Malireddy Venkata Raya ... vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 1875 AP

          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