WPPIL/190/2020
2021 Latest Caselaw 4469 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
                            AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK


          WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 190 OF 2020


                        10TH NOVEMBER, 2021
 Between:

 Shri Ravindra Jugran.
                                                                 ...Petitioner

 and


 State of Uttarakhand and others.

                                                            ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Siddhant Manral, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent no. 1. : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

Counsel for the respondent no. 2. : Mr. B.D. Kandpal, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent no. 3. : Ms. Mamta Bisht, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent no. 4. : Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondent no. 5. : Mr. Nitin Singh, the learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

The petitioner has challenged the appointment

of Mr. Narendra Singh Bhandari, the respondent no. 5,

as the Vice-Chancellor of the Soban Singh Jeena

University (for short, "the University").

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in 2019,

the State had enacted the Soban Singh Jeena University

Act, 2019 (for short, "the Act"). The University was

created under this Statute. According to the proviso

attached to Section 10(1) of the Act, "the first Vice-

Chancellor of the University shall be appointed by the

State Government, and shall hold the post for duration

of three years". Since the University was freshly

created, the first Vice-Chancellor of the University had to

be appointed by the State Government.

3. According to the University Grants

Commission Regulations, 2018 (for short "Regulations,

2018"), Regulation 7.3.0 deals with the appointment of

a Vice-Chancellor. According to the said provision, "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". According to the petitioner, the

respondent no. 5 worked as a Professor from May, 2009

till 17.10.2017. On 17.10.2017, the respondent no. 5

was appointed as a Member of the Uttarakhand Public

Service Commission (for short "the Commission"); the

respondent no. 5 took charge on 01.11.2017.

Therefore, the respondent no. 5 does not have a

minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a

University system. Moreover, he does not have ten

years of experience in an equivalent position in a

reputed research and / or academic administrative

organization. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the

respondent no. 5 is not eligible to be appointed as the

first Vice-Chancellor of the University.

4. Mr. Siddhant Manral, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, has marshaled out the facts mentioned

hereinabove. He further submits that since the eligibility

has been laid down by the Regulations, 2018, the State

Government cannot be permitted to deviate from the

eligibility requirements. However, the State

Government, for reasons best known to it, has deviated

from the eligibility requirements. Therefore, the

appointment of respondent no. 5 is patently illegal.

5. On the other hand Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the

learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State

of Uttarakhand, submits that under Section 10 of the

Act, there is no requirement that the first Vice-

Chancellor of the University shall fulfill the eligibility

requirement prescribed by the Regulations, 2018.

Therefore, the State Government is free to appoint any

person of its choice as the first Vice-Chancellor of the

University.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Nitin Singh, the

learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, has raised the

following contentions before this Court :-

Firstly, the entire PIL is motivated as certain

disgruntled persons have approached this Court in the

garb of the PIL.

Secondly, a bare perusal of the bio-data of the

respondent no. 5 would clearly reveal that the

respondent no. 5 has twenty-nine years of teaching

experience i.e. of having taught under-graduate and

post-graduate courses at Universities. Therefore, he

does possess the requisite eligibility criteria. Hence, his

appointment is a legal one.

Thirdly, the appointment of the first Vice-

Chancellor is a subjective appointment by the State.

Therefore, the eligibility criteria prescribed by the

Regulations, 2018 is inapplicable in the present case.

Fourthly, the proviso to Section 10 of the Act

is an exception to the entire process to be followed for

appointment of a regular Vice-Chancellor in contra-

distinction to the first Vice-Chancellor.

Lastly, the respondent no. 5 has the

administrative experience gained as a Member of the

Commission. Therefore, he is eligible according to the

Regulations, 2018.

7. The contentions raised by Mr. Nitin Singh, the

learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, have been

echoed by Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned counsel for the

respondent no. 4, the University. Therefore, they are

not being reproduced.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and

perused the record.

9. Although it has been claimed that disgruntled

persons have filed the present PIL, the fact remains that

the petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance

of a writ of quo-warranto. It is, indeed, a settled

principle of law that a writ of quo-warranto can be filed

by a person, who is unrelated and has no personal

interest in the issue being raised. For, the law permits a

citizen to question the fact that an ineligible or an

unqualified person is holding a public office. [Ref to B.

Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply

& Drainage Board Employees' Assn. and others,

[(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2)], State of Punjab v. Salil

Sabhlok & Ors, [(2013) 5 SCC 1], Rajesh Awasthi

v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others, [(2013) 1 SCC

501]. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned

counsel for the respondent no. 5, that this PIL is not

maintainable only because it has been filed by

disgruntled persons, is clearly unacceptable.

10. The issue before this Court is whether the

appointment of the respondent no. 5, as the first Vice-

Chancellor of the University, is legally valid, or not?

Section 10 of the Act is as under :-

10. Vice-Chancellor

(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor with the concurrence of the State Government from among the distinguished persons in the field of study of the University or from equivalent position in Administration, Industry or Research Institute whose names are submitted to him by search committee constituted by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2).

Provided that first Vice-Chancellor of University Shall be appointed by State Government and Shall hold the Post for duration of three years.

(2) The committee referred in sub-section (1) shall consist of the following persons :

(a) One person nominated by the Chancellor.

(b) One person nominated by the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.).

(c) The Secretary/Principal Secretary of the State Government higher education department, who shall be the convener of the committee.

(3) Based on the qualification and eligibility prescribe in the regulations of the University Grant Commission, the committee shall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable for the post of the Vice-Chancellor. The committee while presenting the nominations to the Chancellor, shall forward a brief descriptive note of every nominee's academic background/ qualifications and any specializations, but shall not show any preferences.

(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall have general supervision and control on activities of the University and shall make decision of authorities of university effective.

(5) Wherever the matter is of urgent nature, apart from appointing faculty, which requires immediate action, and the related action is not fulfilled through this Act or through an empowered official of the University or via any other body, with Prior approval of Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor may take action as it considered appropriate.

(6) The emoluments and other condition of services of the Vice Chancellor, shall be as determined by the State Government from time-to-time:

Provided that emoluments and other conditions of service of Vice-Chancellor shall not be varied to his disadvantage during the term of his office.

(7) If the post of the Vice-Chancellor becomes temporarily vacant due to absence, illness, leave or otherwise then in his absence, the senior most professor who shall be appointed by the Chancellor, shall perform the dudes of the Vice-Chancellor till the Vice-Chancellor resumes his duties.

Provided that where the vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor occurs due to resignation, death or expiry

of the term and where the vacancy cannot be filled immediately under the sub-section (1) and (3), the Chancellor, with the recommendation of the State Government may appoint the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the senior professors of the University for six months ;

Provided further that this kind of provisional appointment can be extended only once for next six months.

(8) If, in the opinion of the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor willfully omits or refuses to carry out the provision of this Act, Ordinances or abuses the power vested in him, or if it otherwise appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of the Vice Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interest of University, the Chancellor may, after making such enquiry as he deems proper, by order remove the Vice Chancellor.

(9) The Vice-Chancellor shall not be entitled to any pension insurance scheme or provident funds.

(10) On the misappropriation or mismanagement of funds or misbehavior or misconduct, which is undignified for this high post, following a timely investigation, to be completed within two months stating the reason, the Chancellor on recommendation of State Government, shall have the powers to remove the Vice-Chancellor.

(11) During the pendency or in contemplations of any inquire referred to in sub section (8) the Chancellor may order that till further orders-

(a) Such Vice Chancellor shall refrain from performing the functions of the office of Vice-Chancellor but shall continue to get the emoluments to which he was otherwise entitled.

(b) The functions of the office of the Vice Chancellor shall be performed by the person specified in the order.

11. A bare perusal of Section 10 of the Act clearly

reveals that while a regular Vice-Chancellor is required

to be appointed on the basis of the recommendation of a

search committee constituted by the State Government,

the first Vice-Chancellor of the University can be

appointed by the State Government without the

recommendation of a search committee. Therefore, the

only distinction between the main provision of Section

10(1) and the proviso is a procedural difference, but not

more than that.

12. The learned counsel for respondent no. 5 is

unjustified in claiming that the appointment of the first

Vice-Chancellor is a subjective appointment solely on

behalf of the State Government. Considering the fact

that Section 12 of the Act bestows vast powers on the

Vice-Chancellor, be it the first Vice-Chancellor or the

regularly appointed Vice-Chancellor, obviously the

appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor cannot be a

subjective one.

13. Regulation 7.3.0 of the Regulations, 2018

clearly prescribes the eligibility requirements.

Regulation 7.3.0 is as under :-

7.3.0. VICE CHANCELLOR:

i. 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.

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. In respect of State and Central Universities, the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee.

a) a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be the Chairperson of the Committee.

b) a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission.

c) a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council/Board of Management of the University.

iii. The Visitor/ Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.

iv. The conditions of services of the Vice Chancellor shall be as prescribed in the Statutes of the university concerned in conformity with these Regulations.

v. The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her eligible for all service related benefits.

15. A bare perusal of the Regulation 7.3.0 clearly

reveals that the first requirement is that the person

should be of the highest level of competence, integrity,

morals and institutional commitment. Thus, it does not

lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for the

respondent no. 5 to argue that any Tom, Dick and Harry

can be appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor at the

subjective discretion of the State Government. For, the

UGC clearly prescribes the need for the highest level of

competence, integrity, morals and institutional

commitment.

16. Moreover, the regulation clearly stipulates that

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". Therefore, even this eligibility

requirement needs to be fulfilled before the State

Government can appoint the first Vice-Chancellor. After

all, the State cannot be permitted to appoint a mere

Assistant Professor as a Vice-Chancellor.

17. There is certain purpose for which Regulation

7.3.0 has been enacted. The main purpose is that since

the Vice-Chancellor happens to be the administrative

head of a University, he must be a person of impeccable

integrity, morals, institutional commitment and

competence. Moreover, he should have the teaching

and administrative experience as a Professor of

minimum of ten years, or should have ten years'

experience in an equivalent position in a reputed

research and / or academic administrative organization.

Since vast powers and responsibilities have been

bestowed upon the said office of the Vice-Chancellor, it

possibly cannot be argued that the State has the power

to appoint any sundry person.

18. A bare perusal of the bio-data of the

respondent no. 5 clearly reveals that he was appointed

as a Professor in May, 2009, and he was appointed as a

Member of the Commission on 17.10.2017 and took

charge on 01.11.2017. Therefore, he continued to

discharge his duties as a Professor from May, 2009 till

17.10.2017 i.e. for a period of seven years, five months,

and seventeen days. Even if the respondent no. 5 has

joined as a Member of the Commission on 01.11.2017,

and worked till his appointment as the Vice-Chancellor

on 11.08.2020, even then he does not fulfill the

minimum requirement of having worked as a Professor

for a minimum period of ten years. Moreover, his

experience as a Member of the Commission does not

give him a teaching experience. For, a Member of the

Commission does not discharge any teaching function.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5

is unjustified in claiming that the experience of the

respondent no. 5, as a Member of the Commission,

should be counted towards ten years of experience as a

Professor in a University.

19. Thus, for the reasons stated above it is

obvious that the respondent no. 5 does not fulfill the

eligibility criteria prescribed by Regulation 7.3.0 of the

Regulations, 2018. Hence, his appointment as the first

Vice-Chancellor of the University is legally unsustainable.

20. For the reasons stated above, this Writ

Petition is, hereby, allowed. The appointment order of

the respondent no. 5, dated 11.08.2020, is, hereby, set

aside.

21. No order as to costs.

_____________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.

_______________________ NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK, J.

Dt: 10th November, 2021 Rahul