Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Civil) No.1525 OF 2019
Gambhirdan K Gadhvi ..Petitioner (S)
VERSUS
The State of Gujarat & Ors. ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of quo warranto
challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor of respondent No.2 – Sardar Patel University
(hereinafter referred to as “SP University”) and to quash
and set aside the notification dated 29.08.2019, bearing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.03.03
17:23:30 IST
Reason:
No.GH/SH/76/SPY/122010/2626/ KH2 passed by
respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat, appointing respondent
1
No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent SP
University. The petitioner has also prayed for any other
appropriate writ, direction and order directing respondent
authorities to recover from respondent No.4 all
consequential benefits not limited to pay, with
retrospective effect, that have been extended to him by
virtue of his illegal appointment as Vice Chancellor of the
SP University.
2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the University
Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC”)
framed UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in
Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010
(hereinafter referred to as the “UGC Regulations, 2010”)
which, inter alia, prescribes in Regulation 7.3.0 that a
person shall have ten years of teaching work experience as
a professor in the University system. It also provides for
constitution of a Search Committee consisting of a
nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the
2
Chairman of UGC, a nominee of Syndicate/Executive
Council of the University. That the Search Committee has
to recommend the names of suitable candidates for
appointment as Vice Chancellor of a University.
2.1 That the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been substituted
subsequently vide UGC Regulations, 2018 with slight
modifications which shall be referred to hereinbelow.
2.2 It is the further case on behalf of the petitioner that the
Union Ministry of Human Resource Development laid
down a Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and
th
equivalent cadres in the Universities following the 6
Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
“Scheme”). The Scheme provides a fixed pay of
Rs.75,000/ along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/
per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said
Scheme provides that it is extended to Universities,
Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming
under the purview of the State Legislature, provided the
State Governments wish to adopt and implement the
scheme with certain conditions, inter alia, financial
3
assistance from the Central Government to the extent of
80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20%
shall be met by the State Government. Payment of Central
assistance for implementing the scheme was subject to the
condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales
together with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC
by way of regulations and other guidelines shall be
implemented by the State Governments and the
Universities thereunder without any modification.
According to the petitioner, the State of Gujarat passed a
Resolution dated 11.11.2009 adopting the Scheme. Since
the Scheme has been adopted, all regulations framed by
the UGC are binding upon the State of Gujarat including
the respondent SP University. That on adoption of the
Scheme by the State Government as well as the SP
University, the said University is receiving Central
financial assistance under the Scheme and is included in
the list of State universities receiving Central financial
assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. It is
the case on behalf of the petitioner that since the Scheme
has been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are
4
binding upon the State of Gujarat including the SP
University.
2.3 The UGC addressed a communication dated 11.08.2014
to H.E. the Governor of Gujarat seeking compliance with
the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to appointment of
Vice Chancellors in the State of Gujarat. That H.E. the
Governor of Gujarat communicated to the Government of
Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 to comply
with the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to the
appointment of Vice Chancellors. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that H.E. – Governor of Gujarat is the
exofficio Chancellor of all the Universities in the State
including the SP University.
2.4 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that ignoring
Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, a Search
Committee was constituted under Section 10(2)(b) of the
Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as the “SPU Act”) on 29.07.2016 with no nominee of the
Chairman of the UGC. According to the petitioner, even as
5
per Section 10(2)(b), the Search Committee has only the
authority to recommend a panel of suitable candidates.
The Search Committee, in the present case, exceeded its
jurisdiction and prescribed its own eligibility criteria for
the post of Vice Chancellor by diluting the eligibility
criteria laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010. That
respondent No.2 issued an advertisement, inviting
applications for the post of Vice Chancellor, while
mentioning the aforesaid eligibility criteria prescribed by
the Search Committee. Thereafter the State issued a
notification appointing respondent No.4 as the Vice
Chancellor of the SP University for his first term of three
years. According to the petitioner respondent No.4 was
not having teaching work experience as a professor for a
period of ten years, which is mandatory as per the UGC
Regulations, 2010. That respondent No.4 herein was
promoted to the post of Professor with effect from
08.03.2008. According to the petitioner though
respondent No.4 lacked the eligibility, he was appointed
as the Vice Chancellor at the fixed pay of Rs.75,000/
6
which is as per the revised Scheme – Appendix I dated
31.08.2008.
2.5 That the petitioner challenged the said appointment of
respondent No.4 before the High Court by way of filing
Special Civil Application (SCA) No.18922 of 2017. By
judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 the Division Bench
of the High Court dismissed the said SCA by observing
and holding that the UGC Regulations had not been
adopted by the State of Gujarat and thus were not binding
upon respondent University. While dismissing the SCA
and upholding the appointment of respondent No.4 to the
post of Vice Chancellor of the University, the Division
Bench of the High Court referred to Section 10 of the SPU
Act, which does not provide for any qualification
whatsoever for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor.
The Division Bench of the High Court observed that such
a position would leave room for a lot of arbitrariness in
the matter of selection of persons for appointment as Vice
Chancellor. The Division Bench of the High Court
observed that though it is true that UGC Regulations
7
provides for certain qualifications, however, the same are
not binding unless the State legislation is appropriately
amended. That the Division Bench of the High Court also
noted the communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed by
the UGC to H.E. – Governor of Gujarat. By the said
communication it was requested to ensure that all the
appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC
Regulations. The said Regulations, inter alia, provide for
minimum qualifications for the appointment of Vice
Chancellor in Regulation 7.3.0. The High Court noted that
the Principal Secretary to H.E. – the Chancellor had
addressed a communication dated 30.08.2014 to the
Principal Secretary, Government of Gujarat, requesting
him to take note of the said important communication
and take necessary steps at the Government level but the
same had been ignored by the State and no steps had
been taken pursuant thereto. Therefore, the High Court
observed that it is high time the State of Gujarat adopts
the UGC Regulations and amends the State legislation
appropriately so that no room is left for any manipulation,
8
arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that despite the above observations
made in para 24 by the High Court, no further steps have
been taken by the State Government to adopt the UGC
Regulations and amend the State legislation
appropriately.
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order passed by the High Court dismissing SCA
No.18922/2017, upholding the appointment of
respondent No.4 to the post of Vice Chancellor of SP
University, petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition
(SLP) before this Court by filing SLP (C) No.21792/2018.
The said SLP came up before this Court for final hearing
on 30.07.2019. However, by the time the said SLP could
be heard, only one month remained in the first term of
respondent No.4, therefore, this Court did not interfere
with the appointment of respondent No.4 and vide order
dated 30.07.2019 disposed of the same; however, this
Court specifically observed that all questions of law are
left open.
9
2.7 That thereafter an advertisement dated 12.06.2019 was
published, inviting applications to the post of Vice
Chancellor of respondent No.2 – SP University. According
to the petitioner again the Search Committee was not
constituted as per the UGC Regulations. According to the
petitioner in the said advertisement the Search Committee
has further diluted the eligibility criteria to suit
respondent No.4, in so far as it states that persons who
have remained Vice Chancellor for one term are eligible.
That thereafter respondent No.4 has been again appointed
as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University vide
notification dated 29.08.2019 for a further term of three
years. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that
impugned notification appointing respondent No.4 as the
Vice Chancellor of the SP University is absolutely illegal
and in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the
UGC Regulations, 2018. Therefore, the present writ
petition has been preferred for a writ of quo warranto
challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as the
Vice Chancellor of the SP University.
10
2.8 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the earlier
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in
Special Civil Application No.18922/2017 may come in the
way of the petitioner and if again the petitioner
approaches the High Court by filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is because
the petitioner will have to face the decision of the Division
Bench of the High Court passed in SCA No.18922/2017
which though challenged before this Court, the same was
disposed of without considering the legality and/or
correctness of the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court in SCA No.18922/2017.
This was because by the time the matter was heard, only
one month of service of respondent No.4 was left and
while disposing of the SLP, it was observed by this Court
that all questions of law are left open. Hence, the
petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 32
of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to
entertain the present writ petition and consider the same
11
on merits in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case.
3. Shri I.H. Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the
appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP
University is absolutely illegal and contrary to the
statutory guidelines issued by the UGC.
3.1 It is contented that appointment of respondent No.4 as
Vice Chancellor is by a Search Committee not legally
constituted as per the UGC guidelines.
3.2 It is submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant
time when his first appointment was made as Vice
Chancellor, he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria
required as per the UGC guidelines as well as even the
eligibility criteria fixed by even the Search Committee. It is
further submitted that at the relevant time when
respondent No.4 was appointed, he was not having ten
years of experience as a professor which was mandatorily
12
required as per the UGC guidelines as well as the eligibility
criteria fixed by the Search Committee.
3.3 It is further contended by Shri Syed, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the
present case the Search Committee constituted was not
legal and valid. It is urged that as per the UGC guidelines
which the State and universities were bound, one of the
members of the Search Committee should be the
Chairman of the UGC and/or his nominee. It is submitted
that in the present case the Search Committee constituted
did not include the Chairman of the UGC and/or his
nominee. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.4 by
such an illegal Search Committee is absolutely illegal and
contrary to the statutory provisions and, therefore, the
same is required to be quashed and set aside by issuing a
writ of quo warranto.
3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the
present case even the Search Committee prescribed the
13
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor. That the
SPU Act as such does not provide and/or prescribe any
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor which as
such is a very important and prestigious post so far as the
University is concerned. That even the Division Bench of
the High Court in the earlier round of litigation in
paragraph 24 of the judgment specifically criticised the
State for not prescribing/providing the minimum
qualifications for appointment of Vice Chancellor at par
with the UGC Regulations, 2010. It is submitted that
Division Bench of the High Court even noted the
communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed to H.E. –
Governor of Gujarat to ensure that all the appointments of
Vice Chancellors in the State are made in accordance with
the provisions laid down in the UGC
Regulations/guidelines which provide for minimum
qualifications for the appointment of Vice Chancellor as
per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and
also noted that even H.E. – Governor of Gujarat addressed
a communication dated 30.08.2014 to the State
Government to take note of the communication dated
14
11.08.2014 and to take necessary steps at the Government
level. That thereafter the Division Bench of the High Court
has noted that said communications have been ignored by
the State government and no steps have been taken
pursuant thereto and therefore, it is high time that the
State government adopts the UGC Regulations and
amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room
is left for manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and
favouritism. That despite the above and even thereafter
also no further steps have been taken by the State
Government to amend the State legislation.
3.5 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by
adopting the Scheme dated 31.12.2008 vide Resolution
dated 11.11.2009, all regulations framed by the UGC shall
be binding on the State Government including the SP
University. That UGC Regulations, 2010 which, inter alia,
prescribe in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten
years of teaching work experience as a professor in the
University system. It also provides for constituting of the
15
search committee, consisting of a nominee of the
Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the
UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executing Council of the
University. That such a search committee has to
recommend the names of the successful candidates. It is
submitted that in the present case respondent No.4 was
appointed as Vice Chancellor for the second term even
though he did not fulfil the said criteria.
3.6 It is submitted that even respondent No.4 was being paid a
fixed pay of Rs.75,000/ along with a special allowance of
Rs.5,000/ per month as per the Scheme dated
31.12.2008. It is submitted that once the Scheme dated
31.12.2008 had been adopted by the State government
and the SP University and the said University started
receiving central financial assistance and even it is
included in the list of State universities receiving financial
assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956,
thereafter it will not be open to the State and/or the
University not to follow the UGC Regulations and to
continue to appoint the Vice Chancellor illegally and
16
contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010
(now UGC Regulations, 2018).
3.7 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 are Central legislation and
therefore, the State and/or the State universities are
bound by the Central legislation and UGC Regulations,
2010/2018, the subject ‘education’ being in the
Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this
Court in the cases of Annamalai University represented
by Registrar Vs. Secretary to Government, Information
and Tourism Department and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 and
(2015) 6
Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors,
SCC 363.
3.8 Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has submitted that the post of Vice
Chancellor in a University is a very important and
prestigious post. Post of Vice Chancellor can be said to be
17
holding of a public office. It is submitted that the future of
the students – next generation can be said to be in the
hands of the Vice Chancellor who has to run the
administration and management and lead the University
and guide the students. It is urged that therefore greater
care and caution should be taken while making the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor of a University and the
best talent shall have to be appointed as Vice Chancellor.
It is submitted that any appointment as a Vice Chancellor
contrary to the statutory rules and regulations warrants
issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is submitted that the
Vice Chancellor, not having the requisite qualifications and
who does not fulfil the eligibility criteria and/or who is
appointed by a search committee which is not legally
constituted, cannot hold such an important public office.
3.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition
and to issue a writ of quo warranto as prayed in the
petition.
18
4. Shri Manoj Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the UGC – respondent No.3 herein has as such
supported the petitioner. It is submitted that in a search
committee for appointment as Vice Chancellor, one of the
members of the search committee shall be a nominee of
the Chairman of the UGC. It is submitted that UGC
Regulations, 2010 and 2018 were/are binding to all the
States and the Universities.
4.1 It is further submitted that even as per clause 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, the members of the Search
cum Selection Committee, can be persons of eminence in
the sphere of higher education. It further provides that one
member of the search committee shall be nominated by
the Chairman of the UGC for selection of Vice Chancellors
of the State, Private and Deemed to be universities. That
as per the UGC Regulations, Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of the names
recommended by the Search cum Selection committee. It is
contended that being a Central legislation all the States,
Private and Deemed to be Universities are bound by the
19
UGC Regulations and the guidelines issued from time to
time.
5. The present petition is opposed by Shri Vinay Navare,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
No.2 SP University.
5.1 Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2 SP University has vehemently
submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition and did not interfere with the appointment of
respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University
and the SLP against the same was dismissed by this
Court. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to again
challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor for the second term. It is submitted that as
such the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the subsequent
Regulations, 2018 have not been adopted by the State
government and therefore, the UGC Regulations are not
binding to the State and/or universities and in the present
case SP University.
20
5.2 It is submitted that appointment of respondent No.4 is
governed under the SPU Act, 1955 and the Search
Committee was constituted by the State government under
the SPU Act. That as such Section 10 of the said Act, does
not provide for any specific eligibility criteria/minimum
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor, therefore,
the Search Committee itself prescribed the eligibility
criteria. That after selecting respondent No.4 and on the
recommendations made by the Search Committee,
respondent No.4 has been appointed.
5.3 It is submitted that in the absence of any statutory breach,
appointment of respondent No.4 has been made as per the
SPU Act, 1955 and hence no writ of quo warranto be
issued. It is submitted that while challenging the
appointment of respondent No.4 in the first term, the
Division Bench of the High Court rightly refused to issue a
writ of quo warranto. Therefore, with regard to the
appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for
21
the second term also, no writ of quo warranto can be
issued.
5.4 It is further submitted by Shri Navare, learned Senior
Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 SP
University that even otherwise the petitioner has no locus
standi. It is submitted that the petitioner is an ex
employee of the respondent University and has a grudge
against the University and therefore, the present writ
petition has been preferred challenging the appointment of
Vice Chancellor. It is prayed not to entertain the writ
petition at the instance of such a person.
6. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.4, while adopting the submissions made
by Shri Navare, has further submitted that so far as the
appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for
the second term is concerned, UGC Regulations, 2010 are
not applicable as UGC Regulations, 2010 have been
substituted by the UGC Regulations, 2018.
22
7. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 – State has opposed the present writ
petition.
7.1 When a pointed question was asked to Ms. Kohli, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State,
whether the State legislation is amended providing for the
minimum eligibility criteria at par with the UGC
Regulations, as observed by the High Court in the earlier
round of litigation in para 24, she is not in a position to
satisfy and/or point out any such amendment in the State
legislation.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
9. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ
of quo warranto by challenging the appointment of
respondent No.4 herein as Vice Chancellor of the SP
University – respondent No.2 herein. When a writ of quo
warranto will lie has been dealt with by this Court in the
23
case of Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.,
(2013) 1 SCC 501. In para 19, it has been observed and
held as under:
“19. A writ of quo warranto will lie when the
appointment is made contrary to the statutory
provisions. This Court in Mor Modern Coop. Transport
Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana [(2002) 6 SCC 269]
held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when
appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions.
In B. Srinivasa Reddy [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : (2007)
1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] , this Court has reiterated the
legal position that the jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one which
can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to
the statutory rules. The said position has been
reiterated by this Court in Hari Bansh Lal [(2010) 9
SCC 655 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] wherein this Court
has held that for the issuance of writ of quo warranto,
the High Court has to satisfy itself that the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.”
9.1 In the case of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association
and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731, it
has been observed by this Court that strict rules of locus
standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo warranto
proceedings. It is further observed in the said decision that
broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a
judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an
independent substantive public office or franchise or
liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the
24
said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be
duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder
of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that
office by a judicial order. It is further observed that in
other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the
judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making
appointments to public office against law and to protect
citizens from being deprived of public office to which they
have a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the
public from usurpers of public office. It is further observed
that it will, thus, be seen that before a person can
effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy
the court that the office in question is a public office and is
held by a usurper without legal authority, and that
inevitably would lead to an enquiry, as to, whether, the
appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in
accordance with law or not. Thus, as per the law laid down
in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of the High Court
to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can
only be issued when a person is holding the public office
does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed to be
25
appointed to such an office or when the appointment is
contrary to the statutory rules. Keeping in mind the law
laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the
jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo
warranto, the factual and legal controversy in the present
petition is required to be considered.
10. Respondent No.4 is holding the post of Vice Chancellor.
The post of Vice Chancellor in a University can be said to
be a public office. There cannot be any dispute about the
same. It is nobody’s case that holding the post of Vice
Chancellor cannot be said to be holding a post of public
office.
11. Now the next question which is posed for consideration of
this Court is, whether, the appointment of respondent
No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of the SP University –
respondent No.2 herein can be said to be contrary to any
statutory provisions and whether, can it be said that
respondent No.4 fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of
Vice Chancellor
26
11.1 While examining the aforesaid issues the relevant
provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 enacted in
exercise of powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of
Subsection (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions of the
SPU Act, 1955, are required to be referred to.
11.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for the
coordination and determination of standards in
Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University
Grants Commission. Section 12 deals with “Functions of
the Commission”, while Section 14 speaks of
“Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with
recommendations of the Commission”. Section 26 deals
with “Power to make regulations”. As per Section 28 the
rules and regulations framed under the UGC Act are
required to be laid before each House of the Parliament
and when both the Houses agree then rules and
regulations can be given effect with such modification as
may be made by the Parliament. Therefore, any regulation
27
enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said
to be subordinate legislation.
11.3 For the appointment and career advancement of teachers
in the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC by
Regulation dated 04.04.2000, enacted the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for
the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in
Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations,
2000. However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no
qualifications were prescribed for the post of “Pro
Chancellor” or “Vice Chancellor”.
Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resource Development Department of Higher
Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 132/2006U.II/U.I( )
i
dated 31122008 communicated to the Secretary,
University Grants Commission, New Delhi the scheme of
revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in
universities and colleges following the revision of pay
scales of the Central Government employees on the
28
th
recommendations of the 6 Central Pay Commission. By
the said letter, the Government of India directed that there
shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in
the universities and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors. In the said letter
revised pay scales, service conditions and Career
Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent
positions including the post of Assistant
Professors/Associate Professors/Professors in universities
and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of ProVice
Chancellor/ViceChancellor were also mentioned therein.
It was intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to
the universities, colleges and other higher educational
institutions coming under the purview of the State
Legislature, provided the State Governments wish to adopt
and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and
conditions mentioned therein. In view of the aforesaid
Letter No. 132/2006U.II/U.I( i ), dated 31122008 issued
by the Government of India and in exercise of the powers
conferred under clauses ( e ) and ( g ) of subsection (1) of
Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the
29
Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations,
2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on 286
2010 and came into force with immediate effect.
11.3.1 Regulation 7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellor
which reads as under:
.—( i ) Persons of the highest
“7.3.0. ViceChancellor
level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional
commitment are to be appointed as ViceChancellors.
The ViceChancellor to be appointed should be a
distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten
years of experience as Professor in a university system
or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in
a reputed research and/or academic administrative
organization.
( ii ) The selection of ViceChancellor should be through
proper identification of a panel of 35 names by a
Search Committee through a public notification or
nomination or a talent search process or in
combination. The members of the above Search
Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere
of higher education and shall not be connected in any
manner with the university concerned or its colleges.
While preparing the panel, the Search Committee
must give proper weightage to academic excellence,
exposure to the higher education system in the
country and abroad, and adequate experience in
academic and administrative governance to be given in
writing along with the panel to be submitted to the
Visitor/Chancellor. In respect of State and Central
universities, the following shall be the constitution of
the Search Committee:
( a ) a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who
should be the Chairperson of the Committee.
(b) a nominee of the Chairman, University
Grants Commission.
30
(c) a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive
Council/Board of Management of the
university.
( iii ) The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice
Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by
the Search Committee.
( ) The conditions of service of the ViceChancellor
iv
shall be prescribed in the statutes of the universities
concerned in conformity with these Regulations.
( v ) The term of office of the ViceChancellor shall form
part of the service period of the incumbent concerned
making him/her eligible for all service related
benefits.”
11.3.2 Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/State
Governments shall modify or amend the relevant
Acts/Statutes of the universities concerned within six
months of adoption of these Regulations.
11.3.3 Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, interalia, prescribes in
Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of
teaching work experience as a professor in a university
system. It also provides for constitution of a search
committee consisting of a nominee of the
Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the
UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of
the University and the search committee has to
recommend the names of the successful candidates.
31
11.4 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Union
Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down a
scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres
th
in the Universities following the 6 Central Pay
Commission. The Scheme provides a fixed pay of
Rs.75,000/ along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/
per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said
scheme provides that it is extended to Universities,
Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming
under the purview of the State Legislature provided the
State Governments wish to adopt and implement the
scheme with certain conditions, inter alia, financial
assistance from the Central Government to the extent of
80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20%
shall be met by the State Government. It further provides
that payment of Central assistance for implementing the
scheme is subject to the condition that the entire scheme
of revision of pay scales together with all the conditions to
be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations and other
guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governments
and the Universities thereunder without any modification.
32
In the present case, State of Gujarat has adopted the said
Scheme dated 31.12.2008 by a Resolution dated
11.11.2009 with effect from 01.01.2006 subject to the
conditions mentioned in the said resolution. Even in the
said resolution, condition No.13 provides that the State
Government will publish the educational qualifications as
per the UGC instructions published from time to time and
quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms, instructions,
resolutions will have to be implemented. It is not in
dispute that the SP University is receiving Central financial
assistance under the Scheme and it is included in the
State universities receiving Central financial assistance as
per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having
adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and
getting Central financial assistance to the extent of 80% of
the maintenance expenditure, the State Government and
the SP University are bound by the UGC Regulations,
2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the
UGC Regulations, 2018. However, the eligibility criteria for
the post of Vice Chancellor and the constitution of the
search committee for appointment of a Vice Chancellor
33
remains the same. Therefore, the State of Gujarat and the
universities thereunder including the SP University are
bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC
Regulations, 2018.
12. Respondent No.4 herein has been appointed as a Vice
Chancellor of the SP University under the SPU Act, 1955.
Section 10 of the said Act relates to the post of Vice
Chancellor which reads as under:
“[10. (1) The ViceChancellor shall be appointed by the
State Government from amongst three persons
recommended under subsection (3) by a
committee appointed for the purpose under sub
section (2).
(2) (a) for the purpose of subsection (1) the
Chancellor shall appoint a Committee which
shall consist of the following members, namely:
—
(i) two members (not being persons
connected with the University or with any
affiliated college or recognised institution)
out of whom one shall be a person
nominated in the manner prescribed by
Statutes by the Syndicate and the
Academic Council jointly and the other
shall be a person nominated in the
manner prescribed by Statutes by the
ViceChancellor of all the Universities
established by law in the State of Gujarat;
(ii) one member to be nominated by the
Chancellor.
34
(b) The Chancellor shall appoint one of three
members of the Committee as its chairman.
(3) The Committee so appointed shall, within
such time and in such manner as may be
prescribed by Statutes, select three persons
whom it considers fit for being appointed Vice
Chancellor and shall recommend to the State
Government the names of the persons so
selected together with such other particulars as
may be prescribed by the Statutes.
(4) The ViceChancellor shall hold office for a
term of three years and he shall be eligible for
being appointed to that office for a further term
of three years only.
(5) The emoluments to be paid to the Vice
Chancellor, and the terms and conditions
subject to which he shall hold office, 1 [shall be
determined by the State Government]:
Provided that such emoluments or such terms
and conditions shall not, during the currency of
the term of the holder of that office, be varied to
his disadvantage without his consent.
(6) (a) During the leave or absence of the Vice
Chancellor, or
(b) in the event of a permanent vacancy in the
office of the ViceChancellor, until an
appointment is made under subsection (1) to
that office,
the ProViceChancellor, and in the absence of
the ProChancellor, one of the Deans nominated
3
by [the State Government], for that purpose
shall carry on the current duties of the office of
the ViceChancellor.”
12.1 As per Section 10 of the Act, 1955 the search committee
shall consist of two members (not being persons connected
with the respondent University or with any affiliated
35
college or recognised institution) out of whom, one shall be
a person nominated in the manner prescribed by Statutes
by the Syndicate and the Academic Council jointly and the
other shall be a person nominated in the manner
prescribed by Statutes by the ViceChancellor of all the
Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat and
the third member to be nominated by the Chancellor.
Section 10 of the SPU Act does not provide any
qualification whatsoever for appointment to the post of
Vice Chancellor. Even the eligibility criteria to be
prescribed is left to the Search Committee. There are no
guidelines whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to be
prescribed by the Search Committee. On the other hand,
the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 specifically prescribes
the qualification / eligibility criteria for the post of Vice
Chancellor. It also provides for the constitution of the
Search Committee. As observed hereinabove as per
Regulation 7.3.0 a person shall have ten years of teaching
work experience as a professor in the university system
and it also provides for constitution of a search committee
36
consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the
Syndicate/Executive Council of the University. But
respondent No.4 did not/ does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria prescribed under the UGC Regulations,
2010/2018. He was/is not having ten years of teaching
work experience as a professor in the university system.
Moreover, his name was not recommended by the legally
constituted search committee, constituted as per the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018. Also, the search committee has
prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice
Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in
the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018.
12.2 Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act, 1955/provisions
under the State legislation are just contrary to the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018, which, as observed hereinabove,
are binding on the State Government and the universities
thereunder. Even the State Government has not bothered
to amend the State legislation – to put at par with the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018 and has continued the
37
appointment in the universities dehors the UGC
Regulations.
13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present
case the UGC vide communication dated 11.08.2014
addressed to the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also
the Chancellor of the University has drawn the attention of
H.E. – Governor of Gujarat to ensure that all the
appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the
Regulations of UGC. The letter/communication dated
11.08.2014 reads as under:
“University Grants Commission
Prof. Dr. Jaspal S. Sandhu
Secretary
th
D.O.No.F.11/2014(Secy) 11 August, 2014
At the outset kindly allow me to apologise for
encroaching upon your precious time. But it is the
criticality of the subject which has compelled me to
draw your kind attention to it.
The appointment of ViceChancellors in our University
system has become a subject of widespread criticism.
We need visionary leadership to give proper direction
to higher education in today’s competitive world. It is
possible only when we have persons of the highest
competence & integrity, in the position of the Vice
Chancellor. In this connection, the University Grants
Commission had brought out a Regulations titled
"Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
38
and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education, 2010. The UGC has prescribed the
minimum qualifications for the appointment of the
ViceChancellor in this Regulation, which reads as
under:
"Persons of the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and institutional commitment are
to be appointed as ViceChancellors. The Vice
Chancellor to be appointed should be a
distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten
years of experience as Professor in a University
system or ten years of experience in an equivalent
position in a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organization."
It hardly needs any mention that the notifications
published in The Gazette of India are mandatory. May
I, therefore, request your Excellency to use your good
offices to ensure that all the appointments of Vice
Chancellors in your State are made in accordance with
the provisions laid down in the aforementioned
Regulations of the UGC.
I am certain that your guidance and support in this
regard will make a huge difference in the governance
of higher education in the country.
Yours faithfully
Jaspal S.Sandhu
Shri O.P. Kohli
Hon’ble Governor of Gujarat, Raj Bhawan
Gandhinagar 382 020 Gujarat”
13.1 That thereafter H.E. – Governor of Gujarat – Chancellor of
the Universities communicated to the Principal Secretary
to the Government of Gujarat vide communication dated
30.08.2014 and emphasized and requested him to take
note of the UGC communication dated 11.08.2014 and
take necessary steps at the Government level. The
39
communication dated 30.08.2014 issued by the Principal
Secretary to the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, reads as
under:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNER OF GUJARAT
Raj Bhavan Ghandhinagar382020.
Date: 30 AUG 2014
Important:
To,
The Principal Secretary to the
Government of Gujarat
Education Department,
th
Block No.5, 7 Floor,
New Sachivalay, Gandhinagar
Sub: Appointment of Vice Chancellors
Ref: A Communication from the Secretary,
University Grant Commission, Government of
th
India, New Delhi dated 11 August, 2014.
Sir,
With reference to the above subject, it is
stated that recently we have received a
communication from Prof. (Dr.) Jaspal S.
Sandhu, Secretary, University Grant
Commission, New Delhi reading the
appointment of the vice chancellors in the
universities. It has been emphasized that the
order to ensure maintenance of standards in
Higher Education, the UGC has prescribed
certain minimum qualifications for the
appointment of the Vice Chancellors. Hon.
Governor has been requested to ensure the all
the appointment of the Vice Chancellors in
Gujarat are made in accordance with the
provisions laid down in the UGC Regulation.
(Copy of the communication is enclosed
herewith for ready reference)
40
You are requested to note the above
pertinent communication and take necessary
steps at the Government level.
Regards,
Yours faithfully,
sd/
(Arvind Joshi)
Principal Secretary to Hon. Governor
13.2 Despite the above clear instructions from the office of H.E.
– Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of all the
universities, it is unfortunate that till date the State
legislation has not been amended by the State Government
and the appointments to the post of Vice Chancellor in the
Universities in the said State are being made just contrary
to the UGC guidelines and Regulations. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that even in the earlier round of
litigation being SCA No.18922 of 2017 in which this very
petitioner challenged the appointment of this very
respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of SPU made in the
year 2016, the Division Bench of the High Court made
certain observations against the State Government not
adopting the UGC Regulations and not amending the State
legislation appropriately. The relevant observations made
by the High Court in para 24 are as under:
41
“24. Even while upholding the appointment of the
sixth respondent to the post of Vice Chancellor of the
respondent University, this court cannot shut its eyes
to the fact that section 10 of the SPU Act does not
provide for any qualification whatsoever for
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor which
would leave room for a lot of arbitrariness in the
matter of selection of persons for appointment as Vice
Chancellor. The UGC Regulations provide for certain
qualifications. However, the same are not binding
unless the State legislation is appropriately amended.
th
The UGC, by a communication dated 11 August
2014, addressed to His Excellency the Governor of
Gujarat, has requested him to use his good offices to
ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors
in the State are made in accordance with the
provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations, which
provide for minimum qualifications for the
appointment of Vice Chancellor with reference to
regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010.
Pursuant thereto, the Principal Secretary to His
Excellency the Governor of Gujarat addressed a
th
communication dated 30 August 2014 to the
Principal Secretary, Government of Gujarat, requesting
him to note the said important communication and
take necessary steps at the Government level.
However, it appears that such communication has
been ignored and no steps have been taken pursuant
thereto. It is, therefore, high time that the State of
Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the
State legislation appropriately so that no room is left
for any manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and
favouritism.”
Even the aforesaid observations made in para 24 were
taken note of by this Court while disposing of the SLP (C)
No.21792 of 2018 in which the decision of the Division
Bench of the High Court was under challenge.
42
13.3 Thus, despite the communication by the UGC dated
11.08.2014 and thereafter, the communication by the H.E.
– Governor of Gujarat dated 30.08.2014 and even the
observations made by the Division Bench of the High
Court in paragraph 24 in its judgment and order dated
05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, reproduced
hereinabove, it is unfortunate that as on today, no further
steps have been taken by the State Government, to amend
the State legislation and to put the same at par with the
UGC Regulations, and the State and the universities
thereunder have continued to make the appointments of
Vice Chancellors just contrary to the UGC Regulations,
which as observed hereinabove are binding.
13.4 At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section
9 of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat is the
Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue of his
office, be the head of the University and the President of
the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University,
his advice was/is binding upon the University and
therefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary
43
steps at the Government level as requested in the
communication dated 30.08.2014. Even the request made
by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also the
Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very
lightly. The State ought to have taken the corrective
measures by suitably amending the State legislation on
par with the UGC Regulations.
14. The submissions made by Shri Navare, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – SP
University that as the earlier writ petition filed by the
petitioner herein, in which the appointment of respondent
No.4 herein as the Vice Chancellor, was under challenge
came to be dismissed and the High Court refused to issue
a writ of quo warranto and the judgment and order passed
by the High Court in SCA No.18922 of 2017 was not
disturbed by this Court and therefore, the controversy
stands concluded and it is not open for the petitioner to
raise the same issue again is concerned, the aforesaid
submissions is noted only to be rejected. This Court did
not opine anything on the merits of the judgment and
44
order passed by the High Court. This Court refused to
entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the ground
that by the time the same was taken up for hearing the
tenure of respondent No.4 herein as a Vice Chancellor was
coming to an end. Even while dismissing the same on the
aforesaid ground alone, this Court specifically observed
that all the questions of law are left open.
15. Thus, we find that the appointment of respondent No.4 is
contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent
No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not
constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. Moreover,
respondent No.4 does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per
the UGC Regulations, 2018, namely, having ten years of
teaching work experience as a professor in the university
system. As observed hereinabove, by adopting the Scheme
and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure
from the Central government and when respondent No.4 is
paid a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/ along with a special
allowance of Rs.5,000/ per month, which is prescribed as
per the Scheme of 2008, the State and the universities
45
thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations, including
the UGC Regulations, 2018. The appointment of
respondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibility
criteria prescribed by the Search Committee, which is as
under:
“1. Persons of the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and institutional commitment.
2. Persons should be a distinguished academician
with proven leadership qualities shall be
satisfying anyone of the following:
10 years’ experience of teaching
and research. As professor or
Vice Chancellor / Pro Vice
Chancellor of any University
including former Vice Chancellor /
Pro Vice Chancellor or
Director / Principal of a college /
institution / Research Organization
with 15 years of teaching /
research / administration.”
In fact, in the instant case, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat
who is also the Chancellor of all the Universities in the
said State had through his Principal Secretary directed
that the communication from the Secretary, University
Grants Commission, Government of India, New Delhi
th
dated 11 August, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps
be taken in that regard. We have referred to the aforesaid
46
th
letter dated 30 August, 2014. The letter of the Secretary
th
of the UGC dated 11 August, 2014 to H.E. – Governor of
Gujarat informing about the regulations titled “Minimum
qualifications for appointment of teachers and other
academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures
for the maintenance of standards in higher education,
2010” has also been extracted above in the said letter. It
has been clearly stated that the UGC has prescribed
minimum qualifications for the appointment of a Vice
Chancellor and therefore, such an appointment must be in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the afore
mentioned regulations of the UGC. It is clear that the
respondentState of Gujarat has failed to take note of the
communication from the UGC and instead the respondent
University has left to the sweet will of the search
committee to prescribe eligibility criteria for the
appointment of the ViceChancellor of the University. The
eligibility criteria when once fixed by the UGC under its
regulations would in our view apply to all the universities
which are aided by the UGC to be bound by the said
regulations even in the absence of the same being
47
incorporated under the respective universities Act of the
respective States. Therefore, when the appointment of
respondent No.4 is found to be contrary to the UGC
Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the
statutory force, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case
to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside
the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor
of the SP University.
16. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are
enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section
26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the
UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said
Act, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament.
Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC
Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict
between State legislation and Central legislation, Central
legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of
repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the
Constitution as the subject ‘education’ is in the
Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice
48
Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC
Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory
provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.
17. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
above, the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor of the SP University – respondent No.2 herein,
is contrary to the UGC provisions, namely, UGC
Regulations, 2018. We hence allow the present writ
petition and issue a writ of quo warranto quashing and
setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 as the
Vice Chancellor of SP University. The present petition is
accordingly, Allowed.
17.1 Before parting we may hope and trust that wiser counsel
will now prevail and the State Government shall amend
the State legislation accordingly on par with the UGC
Regulations, which as such was recommended by the H.E.
– Governor of Gujarat as far as back in the year 2014 and
even thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court had
made observations in para 24 of its judgment and order
dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, in which, the
49
High Court observed that it is high time that the State
Government adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the
State legislation appropriately so that no room is left for
any manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and
favouritism, before any fresh appointment as a Vice
Chancellor in the State and the universities thereunder are
made. As observed hereinabove, prescribing the eligibility
criteria shall not be left to the sweet will of the search
committee. It may lead to arbitrariness and different
search committees in absence of any statutory guidelines
and/or prescription, may prescribe different eligibility
criteria.
17.2 It is to be noted that the post of Vice Chancellor of the
University is a very important post so far as the University
is 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 as basic eligibility
requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice Chancellor
50
would be one who is a true leader and a passionate
visionary. A Vice Chancellor needs to be one who
understands and handles the affairs of the University as
ethical business and maintains a pellucidity in his conduct
towards the betterment of the University as well as the
students therein. A Vice Chancellor should be one who can
inspire students and guarantee entry of highquality
teachers into the University system. A Vice Chancellor
functions as a bridge between the executive and academic
wings of a university as he is the head of both a ‘teacher’
and an ‘administrator’.
We may refer to some of the significant commission
reports concerning the personality and role of a Vice
Chancellor of a university as under:
a) The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated that
originally, the ViceChancellorship of an Indian
University was regarded as an honorary post to be
filled by a prominent man in his leisure time. But
now the position has changed, there is enough work
to justify a fulltime appointment and the Universities
51
should have full time paid ViceChancellors. While
discussing the duties of a ViceChancellor, the
Commission stated that a ViceChancellor must be
the chief liaison between the University and the
public and must be a keeper of the university’s
conscience, both setting the highest standard by
example and dealing firmly and promptly with
indiscipline and malpractice of any kind. He/she
must have the strength of character to resist
unflinchingly the many forms of pressure. Being a
fulltime task, it needs an exceptional man (or
woman) to undertake it. The Commission rejected the
proposal of selecting the ViceChancellor by an
external body and recommended that the Chancellor
should appoint the ViceChancellor upon the
recommendation of the Executive.
b) The
1971 Report of the Committee on Governance
of Universities and Colleges by the University
Grants Commission chaired by Dr. P.B.
Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India
52
while reiterating the recommendations and
observations made by the aforesaid commissions also
stated that the selection of a ViceChancellor is the
single most important decision that the governing
body of the university may be called upon to make.
While the Chancellor of a University may be a high
dignitary of the State of Union of India or an eminent
scholar or eminent person in public life of the State,
the appointment of ViceChancellor, being the
important functionary of the University is most
strategic. The powers of proper maintenance of
discipline and a healthy environment for both
teachers and students in the university is vested with
the ViceChancellor along with all the other powers
vested in him/her by various Statutes, Ordinances or
Regulations. The Commission also stated that
appointment of a ViceChancellor is made in most of
the Universities out of a panel of at least three names
by the Chancellor in case of State Universities and by
the Visitor in case of Central Universities. The panel
of names is prepared by a Search Committee
53
constituted in accordance with the provision of
Act/Statute. Since it was difficult to have a uniform
system of forming a committee in all the States, the
alternatives to constitute the Search Committee were
also provided in the report.
c) The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards
New Educational Management by Professor A.
Gnanam (also called as the Gnanam Committee
Report, 1990) accentuated the role of a Vice
Chancellor, stating that the ViceChancellor should
be a person with vision and qualities of academic
leadership and with a flair for administration because
what the universities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair
and bold administrator. The ViceChancellor should
be a distinguished educationist from the higher
education system having highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and selfrespect.
d) The accented that
Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993
the universities need distinguished and dignified
persons as ViceChancellors and it is necessary to
54
ensure that they are treated with dignity and regard,
which the office merits.
e) The University Grants Commission in its hand
book titled Governance in Higher Education:
Hand Book for ViceChancellors published in 2019
has penned down the role of ViceChancellor of
Indian Universities having gained a paramount
importance in the recent times. In the words of the
Prof. D.P. Singh, the then Chairman of University
Grants Commission and Former Director of National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC):
“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads
of Universities, the Vice Chancellors are
expected to be efficient and effective in
terms of:
a. Implementation of National Higher
Education Policy and programmes,
b. Institutional change in tune with the
national reforms package,
c. Quality and innovation enhancement
and their sustainability,
d. Productive engagement with
‘communities of scholars’ from within
their universities and from national
and international domains,
e. Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation
Ecosystem’ and translation of
deliverables to society and economy
f. Adoption of international best practices
of ‘Good Governance.”
55
‘The Vice Chancellor has to evolve as the
leader of a symphony of orchestra with
the attributes of:
a. Developing teams and teamwork,
building partnerships and
collaborations delicately interwoven
by collegiality, friendship and
intellectual engagement;
b. devising a strategy and action plan
with defined milestones and
deliverables;
c. ensuring primary accountabilities of
self and the abovementioned
university governing bodies; and
d. steering an institutional monitoring
and evaluation mechanism on
university performance built on
principles of transparency.’
Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle of
governance as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra
‘Yatha Raja Tatha Praja’, the sense of morality must begin
from the door of the leader who preaches it.
Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice
Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As
per the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician,
excellent administrator and also someone who has a high
moral stature. The aforesaid reports of the Radhakrishnan
Commission, Kothari Commission, Gnanam Committee and
Ramlal Parikh Committee have highlighted the importance
of the role of ViceChancellor in maintaining the quality and
56
relevance of universities, in addition to its growth and
development, keeping in view, the muchneeded changes
from time to time. Further, these committees have also
made suggestions and recommendations for identifying the
right person for the said position. At this stage, it is correct
to say that a ViceChancellor is the kingpin of a
University’s system and a keeper of the University’s
conscience.
Further, in our view, the Search / Selection Committee
plays a vital and significant role in the selection of the Vice
Chancellor; yet the selected Vice Chancellor’s performance
in the universities vary from university to university.
Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are
given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting
names for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or
indirectly responsible for the achievement of the University.
Commitment to the quality and the objectives of the
universities in particular and higher education system in
general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting the
right person.
57
We are sure and we hope and trust that while making
afresh appointment of Vice Chancellor in the State and the
universities thereunder, the aforesaid aspects shall be kept
in mind by the State and the concerned universities. With
this hope and trust we leave the matter there.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
New Delhi …………………………………J.
March, 03 2022. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
58