Constitution of India – Art. 254 –UGC Regulations, 2010 – UGC Guidelines – APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (AAKTU) Act, 2015 (University Act, 2015/State Act) & Regulations – S. 13 – Appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor – Requirement of recommending a panel of names by search committee – State government’s discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations, 2010 – Repugnancy between State legislation and Central legislation – Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram as void on the ground the appointment was contrary to UGC Regulations, which required that the Search Committee should recommend a panel of three to five names for consideration, but in the instant case, only one name was recommended – Further contended that UGC Act shall prevail over State legislation – Single Judge dismissed the petition by noting that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the State legislation shall prevail and 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 can be said to be by a duly constituted Search Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be illegal – Appellant appealed before a Division Bench, which came to be dismissed – Question for the Supreme Court – Whether while making the appointment of respondent No.
1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)?; 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? – Held: 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 – 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 – Search Committee in this case was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per UGC regulations – Under UGC regulations, the Search Committee duly constituted has to send a panel of 3-5 names for consideration as appointment as Vice Chancellor, and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee – Even under University Act, the Search Committee shall recommended unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons – 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 – Thus, 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.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 8.4][264-B-D]
1.2 In the present case as such vide order dated 10 December 2010, the UGC Regulations have been specifically adopted by the State Government. In the order dated 27 March 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 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. [Para 8.5][264-E-H]
1.3 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. 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 names and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. [Para 8.7][267-D-F]
1.4 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 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. [Para 8.10][271-H; 272-A-D]
1.5 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. [Para 9][272-E-F]
Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. (2015)
6 SCC 363 : 2015 (3) SCR 467; Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 179; State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. 2022
(14) SCALE 636 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.