WP(C)/10521/2026 of MADAN MOHAN MAHAPATRA Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 27 August 2026

ORDER

27.08.2026

01.

1. Without delving deep into the maintainability of the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), we proceeded to decide the same on the basis of the issues raised therein and the reliefs so claimed.

2. The primary relief claimed in the instant Public Interest Litigation is founded upon a notification vide No.GOV-HE-UXXI- 0004/2023/440/SG (HE) dated 13th January, 2026 which, according to the petitioner, is liable to be quashed with further consequential prayer of directing the State Government to make a proper amendment to the Orissa University First Statute, 2025.

3. By the impugned notification dated 13th January, 2026, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Chancellor issued a notification constituting a Selection Committee comprising of seven members. Some of them are the nominees of the Government, nominee of the Chancellor, nominee of the University Grants Commission and the nominee of the body of the University. According to the petitioner, such constitution is not in conformity with the Odia University Act, 2017, which ordains that the Vice-Chancellor shall be the whole time Officer of the university and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from the panel of three names recommended by the Selection Committee consisting of seven persons.

4. Section 8(1) of the said Act also contains an exhaustive provision relating to not only the constitution of the committee but its constituents as well. It indicates that the Selection Committee shall consist of seven members; one shall be nominated by the Chancellor, one by the Board, one by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the remaining four members shall be nominated by the Government. It further confers power upon the Chancellor to appoint anyone out of the nominees of the Government to discharge the function as Chairman of the said Selection Committee. According to the petitioner, one of such persons being a member of the Selection Committee is not a professor but a reader and, therefore, cannot be taken as a part of the said Selection Committee.

5. After reading the provisions contained under Section 8 of the said Act, we do not find any specific qualification stipulated in relation to the member of the said Selection Committee. It simply provides that who could be a member of the said Selection Committee and the majority of them are the nominees of various authorities. The moment the statute is silent with regard to the qualification for the members of the Committee, no addition or a subtraction can be made thereto, unless the object and the purpose is manifested eradicating any ambiguity to be perceived. The Selection Committee is entrusted with the onerous task of selecting a person who, according to them, befits the post of the Vice-Chancellor and out of the panel of such recommendations if the Vice-Chancellor is appointed, we do not find any incongruity and/or inconsistency therein warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Though the specific reliefs are not claimed in the instant Public Interest Litigation, but an argument is advanced before us that a person from another university to head the Odia University as the Vice-Chancellor should be avoided or guarded against when professors qualifying the eligibility criteria are available within the said university.

7. Our attention is drawn to the advertisement for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor dated 13th May, 2025, which postulates that the Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician of proven academic and administrative excellence and a well-rounded personality with a minimum of ten years of experience as professor in a university system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in reputed research and/or academic organization.

8. There is no scintilla of doubt in our mind upon reading the eligibility criteria reflected in the said advertisement that a person, who fulfills those conditions, shall be either in any university or in reputed research and/or academic organization. It does not restrict the selection process to a professor imparting education within the said university and, therefore, the acceptance of the stand that it must be restricted so would undermine the very objective of the expression “University System”. The moment the said expression is used, it logically infers that a person having such qualification acquired in any other university than the university for which the selection of the Vice-Chancellor is advertised and, therefore, any other expression imported within such advertisement would tantamount to overreaching the freedom of the authorities floating such advertisement as well as the statutory provisions applicable in this regard.

9. The advertisement even expanded the horizon by using the inclusive expressions where a person apart from acquiring such qualification in the university system may also acquire such qualification in any reputed research and/or academic organization. Once the peripheral is expanded, obviously in order to select the best amongst the good, we do not find any inconsistency in achieving such objective and, therefore, the contention that it should be restricted amongst the professors of the said university is untenable in the eye of law and cannot be accepted.

10. As the last gasping resort, the submission is made that the first statute must contain the expressions „preference to a professor discharging the duties in the same university to be incorporated‟ is also not acceptable. Any restriction in offering the candidature in such high educational institutional posts shall remotely impact the quality, merit, excellence and above all, the experience gained in such fields.

11. The Court cannot direct the authorities to make the law or to enact the rules but in the event, any contradiction and/or repugnancy is perceived in course of judicial dispensation, the suggestion may be made but it is still open to the legislators to ponder upon the same either to accept or not to accept such recommendation. The Supreme Court has, in the case of Mallikarjuna Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1990) 2 SCC 707, held as under:-

“13. The Special Rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame rules is the legislative power. This power under the Constitution has to be exercised by the President or the Governor of a State as the case may be. The High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The courts cannot usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the Constitution and cannot even indirectly require the executive to exercise its rule making power in any manner. The courts cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the rule making power of the executive under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.”

12. The aforesaid contention is also not acceptable for the simple reason that we do not find that the absence of the word „preference‟ has created an anomaly or brings an inconsistency between the substantive act and the first statute of the university.

13. From whatever angle we look at, do not find any merit in the instant Public Interest Litigation and the same is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

S. Behera Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Sep-2026 11:42:03 Signature Not Verified