Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7634-7635 OF 2022
(@ SLP (C) Nos. 21108-21109 of 2021)
Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2021 and Order dated 24.09.2021
in Review Petition No. 634 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the
High Court has dismissed the said appeal and the review petition
preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo
warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NIRMALA NEGI
Date: 2022.10.21
16:55:30 IST
Reason:
Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio, the original writ petitioner has
preferred the present appeals.
1
2. The appellant herein – original writ petitioner preferred the writ
petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for writ of quo
warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio inter alia on the grounds that the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 dehors the provisions of the UGC
Regulations; that the composition of the Search Committee was not in
accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; even the recommendation
and appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not in
accordance with the UGC Guidelines; the Search Committee was
required to recommend a panel of three to five names to the Chancellor,
however, in the present case, only one name was recommended to the
Chancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations; the provisions
of the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations
shall not be binding and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall
prevail over the said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with the
UGC Regulations.
2.1 The writ petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents. It was
inter alia contended that unless the UGC Regulations are adopted by the
State Government, the University Act enacted by the State shall prevail
and that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities
2
and colleges and for the other higher educational institutions under the
provisions of the State legislature as the mater has been left to the State
Government to adopt and implement the scheme.
2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon
the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V.
Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363 by observing that unless the UGC
Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the State
legislation shall prevail. Therefore, the learned Single Judge opined that
once the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 13 of the
University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of the respondent
No. 1 therefore, can be said to be by a duly constituted Search
Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be illegal.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the appeal
before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, it was specifically
argued and pointed out that in fact the UGC Regulations were adopted
by the State Government, however, the Division Bench while dismissing
the appeal has observed that as the amendment to the UGC
Regulations have not been adopted, the same shall not be applicable
and/or binding while appointing the respondent No. 1. Again, relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan
3
(supra) , the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal, which has given
rise to the present appeals.
3. Shri Amith George, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court are just contrary to
the decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 as well as the recent
decision of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya
Sundar Das & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022 .
3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri George, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as observed and held
by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the provisions of the UGC
Regulations shall be applicable and prevail. It is submitted that therefore
any provision of the State Act (in the present case, the University Act
and the Regulations), which are in conflict with the UGC Regulations
shall be repugnant and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall have
to be applied.
3.2 It is submitted that as such in the present case the UGC
Regulations, 2010 were in fact adopted by the State Government vide
order dated 10.12.2010. However, the High Court has erroneously
observed and held that the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable as
4
the subsequent amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 13.06.2013
have not been specifically adopted by the State Government.
3.3 It is submitted that therefore any appointment on the post of Vice
Chancellor of the University contrary to the UGC Regulations shall be
void ab initio and therefore, the High Court ought to have issued a writ of
quo warranto.
3.4 It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committee
constituted to recommend the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as
Vice Chancellor was not duly constituted Search Committee as required
under the provisions of the UGC Regulations and therefore the same
was illegal and void ab initio.
3.5 It is submitted that even otherwise, ever as per Section 13 of the
University Act, the Search Committee was required to recommend a
panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent
persons in the field of engineering sciences. It is submitted that in the
present case, the Search Committee recommended the name of the
respondent No. 1 alone, which was sent to the Chancellor. It is
submitted that therefore also the appointment of the respondent No. 1
can be said to be contrary to Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015.
5
3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above two
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set
aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court
and allow the writ petition preferred by the appellant and to issue a writ
of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as illegal
and void ab initio.
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Jaideep Gupta,
leaned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State – Government
of Kerala. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani
Mathivanan (supra) , it is submitted that as observed and held by this
Court unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the state,
the State is not bound by the UGC Regulations. It is submitted that
therefore the Hon’ble High Court has rightly refused to issue a writ of
quo warranto considering and/or relying upon the decision of this Court
in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra).
5. Present appeals are opposed by Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel
appearing 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 relevant
6
provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2013, the Search Committee
constituted in the present case cannot be said to be contrary to UGC
Regulations. It is submitted that in the present case, the Search
Committee was consisted of one member nominated by AICTE and the
Chief Secretary of the State. It is submitted that the member nominated
by AICTE can be said to be a person of eminence in the sphere of
higher education. It is submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the
Search Committee constituted to recommend the name of the
respondent No. 1 was illegally constituted Search Committee.
5.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeals.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties at length.
7. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court
is: whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing
UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015
(State Act)?
7
The other question which is posed before this Court for
consideration is: whether the Search Committee constituted to
recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the
University can be said to be duly constituted Committee?
8. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case
of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) .
Now, the issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail vis-à-vis the
State legislation/State Act, identical question came to be considered by
this Court in the recent decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan
K. Gadhvi (supra). While considering the appointment of the Vice
Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, it is specifically
observed and held by this Court that the appointment of Vice Chancellor
cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations, even if the
State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis-à-vis the
criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC Regulations. It is further
observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the State
Act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended to bring
it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it is the
applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail. It is further observed and
held that being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become part
of the Act. It is further observed and held that in case of any conflict
8
between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central
legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail by applying
the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution as the
subject “education” is contained in the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of
the Constitution. The observations made in relevant paras are as
under:-
“20. Now the next question which is posed for
consideration of this Court is, whether, the appointment of
Respondent 4 as a Vice-Chancellor of the SP University
— Respondent 2 herein can be said to be contrary to any
statutory provisions and whether, can it be said that
Respondent 4 fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of
Vice-Chancellor.
20.1. 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 sub-section (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.
20.2. 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 Parliament and
when both the Houses agree then rules and regulations
can be given effect with such modification as may be
made by Parliament. Therefore, any regulation enacted in
exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said to be
subordinate legislation.
9
20.3. For the appointment and career advancement
of teachers in the universities and institutions affiliated to
it, UGC by Regulation dated 4-4-2000, 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”.
21. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resource Development Department of Higher
Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i)
dated 31-12-2008 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
recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.
22. 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
Pro Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor 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.
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 and in exercise of the powers conferred under
clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the
UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the Regulations, 2010 in
supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It was
10
published in the Gazette of India on 28-6-2010 and came
into force with immediate effect.
XXXXXXXXX
25. 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.
26. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter alia,
prescribe 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.
XXXXXXXXX
50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations
are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under
Sections 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
Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation,
UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any
conflict between the State legislation and the 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 to the
Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-
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.”
8.1 That thereafter and having found that the appointment of the Vice
Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University was contrary to the UGC
11
Regulations, 2010, this Court issued the writ of quo warranto. It is
required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of
Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) was also pointed out by this Court.
8.2 Even in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) , it is observed in
paragraph 53 that to the extent the State legislation is in conflict with the
Central legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Central
legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the same 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, which were
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 the recent
decision of this Court in the case of Anindya Sundar Das & Ors
(supra) while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of
Calcutta University. In the said decision, it is also observed and held in
paragraph 56 that in view of the decision in the case of Gambhirdan K
Gadhvi (supra) , even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would
have to be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice
Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. It
12
is further observed that the UGC Regulations shall become part of the
statute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail.
8.4 In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court, any
appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the
Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict between
the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail
even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the
provision of the State legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the
submission on behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are
specifically adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be
applicable and the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations
are specifically adopted by the State cannot be accepted.
8.5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case
as such vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC Regulations have been
specifically adopted by the State Government. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that in the order dated 27.03.2010, while
adopting/accepting the UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in
paragraph 5 that all the universities shall incorporate the UGC
Regulations in their Statutes and Regulations within one month from the
13
date of the said order and Government will initiate steps to amend the
Acts of the Universities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is
further mentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the
steps to amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations of the
UGC Regulations. Merely because the subsequent amendment has not
been specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by
the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be
binding on the State/State’s Universities. Therefore also, the UGC
Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice
Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant
provisions of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.
8.6 Now, the next question, which is posed for the consideration of this
Court is whether in fact in the present case, the Search Committee
constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram can be said to be a duly constituted Search
Committee, is concerned, the relevant clauses of the UGC Regulations,
2013 and Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
Act, 2015 relating to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor are required
to be referred to, which are as under:-
14
CLAUSE 7.3.0 OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS
nd
COMMISSION (2 AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS.
2013. EXT.R3(a)
7.3.0 VICE CHANCELLOR:
i. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity;
morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed
as Vice-Chancellors. 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.
ii. The selection of Vice Chancellor should be through
proper identification of a panel of 3-5 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. The constitution of the Search
Committee could be as per the Act/Statutes of the
concerned university.
iii. The Visitor/ Chancellor shall appoint the Vice
Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by
the Search Committee.
iv. The conditions of services of the Vice Chancellor shall
be as prescribed in the Act Statutes of the university
consented in conformity with the Principal Regulations.
15
v. The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part
of the service period of the incumbent concerned making
him/her eligible for all service related benefits.
SECTION 13 OF APJ ABDUL KALAM
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2015
13. The Vice-Chancellor
(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive
and academic officer of the University. He shall be the ex-
officio Chairman of the Executive Committee and of the
Academic Committee.
(2) The first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government
and thereafter the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by
the Chancellor from among a panel of names
recommended by a Search Committee consisting 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 be the Convenor of the Committee
(3) The process of preparing a panel shall begin at least
three months before the probable date of occurrence of
the vacancy of the Vice-Chancellor and shall be
completed within the time-limit fixed by the Chancellor.
The Chancellor, however, may extend such time-limit, if,
in the exigency of the circumstances, it is necessary to do
so. However, the process of preparation of the panel shall
be completed within a period of three months, including
the period so extended.
4. The Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel
of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the
eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences. The
16
names shall be in English alphabetical order. The report
shall be accompanied by a detailed write-up on the
suitability of each person included in the panel. In case
the Committee fails to make a unanimous
recommendation as provided, each member of the
Committee may submit the name of one person each to
the Chancellor. The non submission of the name by any
member of the Committee shall not invalidate the
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
(5) No person who is more than sixty one years of age
shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor and after the
appointment, he shall, subject to the terms and conditions
of his appointment, hold office for a period of four years
from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he
attains the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier.
(6) The persons appointed as Vice-Chancellor will be
eligible for re-appointment provided he has not attained
the maximum age mentioned in sub-section 5.
8.7 Thus, as per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, the
selection of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification
of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and the members of the
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. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor
shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended by the
Search Committee. Therefore, the recommendation for appointment as a
Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee duly
constituted and that the Search Committee has to recommend the
17
names and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice
Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search
Committee. While preparing the panel, the Search Committee must give
proper weightage to the academic excellence; exposure to the higher
education system in the country and abroad, and adequate Experience
in academic and administrative governance.
8.8 The importance of the post of the Vice Chancellor has been
elaborately observed and considered by this Court in the case of
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) in paragraphs 53, 54, 54.1 to 54.5, 55
and 56 as under:-
“ 53. 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
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 high quality
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”.
18
54. We may refer to some of the significant
Commission Reports concerning the personality and role
of a Vice-Chancellor of a university as under:
54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated
that originally, the Vice-Chancellorship 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
full-time appointment and the universities should have
full-time paid Vice-Chancellors. While discussing the
duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the Commission stated that a
Vice-Chancellor 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 full-time task, it needs
an exceptional man (or woman) to undertake it. The
Commission rejected the proposal of selecting the Vice-
Chancellor by an external body and recommended that
the Chancellor should appoint the Vice-Chancellor upon
the recommendation of the executive.
54.2. 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 while
reiterating the recommendations and observations made
by the aforesaid commissions also stated that the
selection of a Vice-Chancellor 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 the Union of India
or an eminent scholar or eminent person in public life of
the State, the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, being the
important functionary of the university is most strategic.
The powers of proper maintenance of discipline and a
19
healthy environment for both teachers and students in the
university is vested with the Vice-Chancellor along with all
the other powers vested in him/her by various Statutes,
Ordinances or Regulations. The Commission also stated
that appointment of a Vice-Chancellor 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 constituted in
accordance with the provision of the 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.
54.3. 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 Vice-Chancellor 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 Vice-
Chancellor should be a distinguished educationist from
the higher education system having highest level of
competence, integrity, morals and self-respect.
54.4. The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented
that the universities need distinguished and dignified
persons as Vice-Chancellors and it is necessary to
ensure that they are treated with dignity and regard,
which the office merits.
54.5. The University Grants Commission in its
handbook titled 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 paramount importance in the
recent times. In the words of Prof. D.P. Singh, the then
Chairman of University Grants Commission and former
20
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’.”
“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
21
(d) Steering an institutional monitoring and
evaluation mechanism on university
performance built on principles of
transparency.”
55. 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.
56. 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 Vice-Chancellor
in maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in
addition to its growth and development, keeping in view,
the much needed 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 Vice-
Chancellor is the kingpin of a university's system and a
keeper of the university's conscience.”
8.9 On the role of Search Committee / Selection Committee, it is
observed in paragraph 57 as under:-
“ 57. 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
22
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.”
8.10 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even as per Section
13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend
unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from
amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which
shall be placed before the Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case,
admittedly the only name of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the
Chancellor. As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor
shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names
recommended by the Search Committee. Therefore, when only one
name was recommended and the panel of names was not
recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of
the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No.
1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC
Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015. Therefore, the
appointment of respondent No. 1 on the basis of the recommendations
made by the Search committee, which was not a duly constituted Search
Committee as per the UGC Regulations and when only one name was
23
recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable
persons as required under Section 13(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 quo warranto was required to be issued.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ of quo
warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio are
hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall
be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the
appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul
Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set
aside.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
OCTOBER 21, 2022. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
24