Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs Ravindra Jugran and Others

7.3.0 – Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 – Ss. 10, 10 (3) – Constitution of India – Art. 319 – Appointment of Vice Chancellor in a University – Eligibility for appointment – Requirement of having minimum teaching experience – Due process for appointment – Appellant herein was appointed as a Professor in Soban Singh Jeena University and worked as such for a period of 8 years and 5 months – Then he was appointed as Member, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission – On 13th August 2020, he was appointed as ViceChancellor of the University – Said appointment was challenged before the High Court, inter alia, on the grounds that at the time when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, he was not having the requisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which was required as per the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, which were adopted by the State Government – High court quashed the appointment of the appellant herein, finding the appointment process devoid of due process prescribed by UGC Regulations, 2018 – Whether the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University was legal and valid and whether it was after following the due procedure, as required – Held: Under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership – Merely because his lien was continued on the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teach and/or he was having the teaching experience during the period of lien – Supervising the Ph.D. scholars cannot be said to be having a teaching experience as a Professor in the University, which is the requirement as per the UGC Regulations – Further, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee – Appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to be as per the requirement of the University Act r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 as it is an admitted position that no advertisement was issued before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor, name of the appellant was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, selection of the appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and therefore he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee – Only one name was placed before the State Government/the Chief Minister for approval – Under the circumstances, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-chancellor of the University was just contrary to Section

10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 On conjoint reading of Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, the selection for the post of ViceChancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee and the ViceChancellor shall be appointed out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. In the present case, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to be as per the requirement of Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. It is an admitted position that no advertisement was issued before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. The name of the appellant was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The selection of the appellant for the post of ViceChancellor was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and therefore he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cumSelection Committee. [Para 10][558-B-E]

1.2 Proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, does not provide that with respect to appointment of first ViceChancellor of the University, the other requirements of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor as provided under Section

10 are not required to be followed and/or adhered to. Even while making the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor of the University, the procedure required for selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye. If the submission on behalf of the appellant, the State and the University is accepted, in that case, the other provisions of Section 10 shall become otiose and/or redundant. The post of Vice-Chancellor of the University is a very important post and therefore the most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University from and amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. [Paras 11 & 12][558-F-H; 559A-C]

1.3 A Vice-Chancellor should have a minimum teaching experience of 10 years as a Professor in the University and his name should be recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is to be made out of the panel recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. As per Section 10(3) of the University Act, 2019, based on the qualification and eligibility prescribed in the regulations of the University Grant Commission, the committee shall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable for the post of the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, even as per Section

10 of the University Act, 2019, the qualification and eligibility prescribed in the UGC Regulations shall have to be considered by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. [Para 13][563-A-C]

1.4 The appellant rendered service as a professor for the period between 2009 to 2017 (admitted fact that teaching experience as a Professor is 8 years and 5 months) till he was appointed as member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 7th October 2017. He continued as a member of the Public Service Commission till 13th August 2020 when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. Merely because his lien was continued on the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teach and/or he was having the teaching experience during the period of lien. Even considering Article 319 of the Constitution of India, while working as a member of the Public Service Commission, appellant could not have rendered any other work on any other post. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the appellant that the period spent by the appellant as a member of the Public Service Commission should be added to his teaching experience, holding lien on the substantive post, cannot be accepted. Merely because such lien is held, the period of lien, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated and/or considered as teaching experience. [Para 14][563D-H]

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

1.6 As per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and even as per Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the 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 shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence etc. and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared with other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by the Search Committee. In the present case, such a procedure has not been followed at all. The merit of the appellant has not at all been compared with other eligible meritorious persons who may be more meritorious than the appellant. [Para 17][565-A-D]

1.7 The High Court has rightly quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University. The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which has been specifically adopted by the State Government. Therefore, this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto, which is rightly issued by the High Court. The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirements under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. The present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed [Para 18, 19 & 20][565-E-F, G; 566-A] Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179; State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1382; Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1473 – referred to.