, even if the State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis-à-vis the criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC Regulations. The state act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended to bring it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it is the applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail by applying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution. Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted by State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State Universities. The UGC Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the appointment of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time. As per the UGC Regulations, Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. Therefore, when only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015.”
The appeals are allowed and the judgment and orders passed by the Division bench of the High Court are quashed and set aside.
Case: Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. Vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635 Of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Date: October 21, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
