PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI versus RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS on 10 November 2022

[2022] 17 S.C.R. 545

PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI

v.

RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 8184 of 2022)

NOVEMBER 10, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]

University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 – Regulation7.3.0 – Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 – Ss. 10, 10 (3) –Constitution of India – Art. 319 – Appointment of Vice Chancellorin a University – Eligibility for appointment – Requirement of havingminimum teaching experience – Due process for appointment –Appellant herein was appointed as a Professor in Soban Singh JeenaUniversity and worked as such for a period of 8 years and 5 months– Then he was appointed as Member, Uttarakhand Public ServiceCommission – On 13th August 2020, he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University – Said appointment was challengedbefore the High Court, inter alia, on the grounds that at the timewhen he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, he was not having therequisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which wasrequired as per the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, which were adoptedby the State Government – High court quashed the appointment ofthe appellant herein, finding the appointment process devoid of dueprocess prescribed by UGC Regulations, 2018 – Whether theappointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the Universitywas legal and valid and whether it was after following the dueprocedure, as required – Held: Under Section 10 of the UniversityAct, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, aperson to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have a minimumof 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor in a University or tenyears of experience in a reputed research and/or academicadministrative organisation with proof of having demonstratedacademic leadership – Merely because his lien was continued onthe post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teachand/or he was having the teaching experience during the period oflien – Supervising the Ph.D. scholars cannot be said to be having ateaching experience as a Professor in the University, which is therequirement as per the UGC Regulations – Further, the selection

A

B

CD

EF

GH

Afor the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through properidentification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-SelectionCommittee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed out of thepanel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-SelectionCommittee – Appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor cannotbe said to be as per the requirement of the University Act r/wBRegulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 as it is an admittedposition that no advertisement was issued before appointing theappellant as Vice-Chancellor, name of the appellant was notrecommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, selection ofthe appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor was not by a panel ofCpersons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and therefore he wasnot appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the namesrecommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee – Only one namewas placed before the State Government/the Chief Minister forapproval – Under the circumstances, the appointment of the appellantas Vice-chancellor of the University was just contrary to SectionD10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGCRegulations, 2018.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 On conjoint reading of Section 10 of the

Conclusion

EUniversity Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGCRegulations, 2018, a person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellorshall have a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience asProfessor in a University or ten years of experience in a reputedresearch and/or academic administrative organisation with proofof having demonstrated academic leadership. On conjoint readingFof the aforesaid provisions, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed out of the panel of the namesrecommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. In theGpresent case, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellorcannot be said to be as per the requirement of Section 10 of theUniversity Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,2018. It is an admitted position that no advertisement was issuedbefore appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. The name ofthe appellant was not recommended by the Search-cum-SelectionH

Committee. The selection of the appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-SelectionCommittee and therefore he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellorout of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee. [Para 10][558-B-E]

1.2 Proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019,does not provide that with respect to appointment of first Vice-Chancellor of the University, the other requirements of selectionand appointment of Vice-Chancellor as provided under Section10 are not required to be followed and/or adhered to. Even whilemaking the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity, the procedure required for selection and appointmentof Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye. If thesubmission on behalf of the appellant, the State and the Universityis accepted, in that case, the other provisions of Section 10 shallbecome otiose and/or redundant. The post of Vice-Chancellor ofthe University is a very important post and therefore the mostmeritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor ofthe University from and amongst the other eligible meritoriouscandidates out of the panel of the names recommended by theSearch-cum-Selection Committee. [Paras 11 & 12][558-F-H; 559-A-C]

1.3 A Vice-Chancellor should have a minimum teachingexperience of 10 years as a Professor in the University and hisname should be recommended by the Search-cum-SelectionCommittee and the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is to bemade out of the panel recommended by the Search-cum-SelectionCommittee. As per Section 10(3) of the University Act, 2019,based on the qualification and eligibility prescribed in theregulations of the University Grant Commission, the committeeshall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable forthe post of the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, even as per Section10 of the University Act, 2019, the qualification and eligibilityprescribed in the UGC Regulations shall have to be consideredby the Search-cum-Selection Committee. [Para 13][563-A-C]

1.4 The appellant rendered service as a professor for theperiod between 2009 to 2017 (admitted fact that teaching A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aexperience as a Professor is 8 years and 5 months) till he wasappointed as member of the Uttarakhand Public ServiceCommission on 7th October 2017. He continued as a member ofthe Public Service Commission till 13[th] August 2020 when hewas appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. Merelybecause his lien was continued on the post of a Professor, it cannotBbe said that he continued to teach and/or he was having theteaching experience during the period of lien. Even consideringArticle 319 of the Constitution of India, while working as amember of the Public Service Commission, appellant could nothave rendered any other work on any other post. Therefore, theCcontention on behalf of the appellant that the period spent by theappellant as a member of the Public Service Commission shouldbe added to his teaching experience, holding lien on thesubstantive post, cannot be accepted. Merely because such lienis held, the period of lien, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated and/or considered as teaching experience. [Para 14][563-DD-H]

1.5 From the note sheet dated 5[th] August 2020, it appearsthat only one name was placed before the State Government/theChief Minister for approval. Under the circumstances, theappointment of the appellant as Vice-chancellor of the UniversityEwas just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/wRegulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. [Para 16][564-D-E]

1.6 As per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018and even as per Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, theFselection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through properidentification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-SelectionCommittee and the members of such Search-cum-SelectionCommittee shall be the persons of eminence in the sphere ofhigher education and shall not be connected in any manner withGthe University concerned or its colleges. While preparing thepanel, the Search Committee shall give proper weightage to theacademic excellence etc. and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellorshall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the namesrecommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. Thereason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimatelyH

selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is comparedwith other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of thepanel recommended by the Search Committee. In the presentcase, such a procedure has not been followed at all. The merit ofthe appellant has not at all been compared with other eligiblemeritorious persons who may be more meritorious than theappellant. [Para 17][565-A-D]

1.7 The High Court has rightly quashed and set aside theappointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University.The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity is just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act,2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, whichhas been specifically adopted by the State Government. Therefore,this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto, which is rightlyissued by the High Court. The appointment of the appellant asVice-Chancellor of the University is held to be illegal and de horsthe statutory requirements under Section 10 of the UniversityAct, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.The present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and isaccordingly dismissed [Para 18, 19 & 20][565-E-F, G; 566-A]

Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5SCC 179; State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das& Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1382; Dr. Rajasree M.S.and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1473 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

(2022) 5 SCC 179referred to Para 3.5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8184of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2021 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 190 of 2020.

P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Harshika Verma, Bharat Singh, DhruvGupta, Ashish Pandey, Kshtiz Singh, Kushagra Raghuvanshi, MahipalKhagnwal, Amit Pawan, Advs. for the Appellant.

Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Satwik Parikh,Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Atul Sharma, Aviral Saxena, Jatinder Kumar AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ABhatia, Param Kumar Mishra, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.B

B1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand atNainital in Writ Petition No. 190/2020, by which the High Court hasallowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 herein andhas quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellant herein –original respondent No.5 as the Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh JeenaCUniversity (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), originalrespondent No.5 – Vice-Chancellor of the said University has preferredthe present appeal.

2. That the appellant herein was appointed as Professor andworked as such for the period between 23.5.2009 to 7.10.2017 till heDwas appointed as Member of the Uttarakhand Public ServiceCommission. That thereafter he was appointed by the State Governmentas Vice-Chancellor of the University by order dated 11.08.2020. Heassumed the charge as Vice-Chancellor on 13.08.2020. The appointmentof the appellant was challenged before the High Court by way of presentEwrit petition, inter alia, on the ground that at the time when he wasappointed as Vice-Chancellor, i.e., on 11.08.2020, he was not having therequisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which wasrequired as per the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018(for short, ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’) which were adopted by the StateGovernment.F

2.1 It was also the case on behalf of the original writ petitionerthat even otherwise his appointment as Vice-Chancellor was illegalinasmuch as his name was not recommended by the Search Committeeand only one name was placed before the Chief Minister and thereafterwithout any advertisement he was selected and appointed as Vice-GChancellor.

2.2 The said writ petition was opposed by the appellant contending,inter alia, that as per the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019(hereinafter referred to as the ‘University Act, 2019’), there was nosuch requirement of having minimum 10 years’ experience as Professor.HIt was submitted that at the relevant time, the length of service as

Professor as on 01.11.2017 was more than 8 years and 5 months. It wassubmitted that while he continued as Member of the Uttarakhand PublicService Commission, he was on long leave as Professor and his lien onthe post of Professor was continued. It was also the case on behalf ofthe appellant that while serving as Member of the Public ServiceCommission, he was supervising PhD scholars and therefore the samewas required to be counted for considering the minimum 10 years’experience. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that he wasfound to be meritorious and looking to his academic career the meritwas not compromised. By the impugned judgment and order, the HighCourt has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set asidethe appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the Universityby holding that as the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellorwas just contrary to Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018which prescribes the eligibility requirements for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. While setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University, the High Court has observed and held thateven otherwise the appellant was not having the minimum 10 years’experience as Professor, even as required as per Section 10(1) of theUniversity Act, 2019.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, quashing, and setting aside theappointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University, originalrespondent No.5 – Vice-Chancellor of the University has preferred thepresent appeal.

3. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the appellant – Vice-Chancellor of the University,Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofrespondent No.1 – original writ petitioner, Shri Atul Sharma, learnedAdvocate for the State, Shri Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned Advocateappearing on behalf of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission andShri Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Advocate appearing for theUniversity.

3.1 Shri Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theappellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as wellas University have vehemently submitted that Regulation 7.3.0 of theUGC Regulations, 2018 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that UGCRegulations, 2018 were adopted by the State Government, subject to the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amodifications. It is submitted that Regulation 7.3.0 therefore was adoptedby the State, subject to modification. It is submitted that therefore therewas no requirement of having minimum 10 years’ experience as aprofessor for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University.

3.2 It is further submitted that as it was a case of appointment ofBthe first Vice-Chancellor of the University, as per proviso to Section10(1) of the University Act, 2019, it was open and permissible for theState Government to appoint a Vice-Chancellor of his choice and as itwas a case of appointment of first Vice-chancellor, it was not requiredto have the name recommended by the Search Committee.

C3.3 Shri Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate has further submittedthat even otherwise it cannot be said that the appellant was not havingrequisite minimum 10 years’ experience as a professor. It is submittedthat as on 1.11.2017, the appellant had rendered 8 years and 5 monthsservice as a professor. That thereafter when he was appointed as amember of the Public Service Commission, he was on long leave and hisDlien continued on the post of professor on which he was working earlier.It is submitted that even as a member of the Public Service Commission,he was supervising the PhD scholars. It is submitted that therefore itcannot be said that the appellant was not having the requisite minimum10 years’ experience as a professor.

E

3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Patwalia, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant wasappointed as Vice-Chancellor after complete satisfaction of the StateGovernment regarding the eligibility. It is submitted that the appellant isa distinguished person in the filed of the study of the University or fromFequivalent position in Administration. It is submitted that all through hisacademic years from matriculation to masters he stood first throughoutand he is an awardee of PhD. Degree from prestigious Indian Instituteof Technology, New Delhi. He had research and publication in nationaland international journals, books, internship participation in academicseminars and conferences. It is submitted that therefore when, in exerciseGof powers under Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019 andconsidering his academic career and as he was found to be mostmeritorious and being the appointment of first Vice-Chancellor, theappellant was rightly appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University bythe State Government.

PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRAJUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

3.5 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of thisCourt in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022)5 SCC 179 as well as the recent decision of this Court in the case ofState of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Others, 2022 SCCOnline SC 1382 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the appellant that the said decisions shall not beapplicable to the facts of the case on hand, inasmuch as those were notthe cases of appointment of first Vice-Chancellor. It is submitted that inthe present case, it is the case of the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor of the University and therefore proviso to Section 10(1) ofthe University Act, 2019 shall be applicable, which permits/authorisesthe State Government to make the appointment of Vice-Chancellor.

4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay Parikh,learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner.In support of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University, Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel hasmade the following submissions:

i) that the UGC Regulations, 2018 were adopted by the StateGovernment and Regulation 7.3.0 prescribes that for the post ofVice-Chancellor, a person must have minimum 10 years’ experienceas a professor in any University and the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall be by the Search Committeewhich will submit the panel of 3-5 persons and thereafter amongstthose, appointment of the Vice-Chancellor can be made;

ii) in the present case, the appellant admittedly was not having therequisite minimum 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor;

iii) service rendered as Member of the Uttarakhand Public ServiceCommission cannot be considered for the purpose of experienceas a professor because as a Member of the Public ServiceCommission he was not required to teach and therefore the servicerendered as a Member of the Public Service Commission cannotbe said to be having the experience in teaching;

iv) having a lien on the post of professor while serving as a memberof the Public Service Commission cannot be said to be havingteaching experience; AB

C

D

EF

G

H

554SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Av) proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019 shall notbe applicable. It is submitted that proviso to Section 10(1) of theUniversity Act, 2019 does not provide that the requirement ofSection 10 is to be given go-bye. Proviso to Section 10(1) of theUniversity Act, 2019 does not give any unfettered powers to theState Government to appoint Vice-Chancellor of the UniversityBde hors Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 and UGCRegulations, 2018, which were adopted by the State Government; A

vi) UGC Regulations, 2018 including Regulation 7.3.0 forappointment of the Vice-Chancellor have been specifically adoptedby the State Government except the requirement of considerationCof the Search Committee; vii) neither there was any advertisement given nor the applicationswere invited from eligible and meritorious candidates nor the nameof the appellant was recommended by the Search Committee asthe Search Committee was not constituted at all and thereforeDthe name of the appellant was not recommended by the SearchCommittee;

viii) in view of Article 319 of the Constitution of India, the appellantcould not have worked on any other post in any other institutionwhile continuing as a member of the Public Service CommissionEand therefore the submission on behalf of the appellant that whilethe appellant was a member of the Public Service Commission,his lien was continued and/or that he was supervising the Ph.D.scholars and therefore the period during which he continued as amember of the Public Service Commission may be treated for theFpurpose of teaching experience cannot be accepted.

4.1 Shri Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofthe original writ petitioner has heavily relied upon the decisions of thisCourt in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and AnindyaSundar Das (supra) and a recent decision of this Court in the case ofGProfessor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others, 2022SCC Online SC 1473 in support of his submission that the StateGovernment is bound by the UGC Regulations, 2018 and that if there isany conflict between the State University Act and the UGC Regulations,2018 to the extent the provisions of the State University Act are repugnant,UGC Regulations, 2018 shall prevail.H

4.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaiddecisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.

5. At this stage, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the appellant – Vice-Chancellor of the Universityhas made an alternative submission that in case this Court is of theopinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courtquashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is not required to be interfered with, in thatcase, the appellant proposes to resign and therefore he may be permittedto resign as Vice-Chancellor of the University.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.

7. The short question which is posed for consideration of thisCourt is, “whether the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellorof the University was legal and valid and whether it was after followingthe due procedure, as required”?

8. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, the relevantprovisions of the University Act, 2019 and UGC Regulations, 2018 arerequired to be referred to, which are as under:

Section 10 of the State University Act, 2019:

“10. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellorwith the concurrence of the State Government from among thedistinguished persons in the field of study of the University orfrom equivalent position in Administration, Industry or ResearchInstitute whose names are submitted to him by search committeeconstituted by the State Government in accordance with theprovisions of sub-section (2).

Provided that fist Vice-Chancellor of University Shall be appointedby State Government and Shall hold the Post for duration of threeyears.

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

(a) One person nominated by the Chancellor.

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

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

(c) The Secretary/Principal Secretary of the State Governmenthigher education department, who shall be the convener of thecommittee.

A

(3) Based on the qualification and eligibility prescribe in theregulations of the University Grant Commission, the committeeshall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable forthe post of the Vice-Chancellor. The committee while presentingthe nominations to the Chancellor, shall forward a brief descriptivenote of every nominee’s academic background/ qualifications andany specializations, but shall not show any preferences.

B

xxx

xxxxxx

C

Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018:

i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity,morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor shouldbe a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ ofexperience as Professor in a University or ten years’ of experiencein a reputed research and / or academic administrative organisationwith proof of having demonstrated academic leadership.

D

ii.The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be throughEproper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection-Committee, through a public notification or nominationor a talent search process or a combination thereof. The membersof such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be persons’ ofeminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not beFconnected in any manner with the University concerned or itscolleges. While preparing the panel, the Search cum-SelectionCommittee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence,exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad,and adequate experience in academic and administrativegovernance, to be given in writing along with the panel to beGsubmitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the Searchcum Selection Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman,University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellorsof State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.

E

G

iii. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out ofthe Panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-SelectionCommittee.

H

iv. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part ofthe service period of the incumbent making him/her eligible for allservice related benefits.

9. It is not in dispute that UGC Regulations, 2018 have been adoptedby the State Government vide GO dated 6.9.2019 and Regulation 7.3.0of Regulations, 2018 has been specifically adopted with a modificationthat the process of selection of Vice-Chancellor needs to be adopted butselection committee and search committee would be constituted as perthe prevalent provisions of the Act at that point of time. Meaning thereby,the selection committee and search committee would have to beconstituted as per the University Act, 2019 (Section 10). Otherwise, theeligibility criteria provided under Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,2018 shall be applicable which, as observed hereinabove, has been adoptedby the State Government vide GO dated 6.9.2019.

9.1 On a fair reading of Section 10 of the University Act, 2019and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person to beappointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician,with a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor in aUniversity. As per Section 10(1), the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointedby the Chancellor with the concurrence of the State Government fromamong the distinguished persons in the field of study of the University orfrom equivalent position in Administration, industry or Research Institutewhose names are submitted to him by search committeeconstituted by the State Government in accordance with theprovisions of sub-section (2). Section 10(2) of the University Act,2019 provides for constitution of the search committee. Section 10(3) ofthe University Act, 2019 provides that based on the qualification andeligibility prescribe in the regulations of the University Grant Commission,the committee shall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitablefor the post of the Vice-Chancellor. It further provides that the committeewhile presenting the nominations to the Chancellor, is required to forwarda brief descriptive note of every nominee’s academic background/qualifications and any specializations, but shall not show any preferences.

9.2 Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribesthat the person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be adistinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ teachingexperience as Professor in a University. As per UGC Regulations, 2018,the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aidentification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-SelectionCommittee, through a public notification or nomination or a talent searchprocess or a combination thereof. Regulation 7.3.(ii) provides forconstitution of a Search Committee. As per Regulation 7.3.(iii), the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of namesrecommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.B

10. Thus, on conjoint reading of Section 10 of the University Act,2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person to beappointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have a minimum of 10 years’ teachingexperience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in areputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proofCof having demonstrated academic leadership. On conjoint reading of theaforesaid provisions, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor shouldbe through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointedout of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-SelectionDCommittee. In the present case, the appointment of the appellant asVice-Chancellor cannot be said to be as per the requirement of Section10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGCRegulations, 2018. It is an admitted position that no advertisement wasissued before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. The name ofthe appellant was not recommended by the Search-cum-SelectionECommittee. The selection of the appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellorwas not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee andtherefore he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel ofthe names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee.

11. It is the case on behalf of the appellant and the University andFthe State that as it was a case of appointment of first Vice-Chancellorand therefore considering proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act,2019, the procedure as required for appointment as Vice-Chancellor asprovided under Section 10 is not required to be adhered to and it is openfor the State Government to appoint the first Vice-Chancellor of theGUniversity. The aforesaid has no substance. On a fair reading of provisoto Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, it does not provide that withrespect to appointment of first Vice-Chancellor of the University, theother requirements of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor asprovided under Section 10 are not required to be followed and/or adheredto. Even while making the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor ofH

the University, the procedure required for selection and appointment ofVice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye. If the submission onbehalf of the appellant, the State and the University is accepted, in thatcase, the other provisions of Section 10 shall become otiose and/orredundant.

12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University, as observed by this Court in catena ofdecisions, more particularly in the cases of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi(supra); Anindya Sundar Das (supra); and Dr. Rajasree M.S.(supra), is a very important post and therefore the most meritoriousperson should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University fromand amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel ofthe names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. Onthe importance of the post of Vice-Chancellor, this Court in the case ofGambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra), in paragraphs 53 to 56, has observedas under:

53. It is to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor of theuniversity is a very important post so far as the university isconcerned. Being a leader and head of the institution, the Vice-Chancellor of the university has to play very important role. Whileacademic qualifications, administrative experience, researchcredentials and track record could be considered as basic eligibilityrequirements, the greater qualities of a Vice-Chancellor would beone who is a true leader and a passionate visionary. A Vice-Chancellor needs to be one who understands and handles theaffairs of the university as ethical business and maintains apellucidity in his conduct towards the betterment of the universityas well as the students therein. A Vice-Chancellor should be onewho can inspire students and guarantee entry of high qualityteachers into the university system. A Vice-Chancellor functionsas a bridge between the executive and academic wings of auniversity as he is the head of both a “teacher” and an“administrator”.

54. We may refer to some of the significant Commission Reportsconcerning the personality and role of a Vice-Chancellor of auniversity as under:

54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated thatoriginally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian university was A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

G

H

regarded as an honorary post to be filled by a prominent manin his leisure time. But now the position has changed, there isenough work to justify a full-time appointment and theuniversities should have full-time paid Vice-Chancellors. Whilediscussing the duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the Commissionstated that a Vice-Chancellor must be the chief liaison betweenthe university and the public and must be a keeper of theuniversity’s conscience, both setting the highest standard byexample and dealing firmly and promptly with indiscipline andmalpractice of any kind. He/she must have the strength ofcharacter to resist unflinchingly the many forms of pressure.Being a full-time task, it needs an exceptional man (or woman)to undertake it. The Commission rejected the proposal ofselecting the Vice-Chancellor by an external body andrecommended that the Chancellor should appoint the Vice-Chancellor upon the recommendation of the executive.

54.2. The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governanceof Universities and Colleges by the University GrantsCommission chaired by Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, formerChief Justice of India while reiterating the recommendationsand observations made by the aforesaid commissions also statedthat the selection of a Vice-Chancellor is the single mostimportant decision that the governing body of the universitymay be called upon to make. While the Chancellor of a universitymay be a high dignitary of the State of the Union of India or aneminent scholar or eminent person in public life of the State,the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, being the importantfunctionary of the university is most strategic. The powers ofproper maintenance of discipline and a healthy environmentfor both teachers and students in the university is vested withthe Vice-Chancellor along with all the other powers vested inhim/her by various Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations. TheCommission also stated that appointment of a Vice-Chancelloris made in most of the universities out of a panel of at leastthree names by the Chancellor in case of State Universitiesand by the Visitor in case of Central Universities. The panel ofnames is prepared by a Search Committee constituted inaccordance with the provision of the Act/Statute. Since it wasdifficult to have a uniform system of forming a committee in PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRAJUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

all the States, the alternatives to constitute the SearchCommittee were also provided in the Report.

54.3. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards NewEducational Management by Professor A. Gnanam (alsocalled as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990) accentuatedthe role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating that the Vice-Chancellorshould be a person with vision and qualities of academicleadership and with a flair for administration because what theuniversities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair and boldadministrator. The Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguishededucationist from the higher education system having highestlevel of competence, integrity, morals and self-respect.

54.4. The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented that theuniversities need distinguished and dignified persons as Vice-Chancellors and it is necessary to ensure that they are treatedwith dignity and regard, which the office merits.

54.5. The University Grants Commission in its handbooktitled Governance in Higher Education: Handbook for Vice-Chancellors published in 2019 has penned down the role ofVice-Chancellor of Indian universities having gained aparamount importance in the recent times. In the words ofProf. D.P. Singh, the then Chairman of University GrantsCommission and former Director of National Assessment andAccreditation Council (“NAAC”):

“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads of Universities,the Vice-Chancellors are expected to be efficient andeffective in terms of:

(a) Implementation of National Higher Education Policyand programmes, (b) Institutional change in tune with the national reformspackage,

(c) Quality and innovation enhancement and theirsustainability, (d) Productive engagement with ‘communities of scholars’from within their universities and from national andinternational domains, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

(e) Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation Ecosystem’ andtranslation of deliverables to society and economy, (f) Adoption of international best practices of ‘GoodGovernance’.”

“The Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of asymphony of orchestra with the attributes of:

(a) Developing teams and teamwork, building partnershipsand collaborations delicately interwoven by collegiality,friendship and intellectual engagement; (b) Devising a strategy and action plan with definedmilestones and deliverables;

(c) Ensuring primary accountabilities of self and theabovementioned university governing bodies; and (d) Steering an institutional monitoring and evaluationmechanism on university performance built on principles oftransparency.”

55. Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle ofgovernance as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra — “YathaRaja Tatha Praja”, the sense of morality must begin from thedoor of the leader who preaches it.

56. Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-Chancellor isthe leader of a higher education institution. As per the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician, excellent administratorand also someone who has a high moral stature. The aforesaidreports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari Commission,Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee havehighlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellor inmaintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in addition toits growth and development, keeping in view, the much neededchanges from time to time. Further, these committees have alsomade suggestions and recommendations for identifying the rightperson for the said position. At this stage, it is correct to say thata Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of a university’s system and akeeper of the university’s conscience.”

13. Thus, considering the aforesaid relevant provisions, a Vice-Chancellor should have a minimum teaching experience of 10 years as aProfessor in the University and his name should be recommended bythe Search-cum-Selection Committee and the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is to be made out of the panel recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. At this stage, it is required to be noted thateven as per Section 10(3) of the University Act, 2019, based on thequalification and eligibility prescribe in the regulations of the UniversityGrant Commission, the committee shall prepare a panel of three personswho shall be suitable for the post of the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore,even as per Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, the qualification andeligibility prescribed in the UGC Regulations shall have to be consideredby the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

14. In the present case, at the time when the appellant wasappointed as Vice-Chancellor, even according to the appellant he washaving a teaching experience of 8 years and 5 months as Professor inthe University. The appellant rendered service as a professor for theperiod between 2009 to 2017 till he was appointed as member of theUttarakhand Public Service Commission on 7.10.2017. He continued asa member of the Public Service Commission till 13.08.2020 when hewas appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. It is the case onbehalf of the appellant that while serving as a member of the PublicService Commission, the appellant was on a long leave and his lien wascontinued on the post of Professor and therefore the said period between7.10.2017 to 13.08.2020 may be considered for the purpose of countingthe experience cannot be accepted. Merely because his lien was continuedon the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teachand/or he was having the teaching experience during the period of lien.Even considering Article 319 of the Constitution of India, while workingas a member of the Public Service Commission, he could not haverendered any other work on any other post. Therefore, the contentionon behalf of the appellant that the period spent by the appellant from7.10.2017 to 13.08.2020 as a member of the Public Service Commissionshould be added to his teaching experience, holding lien on the substantivepost, cannot be accepted. Merely because such lien is held, the period oflien, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated and/or considered asteaching experience.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A15. Similarly, the submission on behalf of the appellant that whileserving as a member of the Public Service Commission, he wassupervising the Ph.D scholars and therefore the period during which heworked as a member of the Public Service Commission may be countedfor the purpose of experience has also no substance. Supervising thePh.D. scholars cannot be said to be having a teaching experience as aBProfessor in the University, which is the requirement. Thus, as rightlyobserved by the High Court, the appellant was not having the required/requisite minimum 10 years’ teaching experience as a Professor in theUniversity, which is the requirement under the UGC Regulations, 2018.As observed hereinabove, before appointing the appellant as a Vice-CChancellor of the University, neither any advertisement was issued, northe names were called for from the eligible meritorious candidates, norhis name was recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee,nor there was any search committee and therefore there was no occasionfor the Search-cum-Selection Committee to recommend the panel ofpersons.D

16. From the note sheet dated 5.8.2020, it appears that only onename was placed before the State Government/the Chief Minister forapproval. Under the circumstances, the appointment of the appellant asVice-chancellor of the University was just contrary to Section 10 of theUniversity Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.EAt this stage, it is required to be noted that as observed and held by thisCourt in the cases of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra); Anindya SundarDas (supra); and Dr. Rajasree M.S. (supra), in a case where there isa conflict between the State University Act and the UGC Regulations,2018 to the extent State legislation is repugnant, the UGC Regulations,F2018 shall prevail. As observed hereinabove, UGC Regulations, 2018were adopted by the State Government and the State Government wasotherwise bound to follow and/or act as per the UGC Regulations, 2018.

17. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant thatthe appellant was the most meritorious person and looking to his academicGcareer and having been satisfied that he is the suitable and meritoriousperson to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, thereafter he was appointedas Vice-Chancellor by the State Government is concerned, it may betrue that the appellant might have a very good/bright academic career.However, at the same time, it cannot be said that he was the mostmeritorious person as his case was not compared with other meritoriousH

persons. Therefore, the State Government had no opportunity to comparehis case with other eligible meritorious candidates. As observedhereinabove, and as per the requirement of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGCRegulations, 2018 and even as per Section 10 of the University Act,2019, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be throughproper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-SelectionCommittee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committeeshall be the persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education andshall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned orits colleges. While preparing the panel, the Search Committee shall giveproper weightage to the academic excellence etc. and thereafter theVisitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel ofthe names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. Thereason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selectedand appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared with other eligiblemeritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by theSearch Committee. In the present case, such a procedure has not beenfollowed at all. The merit of the appellant has not at all been comparedwith other eligible meritorious persons who may be more meritoriousthan the appellant.

18. In view of the above, the High Court has rightly quashed andset aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by theHigh Court. The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity is just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/wRegulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which has beenspecifically adopted by the State Government. Therefore, this is a fitcase to issue a writ of quo warranto, which is rightly issued by theHigh Court. No interference of this Court is called for.

19. Now so far as the prayer on behalf of the appellant that theappellant is ready and willing to resign as Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity is concerned, the appellant may resign as Vice-Chancellor, ifso advised. It is ultimately for him to resign as a Vice-Chancellor.However, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of theUniversity is held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirementsunder Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of theUGC Regulations, 2018.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 17 S.C.R.