WP/35456/2012 of Balla Appa Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2012

ORDER:

The post of Vice-Chancellor of Andhra University, the 2[nd] respondent herein, fell vacant on expiry of the term of the previousincumbent. As required under the A.P. Universities Act (for short ‘the Act’), the Government of A.P., the 1[st] respondent, issuedG.O.Rt.No.847, Department of Higher Education (UE.I), dated 30-10-2012, constituting a Search Committee, comprising of respondents 5, 6and one, Mr.S.K. Joshi, Former Director General of CSIR, as nomineeof University Grants Commission.

The petitioner is a Professor in Department of Commerce andManagement Studies of the 2[nd] respondent University.

He submitted applications for being considered for appointment to thepost of Vice-Chancellor of Nalgonda University, Kakatiya Universityand Adikavi Nannayya University, in the recent past. It is stated thatthe petitioner was not selected. He challenges the G.O.Rt.No.847,dated 30-10-2012, by raising several grounds. He contends that the5[th] respondent in his capacity as Principal Secretary to Government,Higher Education Department, acted as Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity, after the term of the previous Vice-Chancellor expired, andthereby, he cannot be included in the Search Committee. He furthersubmits that the Act provides for the inclusion of a nominee of Executive Council of the University and at present, the ExecutiveCouncil is not in its complete shape. According to him, just few ex-officio members are functioning as the Council, and nomination of the6[th] respondent by the Council cannot be sustained. He has raisedother grounds also.

The 1[st] respondent, who is also shown with his name, as 5[th] respondent, filed a detailed counter-affidavit. He submits that theSearch Committee was constituted strictly in accordance with theprovisions of the Act and Rules and that no illegality has crept in. Hecontends that mere functioning of the Principal Secretary as In-chargeVice-Chancellor, as a stop gap arrangement, does not lead to anydisqualification. According to him, not only for the 2[nd] respondent-University, but also for various Universities, wheneverthe term of Vice-Chancellor expires, the Principal Secretary acts as In-charge Vice-Chancellor, lest there exists any vacuum, as regards thefunctioning of the University.

Regarding the Constitution of the Executive Council, the 1[st]respondent submits that the quorum provided for under Section 18 ofthe Act exists now, and that the termination of Class-II members of theCouncil does not disable it from functioning. It is stated thatW.P.No.26897 of 2011 filed on similar grounds was dismissed by thisCourt.

The 1[st] respondent stated that the post of Vice-Chancellor is animportant one and it is only the persons, who have distinguishedacademic background and good reputation can be selected andappointed. He filed a copy of a report dated 23-08-2012 submitted byJustice B.V. Ranga Raju, retired Judge of the High Court, who inquired Heard Sri Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, forrespondents 1 and 5.

In the recent past, the terms of Vice-Chancellors of quite a goodnumber of Universities in the State expired, and steps were initiated tofill the vacancies. The Act prescribes the procedure to be followed inthis context. A search Committee is to be constituted comprising of thenominee of the Executive Council of the concerned University,nominee of U.G.C., and nominee of the State Government. Thepetitioner made applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor for threeUniversities, viz., Kakatiya, Nalgonda and Adikavi NannayyaUniversities. However, he was not selected. The 1[st] respondentissued G.O.Rt.No.847 dated 30-10-2012, constituting a SearchCommittee to select the Vice-Chancellor for the 2[nd] respondent University. The objection raised by the petitioner is tothe nominee of the Executive Council and the nominee of the StateGovernment. As regards the first, he states that the Executive Councilis not full in its constitution and unless all the vacancies in the Councilare filled up, there cannot be effective nomination. This very aspectwas the subject-matter of W.P.No.26897 of 2011.

A Division Bench of this Court refused to stall the process ofappointment of Vice-Chancellors, even while directing that stepsshould be taken to constitute the Executive Council within a stipulatedtime. A different view cannot be taken in this writ petition.

One of the members of the Search Committee must be nomineeof the State Government. By and large, it is the Principal Secretary, who is nominated. The 5[th] respondent happens to be the PrincipalSecretary. The mere fact that he acted as In-charge Vice-Chancellor for some time, does not disqualify him. It is only whenspecific allegations of mala fide with reference to any instances of hisfunctioning as Vice-Chancellor are made and proved, that this Courtwould consider the feasibility of disqualifying him from being amember. No such allegations are made.

Even if there exists any defect in the constitution of thecommittee, this Court finds it difficult to interfere in the matter at theinstance of the petitioner. The reason is that the petitioner faced anenquiry into the allegations made by a Research Scholar under hissupervisorship. The allegation was that the petitioner harassed hersexually, abused her, asked her to come to his private apartment andstay up to 11:00 p.m., and that the video recording of his misbehaviourwas done. The University appointed a Former Judge of this Court toinquire into the allegations. In his report, dated 23-08-2012, the learned Judge held that the charge framed against thepetitioner is proved and he is guilty of misconduct. As long as thisreport remains, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person withprudent conduct. The office of the Vice-Chancellor is a respectableposition and the person holding it must not only be an accomplishedacademician, but also must command respect through his personalconduct. A Professor, who was found to have resorted to serious actsof misconduct against a woman research scholar, cannot be conferredthe honour of stalling the process of selection of the Vice-Chancellor.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneouspetition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.31-12-2012.

Note:

LR copy to be marked.(B/O)KO

_______________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.