PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. versus DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS. on 21 October 2022

252

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 18 S.C.R.

PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S.

A

v.

DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635/2022)

BOCTOBER 21, 2022

[M.R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India – Art. 254 –UGC Regulations, 2010 –UGC Guidelines – APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University(AAKTU) Act, 2015 (University Act, 2015/State Act) & RegulationsC– S. 13 – Appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor – Requirementof recommending a panel of names by search committee – Stategovernment’s discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations,2010 – Repugnancy between State legislation and Central legislation– Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Single Judge ofDthe Kerala High Court to declare the appointment of the respondentNo. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram asvoid on the ground the appointment was contrary to UGCRegulations, which required that the Search Committee shouldrecommend a panel of three to five names for consideration, but inthe instant case, only one name was recommended – FurtherEcontended that UGC Act shall prevail over State legislation – SingleJudge dismissed the petition by noting that unless the UGCRegulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, theState legislation shall prevail and once the Search Committee wasconstituted as per Section 13 of the University Act enacted by theFState, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be bya duly constituted Search Committee and as such the appointmentcannot be said to be illegal – Appellant appealed before a DivisionBench, which came to be dismissed – Question for the SupremeCourt – Whether while making the appointment of respondent No.1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram, theGappointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations orin effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)?;Whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend the nameof the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the University can be H

said to be duly constituted Committee? – Held: Any appointment asa Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the SearchCommittee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of theUGC Regulations shall be void ab initio – If there is any conflictbetween the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Unionlaw shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of Indiato the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant –Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specificallyadopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State tocontend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be bindingon the State/State’s Universities – Search Committee in this casewas not a duly constituted Search Committee as per UGC regulations– Under UGC regulations, the Search Committee duly constitutedhas to send a panel of 3-5 names for consideration as appointmentas Vice Chancellor, and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shallappoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommendedby the Search Committee – Even under University Act, the SearchCommittee shall recommended unanimously a panel of not less thanthree suitable persons – When only one name was recommendedand the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor hadno option to consider the names of the other candidates – Thus, theappointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well aseven to the University Act, 2015.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made onthe recommendation of the Search Committee, which isconstituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulationsshall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict between the Statelegislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevaileven as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to theextent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant.[Para 8.4][264-B-D]

Conclusion

1.2 In the present case as such vide order dated 10December 2010, the UGC Regulations have been specificallyadopted by the State Government. In the order dated 27 March2010, while adopting/accepting the UGC Regulations, it is ABC

DEF

G

H

Aspecifically observed in paragraph 5 that all the universities shallincorporate the UGC Regulations in their Statutes andRegulations within one month from the date of the said order andGovernment will initiate steps to amend the Acts of theUniversities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is furthermentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take theBsteps to amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulationsof the UGC Regulations. Merely because the subsequentamendment has not been specifically adopted/accepted by theState cannot be a ground by the State to contend that theamendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/CState’s Universities. Therefore also, the UGC Regulations wereapplicable with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor inthe respective Universities in the State and the appointment ofthe Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisionsof the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.[Para 8.5][264-E-H]D

1.3 As per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, theselection of the Vice Chancellor should be through properidentification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee andthe members of the Search Committee shall be persons ofeminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not beEconnected in any manner with the university concerned or itscolleges. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor shallappoint the Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended bythe Search Committee. The recommendation for appointment asa Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee dulyFconstituted and that the Search Committee has to recommendthe names and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint theVice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by theSearch Committee. [Para 8.7][267-D-F]

1.4 Even as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015,Gthe Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not lessthan three suitable persons from amongst the eminent personsin the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed beforethe Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case, admittedly the onlyname of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the Chancellor.

H

As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor shallappoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of namesrecommended by the Search Committee. Therefore, when onlyone name was recommended and the panel of names was notrecommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider thenames of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment ofthe respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary tothe provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to theUniversity Act, 2015. Therefore, the appointment of respondentNo. 1 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Searchcommittee, which was not a duly constituted Search Committeeas per the UGC Regulations and when only one name wasrecommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitablepersons as required under Section 13(4) of the University Act,2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to beillegal and void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo warrantowas required to be issued. [Para 8.10][271-H; 272-A-D]

1.5 The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learnedSingle Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issuethe writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondentNo. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam TechnologicalUniversity, Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal andvoid ab initio are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petitionis allowed. There shall be a writ of quo warranto declaring theappointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of theAPJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuramas void ab initio and consequently, the appointment of respondentNo. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam TechnologicalUniversity, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set aside.[Para 9][272-E-F]

Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. (2015)6 SCC 363 : 2015 (3) SCR 467; Gambhirdan K. GadhviVs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 179; Stateof West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. 2022(14) SCALE 636 – referred to.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACase Law Reference

B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2021 of the High Courtof Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.514 of 2021 and dated 24.09.2021in R.P. No.634 of 2021.

C

Dr. Amit George, Mohammed Sadique T.A., Mrs. Anu K. Joy,Alim Anvar, Mobashshir Sarwar, Piyo Harold, Bharat Rayadurgam, AmolAcharya, A. Bhaumik, Ms. Iram Peerjada, Advs. for the Appellant.

Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot,Mrs. Ashly Harshad, C. K. Sasi, Abdulla Naseeh V. T., Ms. Meena K.DPoulose, P. V. Dinesh, Rahul Raj Mishra, Bineesh K, Ashwini KumarSingh, Ravinder Agarwal, Lekhraj Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.R. SHAH, J.E

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala atErnakulam in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2021 and Order dated 24.09.2021in Review Petition No. 634 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of theHigh Court has dismissed the said appeal and the review petition preferredFby the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passedby the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo warranto todeclare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor ofthe APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuramas void ab initio, the original writ petitioner has preferred the presentappeals.G

2. The appellant herein – original writ petitioner preferred thewrit petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for writof quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 asVice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, H

Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio inter alia on the grounds that theappointment of the respondent No. 1 dehors the provisions of the UGCRegulations; that the composition of the Search Committee was not inaccordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; even the recommendationand appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not inaccordance with the UGC Guidelines; the Search Committee wasrequired to recommend a panel of three to five names to the Chancellor,however, in the present case, only one name was recommended to theChancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations; the provisionsof the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulationsshall not be binding and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shallprevail over the said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with theUGC Regulations.

2.1 The writ petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents.It was inter alia contended that unless the UGC Regulations are adoptedby the State Government, the University Act enacted by the State shallprevail and that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for theuniversities and colleges and for the other higher educational institutionsunder the provisions of the State legislature as the mater has been left tothe State Government to adopt and implement the scheme.

2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relyingupon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs.K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363 by observing that unlessthe UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government,the State legislation shall prevail. Therefore, the learned Single Judgeopined that once the Search Committee was constituted as per Section13 of the University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of therespondent No. 1 therefore, can be said to be by a duly constitutedSearch Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to beillegal.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the appealbefore the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, it was specificallyargued and pointed out that in fact the UGC Regulations were adoptedby the State Government, however, the Division Bench while dismissingthe appeal has observed that as the amendment to the UGC Regulationshave not been adopted, the same shall not be applicable and/or binding AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awhile appointing the respondent No. 1. Again, relying upon the decisionof this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan (supra), the DivisionBench has dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to the presentappeals.

3. Shri Amith George, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfBof the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment(s)and order(s) passed by the High Court are just contrary to the decisionof this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujaratand Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 as well as the recent decision of thisCourt in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das& Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022.C

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri George, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as observed and heldby this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the provisions of the UGCRegulations shall be applicable and prevail. It is submitted that thereforeany provision of the State Act (in the present case, the University ActDand the Regulations), which are in conflict with the UGC Regulationsshall be repugnant and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall haveto be applied.

3.2 It is submitted that as such in the present case the UGCRegulations, 2010 were in fact adopted by the State Government videEorder dated 10.12.2010. However, the High Court has erroneouslyobserved and held that the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable asthe subsequent amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 13.06.2013have not been specifically adopted by the State Government.

3.3 It is submitted that therefore any appointment on the post ofFVice Chancellor of the University contrary to the UGC Regulations shallbe void ab initio and therefore, the High Court ought to have issued awrit of quo warranto.

3.4 It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committeeconstituted to recommend the appointment of the respondent No. 1 asGVice Chancellor was not duly constituted Search Committee as requiredunder the provisions of the UGC Regulations and therefore the samewas illegal and void ab initio.

3.5 It is submitted that even otherwise, ever as per Section 13 ofthe University Act, the Search Committee was required to recommendH

a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminentpersons in the field of engineering sciences. It is submitted that in thepresent case, the Search Committee recommended the name of therespondent No. 1 alone, which was sent to the Chancellor. It is submittedthat therefore also the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be saidto be contrary to Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015.

3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above twodecisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and setaside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Courtand allow the writ petition preferred by the appellant and to issue a writof quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as illegaland void ab initio.

4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Jaideep Gupta,leaned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State – Governmentof Kerala. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of KalyaniMathivanan (supra), it is submitted that as observed and held by thisCourt unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the state,the State is not bound by the UGC Regulations. It is submitted thattherefore the Hon’ble High Court has rightly refused to issue a writ ofquo warranto considering and/or relying upon the decision of this Courtin the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra).

5. Present appeals are opposed by Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

5.1 It is submitted that even assuming that the UGC Regulations,2013 shall be applicable, in that case also, even considering the relevantprovisions of the UGC Regulations, 2013, the Search Committeeconstituted in the present case cannot be said to be contrary to UGCRegulations. It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committeewas consisted of one member nominated by AICTE and the ChiefSecretary of the State. It is submitted that the member nominated byAICTE can be said to be a person of eminence in the sphere of highereducation. It is submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the SearchCommittee constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1was illegally constituted Search Committee.

5.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentappeals.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveparties at length.

7. The short question, which is posed for consideration of thisCourt is: whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 asVice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,BThiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailingUGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act,2015 (State Act)?

The other question which is posed before this Court forconsideration is: whether the Search Committee constituted to recommendCthe name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the Universitycan be said to be duly constituted Committee?

8. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in thecase of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and Kalyani Mathivanan(supra). Now, the issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail vis-Dà-vis the State legislation/State Act, identical question came to beconsidered by this Court in the recent decision of this Court in the caseof Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra). While considering the appointmentof the Vice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, it isspecifically observed and held by this Court that the appointment ofVice Chancellor cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations,Eeven if the State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis-à-vis the criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC Regulations. It isfurther observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that theState Act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended tobring it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it isFthe applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail. It is further observedand held that being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomepart of the Act. It is further observed and held that in case of anyconflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, theCentral legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail byapplying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the ConstitutionGas the subject “education” is contained in the Concurrent List of ScheduleVII of the Constitution. The observations made in relevant paras are asunder:- “20. Now the next question which is posed forconsideration of this Court is, whether, the appointment ofH

Respondent 4 as a Vice-Chancellor of the SP University —Respondent 2 herein can be said to be contrary to any statutoryprovisions and whether, can it be said that Respondent 4 fulfilsthe eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor.

20.1. While examining the aforesaid issues the relevantprovisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 enacted in exercise ofpowers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1)of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956and the relevant provisions of the SPU Act, 1955, are requiredto be referred to.

20.2. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisionfor the coordination and determination of standards in universitiesand for that purpose, to establish a University GrantsCommission. Section 12 deals with “Functions of theCommission”, while Section 14 speaks of “Consequences offailure of universities to comply with recommendations of theCommission”. Section 26 deals with “Power to makeregulations”. As per Section 28 the rules and regulations framedunder the UGC Act are required to be laid before each Houseof Parliament and when both the Houses agree then rules andregulations can be given effect with such modification as maybe made by Parliament. Therefore, any regulation enacted inexercise of powers under Section 26 can be said to be subordinatelegislation.

20.3. For the appointment and career advancement ofteachers in the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGCby Regulation dated 4-4-2000, enacted the University GrantsCommission (Minimum Qualifications Required for theAppointment and Career Advancement of Teachers inUniversities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000.However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications wereprescribed for the post of “Pro-Chancellor” or “Vice-Chancellor”.

21. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry ofHuman Resource Development Department of HigherEducation, New Delhi by Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated31-12-2008 communicated to the Secretary, University GrantsCommission, New Delhi the Scheme of revision of pay of A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and collegesfollowing the revision of pay scales of the Central Governmentemployees on the recommendations of the 6th Central PayCommission.

22. By the said letter, the Government of India directedthat there shall be only three designations in respect of teachersin the universities and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,Associate Professors and Professors. In the said letter revisedpay scales, service conditions and Career Advancement Schemefor teachers and equivalent positions including the post ofAssistant Professors/Associate Professors/Professors inuniversities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of Pro Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor were also mentioned therein. It wasintimated that the said Scheme may be extended to theuniversities, colleges and other higher educational institutionscoming under the purview of the State Legislature, provided theState Governments wish to adopt and implement the Schemesubject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.

23. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i), dated 31-12-2008 issued by the Government of India andin exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g)of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGCenacted the Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGCRegulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on28-6-2010 and came into force with immediate effect.

XXXXXXXXX

25. Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/StateGovernments shall modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutesof the universities concerned within six months of adoption ofthese Regulations.

26. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter alia, prescribein Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teachingwork experience as a Professor in a university system. It alsoprovides for constitution of a Search Committee consisting of anominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairmanof the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the University and the Search Committee has to recommendthe names of the successful candidates.

XXXXXXXXX

50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations areenacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per theUGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act,shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, beinga subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of theAct. In case of any conflict between the State legislation andthe Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applyingthe rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 ofthe Constitution as the subject “education” is in the ConcurrentList (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary tothe provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be inviolation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quowarranto.”

8.1 That thereafter and having found that the appointment of theVice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University was contrary to the UGCRegulations, 2010, this Court issued the writ of quo warranto. It is requiredto be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of KalyaniMathivanan (supra) was also pointed out by this Court.

8.2 Even in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), it isobserved in paragraph 53 that to the extent the State legislation is inconflict with the Central legislation including subordinate legislation madeby the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, thesame shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative.It is also required to be noted that in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan(supra), this Court was considering the UGC Regulations, 2010, whichwere silent in regard to the post of Vice Chancellor.

8.3 The decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K.Gadhvi (supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in therecent decision of this Court in the case of Anindya Sundar Das &Ors (supra) while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellorof Calcutta University. In the said decision, it is also observed and heldin paragraph 56 that in view of the decision in the case of Gambhirdan A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AK Gadhvi (supra), even if the provisions of the State Act allowed theappointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it wouldhave to be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of ViceChancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. Itis further observed that the UGC Regulations shall become part of thestatute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail.B

8.4 In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court, anyappointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of theSearch Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of theUGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict betweenthe State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevailCeven as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent theprovision of the State legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the submissionon behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are specificallyadopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable andthe State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations are specificallyDadopted by the State cannot be accepted.

8.5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the presentcase as such vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC Regulations havebeen specifically adopted by the State Government. At this stage, it isrequired to be noted that in the order dated 27.03.2010, while adopting/Eaccepting the UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in paragraph5 that all the universities shall incorporate the UGC Regulations in theirStatutes and Regulations within one month from the date of the saidorder and Government will initiate steps to amend the Acts of theUniversities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is furthermentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the steps toFamend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations of the UGCRegulations. Merely because the subsequent amendment has not beenspecifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by theState to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not bebinding on the State/State’s Universities. Therefore also, the UGCGRegulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of ViceChancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the appointmentof the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions ofthe UGC Regulations amended from time to time.

8.6 Now, the next question, which is posed for the considerationof this Court is whether in fact in the present case, the Search Committeeconstituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as ViceChancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,Thiruvananthapuram can be said to be a duly constituted SearchCommittee, is concerned, the relevant clauses of the UGC Regulations,2013 and Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological UniversityAct, 2015 relating to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor are requiredto be referred to, which are as under:- CLAUSE 7.3.0 OF UNIVERSITY GRANTSCOMMISSION (2ndAMENDMENT) REGULATIONS.2013. EXT.R3(a)

7.3.0 VICE CHANCELLOR:

i. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity; moralsand institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be adistinguished academician with a minimum of ten years ofexperience as Professor in a University system or ten years ofexperience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization.

ii. The selection of Vice Chancellor should be through properidentification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committeethrough a public notification or nomination or a talent searchprocess or in combination. The members of the above SearchCommittee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of highereducation and shall not be connected in any manner with theuniversity concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel,the Search Committee must give proper weightage to academicexcellence, exposure to the higher education system in thecountry and abroad, and adequate Experience in academic andadministrative governance to be given in writing along with thepanel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. The constitutionof the Search Committee could be as per the Act/Statutes ofthe concerned university.

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

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

iv. The conditions of services of the Vice Chancellor shall be asprescribed in the Act Statutes of the university consented inconformity with the Principal Regulations.

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

SECTION 13 OF APJ ABDUL KALAMTECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2015

13. The Vice-Chancellor

(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive andacademic officer of the University. He shall be the ex-officioChairman of the Executive Committee and of the AcademicCommittee.

(2) The first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancelloron the recommendation of the Government and thereafter theVice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor fromamong a panel of names recommended by a Search Committeeconsisting of the following members, namely:

(i) one member elected by the Board of Governors:

(ii) one member nominated by the AICTE

(iii) the Chief Secretary of the State, who shall bethe Convenor of the Committee

(3) The process of preparing a panel shall begin at least threemonths before the probable date of occurrence of the vacancyof the Vice-Chancellor and shall be completed within the time-limit fixed by the Chancellor. The Chancellor, however, mayextend such time-limit, if, in the exigency of the circumstances,it is necessary to do so. However, the process of preparation ofthe panel shall be completed within a period of three months,including the period so extended.

4. The Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of notless than three suitable persons from amongst the eminentpersons in the field of engineering sciences. The names shall bein English alphabetical order. The report shall be accompanied

by a detailed write-up on the suitability of each person includedin the panel. In case the Committee fails to make a unanimousrecommendation as provided, each member of the Committeemay submit the name of one person each to the Chancellor. Thenon submission of the name by any member of the Committeeshall not invalidate the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

(5) No person who is more than sixty one years of age shall beappointed as Vice-Chancellor and after the appointment, he shall,subject to the terms and conditions of his appointment, hold officefor a period of four years from the date on which he entersupon his office or till he attains the age of sixty five years,whichever is earlier.

(6) The persons appointed as Vice-Chancellor will be eligiblefor re-appointment provided he has not attained the maximumage mentioned in sub-section 5.

8.7 Thus, as per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, theselection of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper identificationof a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and the members of theSearch Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of highereducation and shall not be connected in any manner with the universityconcerned or its colleges. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellorshall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended by theSearch Committee. Therefore, the recommendation for appointment asa Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee dulyconstituted and that the Search Committee has to recommend the namesand thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellorout of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.While preparing the panel, the Search Committee must give properweightage to the academic excellence; exposure to the higher educationsystem in the country and abroad, and adequate Experience in academicand administrative governance.

8.8 The importance of the post of the Vice Chancellor has beenelaborately observed and considered by this Court in the case ofGambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) in paragraphs 53, 54, 54.1 to 54.5, 55and 56 as under:- “53. It is to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor ofthe university is a very important post so far as the university is AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

concerned. Being a leader and head of the institution, the Vice-Chancellor of the university has to play very important role.While academic qualifications, administrative experience,research credentials and track record could be considered asbasic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice-Chancellor would be one who is a true leader and a passionatevisionary. A Vice-Chancellor needs to be one who understandsand handles the affairs of the university as ethical business andmaintains a pellucidity in his conduct towards the betterment ofthe university as well as the students therein. A Vice-Chancellorshould be one who can inspire students and guarantee entry ofhigh quality teachers into the university system. A Vice-Chancellor functions as a bridge between the executive andacademic wings of a university as he is the head of both a“teacher” and an “administrator”.

54. We may refer to some of the significant CommissionReports concerning the personality and role of a Vice-Chancellorof a university as under:

54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated thatoriginally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian university wasregarded as an honorary post to be filled by a prominent man inhis leisure time. But now the position has changed, there isenough work to justify a full-time appointment and the universitiesshould have full-time paid Vice-Chancellors. While discussingthe duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the Commission stated that aVice-Chancellor must be the chief liaison between the universityand the public and must be a keeper of the university’s conscience,both setting the highest standard by example and dealing firmlyand promptly with indiscipline and malpractice of any kind. He/she must have the strength of character to resist unflinchinglythe many forms of pressure. Being a full-time task, it needs anexceptional man (or woman) to undertake it. The Commissionrejected the proposal of selecting the Vice-Chancellor by anexternal body and recommended that the Chancellor shouldappoint the Vice-Chancellor upon the recommendation of theexecutive.

54.2. The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governanceof Universities and Colleges by the University Grants Commissionchaired by Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice ofIndia while reiterating the recommendations and observationsmade by the aforesaid commissions also stated that the selectionof a Vice-Chancellor is the single most important decision thatthe governing body of the university may be called upon to make.While the Chancellor of a university may be a high dignitary ofthe State of the Union of India or an eminent scholar or eminentperson in public life of the State, the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, being the important functionary of the university ismost strategic. The powers of proper maintenance of disciplineand a healthy environment for both teachers and students in theuniversity is vested with the Vice-Chancellor along with all theother powers vested in him/her by various Statutes, Ordinancesor Regulations. The Commission also stated that appointmentof a Vice-Chancellor is made in most of the universities out of apanel of at least three names by the Chancellor in case of StateUniversities and by the Visitor in case of Central Universities.The panel of names is prepared by a Search Committeeconstituted in accordance with the provision of the Act/Statute.Since it was difficult to have a uniform system of forming acommittee in all the States, the alternatives to constitute theSearch Committee were also provided in the Report.

54.3. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towardsNew Educational 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 thatthe universities 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.

ABC

DEF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

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 of Vice-Chancellor of Indian universities having gained a paramountimportance in the recent times. In the words of Prof. D.P. Singh,the then Chairman of University Grants Commission and formerDirector of National Assessment and Accreditation Council(“NAAC”):

“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads ofUniversities, the Vice-Chancellors are expected to beefficient and effective 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 ofscholars’ from within their universities and from nationaland international domains, (e) Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation Ecosystem’and translation 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, buildingpartnerships and collaborations delicately interwoven bycollegiality, 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 principlesof transparency.”

55. Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principleof governance as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra —“Yatha Raja Tatha Praja”, the sense of morality must begin fromthe door of the leader who preaches it.

56. Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As perthe norm, he/she should be an eminent academician, excellentadministrator and also someone who has a high moral stature.The aforesaid reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, KothariCommission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committeehave highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellorin maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in additionto its 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.”

8.9 On the role of Search Committee / Selection Committee, it isobserved in paragraph 57 as under:- “57. Further, in our view, the Search/SelectionCommittee plays a vital and significant role in the selection ofthe Vice-Chancellor; yet the selected Vice-Chancellor’sperformance in the universities vary from university to university.Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are giventhe privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting names forthe appointment of Vice-Chancellor are directly or indirectlyresponsible for the achievement of the university. Commitmentto the quality and the objectives of the universities in particularand higher education system in general, are of course the decidingfactors in selecting the right person.”

8.10 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even as per Section13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommendunanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall beplaced before the Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case, admittedlythe only name of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the Chancellor.As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor shall appointthe Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by theSearch Committee. Therefore, when only one name was recommendedBand the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had nooption to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore, theappointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/orcontrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to theUniversity Act, 2015. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 1Con the basis of the recommendations made by the Search committee,which was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per the UGCRegulations and when only one name was recommended in spite ofpanel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable persons as required under Section13(4) of the University Act, 2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1

can be said to be illegal and void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quoDwarranto was required to be issued.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passedby the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learnedSingle Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ ofEquo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as ViceChancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio arehereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shallbe a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent FNo. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam TechnologicalUniversity, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, theappointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ AbdulKalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed andset aside.

GPresent appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

Ankit Gyan and Anurag Bhaskar(Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

H