Supreme Court Quashes Vice-Chancellor Appointment for Lack of Experience: Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 November 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., M.M. Sundresh, J.

Can a university appoint a Vice-Chancellor who does not meet the minimum experience requirements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established norms for such appointments. This case revolves around the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor at Soban Singh Jeena University, and whether the appointee fulfilled the necessary criteria. The Court scrutinized the appointment process and the appointee’s qualifications, ultimately quashing the appointment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh.

Case Background

The case involves a challenge to the appointment of Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari as the Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University. Bhandari had previously served as a Professor from May 23, 2009, to October 7, 2017, before becoming a member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. He was then appointed as Vice-Chancellor on August 11, 2020, assuming charge on August 13, 2020. The appointment was contested by Ravindra Jugran, who filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand, arguing that Bhandari did not possess the requisite 10 years of experience as a Professor, as mandated by the UGC Regulations, 2018, which were adopted by the State Government. Further, the petitioner argued that the appointment was illegal as Bhandari’s name was not recommended by a Search Committee.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowed the writ petition filed by Ravindra Jugran, quashing the appointment of Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari as Vice-Chancellor. The High Court held that Bhandari did not meet the eligibility criteria under Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which requires a minimum of 10 years of experience as a Professor. The High Court also noted that even under Section 10(1) of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019, Bhandari did not fulfill the experience requirements. Aggrieved by this decision, Professor Bhandari appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019: This section outlines the procedure for appointing the Vice-Chancellor. It states that the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor with the concurrence of the State Government from among distinguished persons in the field of study of the University or from equivalent positions in Administration, Industry or Research Institute whose names are submitted by a search committee. It also stipulates the composition of the search committee.
  
  “10. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor with the concurrence of the State Government from among the distinguished persons in the field of study of the University or from equivalent position in Administration, Industry or Research Institute whose names are submitted to him by search committee constituted by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2). Provided that fist Vice-Chancellor of University Shall be appointed by State Government and Shall hold the Post for duration of three years.”
• Regulation 7.3.0 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018: This regulation specifies the eligibility criteria for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, requiring a minimum of ten years’ experience as a Professor in a University.
  
  “i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ of 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.”

The UGC Regulations, 2018, were adopted by the State Government, making them applicable to the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor at Soban Singh Jeena University. The interplay between the University Act and the UGC Regulations forms the core of the legal framework in this case.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Appellant’s Arguments (Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari)

• Applicability of UGC Regulations: The appellant argued that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, should not be strictly applied because the State Government adopted these regulations with modifications.

• First Vice-Chancellor Appointment: The appellant contended that as per the proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, the State Government had the authority to appoint the first Vice-Chancellor of its choice without needing a recommendation from a Search Committee.

• Experience as Professor: The appellant claimed to have the requisite 10 years’ experience as a Professor, arguing that the period he served as a member of the Public Service Commission should be counted as he was on long leave and his lien on the post of Professor continued. He also argued that supervising PhD scholars during this period should count towards his experience.

• Merit and Academic Career: The appellant highlighted his distinguished academic career, arguing that his merit justified his appointment as Vice-Chancellor.

• Inapplicability of Precedents: The appellant argued that the decisions in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 and State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1382 were not applicable because those cases did not involve the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ravindra Jugran)

• UGC Regulations Compliance: The respondent argued that the UGC Regulations, 2018, were specifically adopted by the State Government and that Regulation 7.3.0 mandates a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a Professor for the post of Vice-Chancellor.

• Lack of Requisite Experience: The respondent asserted that the appellant did not have the required 10 years of teaching experience as a Professor.

• Service as Public Service Commission Member: The respondent contended that the appellant’s service as a member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission could not be counted as teaching experience.

• Lien on Post: The respondent argued that merely having a lien on the post of Professor while serving as a member of the Public Service Commission did not equate to teaching experience.

• Proviso to Section 10(1): The respondent submitted that the proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, did not grant unfettered powers to the State Government to bypass the requirements of Section 10 and the UGC Regulations.

• No Search Committee Recommendation: The respondent highlighted that the appellant’s name was not recommended by a Search Committee, and no advertisement was issued for the position.

• Constitutional Bar: The respondent argued that under Article 319 of the Constitution of India, the appellant could not have held any other post while serving as a member of the Public Service Commission.

• Reliance on Precedents: The respondent relied on the decisions in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra), Anindya Sundar Das (supra), and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1473, to argue that the State Government was bound by the UGC Regulations, 2018.

Submissions Table

The following table categorizes the sub-submissions by main submissions of all sides pertaining to the issue:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities while reaching its decision:

The Court also considered:

• Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019: The Court analyzed this section to understand the procedure for appointing a Vice-Chancellor and the role of the search committee.
• Regulation 7.3.0 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018: The Court examined this regulation to determine the eligibility criteria for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, particularly the requirement of 10 years of experience as a Professor.
• Article 319 of the Constitution of India: The Court considered this article to determine if the appellant could hold any other post while serving as a member of the Public Service Commission.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, quashing the appointment of Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University.

The following table summarizes how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table summarizes how each authority was viewed by the Court:

The Court emphasized that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is a critical task, and the process must be transparent and adhere to the prescribed norms. The Court highlighted that the appellant did not meet the minimum experience requirements and that the appointment process was flawed, as no advertisement was issued, and the appellant’s name was not recommended by a Search Committee.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to uphold the integrity of the appointment process for the post of Vice-Chancellor and to ensure that only qualified individuals are appointed to such critical positions. The court emphasized the following points:

• Adherence to Regulations: The court stressed that the UGC Regulations, 2018, were specifically adopted by the State Government and were binding. The court found that the appellant did not meet the minimum experience criteria as prescribed by the regulations.
• Importance of the Search Committee: The court highlighted the significance of the Search Committee in identifying and recommending suitable candidates for the post of Vice-Chancellor. The court noted that the appointment process did not involve a Search Committee, which was a major procedural flaw.
• Transparency and Fairness: The court emphasized the need for a transparent and fair selection process, which includes issuing advertisements and comparing the merits of all eligible candidates. The court found that the appointment process lacked transparency and fairness.
• Merit-Based Selection: The court underscored that the selection of a Vice-Chancellor should be based on merit and that the most meritorious candidate should be chosen from a panel of eligible candidates. The court noted that the appellant’s merit was not compared with other eligible candidates.
• Interpretation of Proviso: The court clarified that the proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, does not exempt the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor from the mandatory requirements of Section 10 and the UGC Regulations.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the previous decisions of the Supreme Court in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, Anindya Sundar Das, and Sreejith P.S., which emphasized the importance of following the UGC Regulations in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law in this case is as follows:

The Court’s logical reasoning for the main issue is illustrated below:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would have upheld the appointment. The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the law and the regulations.

The Court’s decision was clear and unequivocal: the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor was illegal and invalid. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and eligibility criteria for such appointments.

The reasons for the decision were as follows:

• The appellant did not meet the minimum experience requirements as per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
• The appointment process did not follow the procedure prescribed in Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019.
• No advertisement was issued for the post, and the appellant’s name was not recommended by a Search Committee.
• The proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, does not exempt the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor from the mandatory requirements of Section 10 and the UGC Regulations.
• The State Government is bound by the UGC Regulations, 2018, which prevail over any conflicting provisions in the State University Act.

The Court did not have any minority opinions. The decision was unanimous.

The implications of this decision for future cases are significant. It reinforces the importance of following the prescribed procedures and eligibility criteria for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. It also clarifies that the UGC Regulations, 2018, are binding on State Governments and that any conflicting provisions in State University Acts must be interpreted in light of these regulations.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. The decision was based on the existing legal framework and the interpretation of the relevant provisions.

The Court’s decision was based on the existing legal framework and the interpretation of the relevant provisions.

Key Takeaways

• Compliance with UGC Regulations: State Governments must strictly adhere to the UGC Regulations when appointing Vice-Chancellors of universities.
• Importance of Search Committees: The role of Search Committees in identifying and recommending suitable candidates is crucial and cannot be bypassed.
• Transparency in Appointments: The appointment process must be transparent, fair, and merit-based, involving advertisements and comparison of eligible candidates.
• Experience Requirement: The minimum experience requirements for the post of Vice-Chancellor, as prescribed by the UGC Regulations, must be strictly followed.
• Proviso Interpretation: The proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, does not exempt the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor from the mandatory requirements of Section 10 and the UGC Regulations.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court’s decision to quash the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. The court also noted that the appellant may resign if he so desires.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor must strictly adhere to the procedures and eligibility criteria prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018. The court clarified that the proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, does not exempt the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor from the mandatory requirements of Section 10 and the UGC Regulations. This decision reinforces the importance of following the UGC Regulations and ensures that the appointment process is transparent, fair, and merit-based. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies the interpretation of the proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran and Others (2022) is a significant judgment that underscores the importance of adhering to established norms and regulations in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. The Court’s ruling emphasizes the need for transparency, fairness, and merit-based selection in such appointments. The judgment also clarifies the interplay between State University Acts and the UGC Regulations, 2018, reiterating that the UGC Regulations prevail in case of any conflict. This case serves as a crucial precedent for future appointments, ensuring that only qualified individuals are appointed to the critical post of Vice-Chancellor. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is not a mere formality but a crucial task that requires strict adherence to the prescribed procedures and eligibility criteria. The Court’s emphasis on the importance of the Search Committee and the need for a transparent and fair selection process is a significant takeaway for all stakeholders involved in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. The decision also clarifies that the proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, does not grant unfettered powers to the State Government to bypass the requirements of Section 10 and the UGC Regulations.