Supreme Court Quashes Vice Chancellor Appointment for Violating UGC Norms in Kerala University: Sreejith P.S. vs. Rajasree M.S. (21 October 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 21 October 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 923
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a University appoint a Vice-Chancellor without adhering to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram. The Court held that the appointment was illegal because it did not comply with the UGC Regulations, which prevail over state laws in matters of higher education. This decision underscores the importance of following the UGC guidelines for ensuring the integrity of appointments in higher educational institutions.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case began when Professor Sreejith P.S. (the appellant) filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. Rajasree M.S. (respondent No. 1) as the Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant contended that the appointment was void from the beginning because it violated the UGC Regulations, 2010, specifically regarding the composition of the Search Committee and the process of recommending candidates. The appellant argued that the Search Committee did not follow the UGC guidelines, which require a panel of three to five names to be recommended to the Chancellor, and instead, only recommended one name.

The respondents argued that the UGC Regulations were not binding on the state unless specifically adopted by the State Government. They contended that the University Act enacted by the State should prevail. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, relying on the precedent that state laws prevail unless UGC regulations are specifically adopted. The Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed the appeal, stating that since the amendments to the UGC Regulations had not been adopted, they were not applicable. This led to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, seeking a writ of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as void ab initio. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the State legislation would prevail unless the UGC Regulations were specifically adopted by the State Government. The appellant then appealed to a Division Bench of the High Court, arguing that the UGC Regulations had indeed been adopted by the State. However, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, stating that the subsequent amendments to the UGC Regulations had not been adopted, and therefore, the State legislation would prevail. This led the appellant to file the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interplay between the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956, and its regulations, and the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015. The UGC Act aims to coordinate and determine standards in universities, empowering the UGC to make regulations. Section 26 of the UGC Act grants the UGC the power to make regulations. The UGC Regulations, 2010, and its subsequent amendments in 2013, prescribe the qualifications and procedures for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors. Specifically, Clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2013, mandates that the selection of a Vice-Chancellor should be through a Search Committee, which recommends a panel of 3-5 names. The APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, also provides for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor, with Section 13 outlining the composition of the Search Committee and the process of recommendation. According to Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Search Committee should recommend a panel of not less than three suitable persons.

The Supreme Court also considered Article 254 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the principle of repugnancy between Central and State laws. This article states that if a State law is repugnant to a Central law on a matter in the Concurrent List, the Central law will prevail.

The relevant provisions are:

• Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Grants the UGC the power to make regulations.
• Clause 7.3.0 of the University Grants Commission (2nd Amendment) Regulations, 2013: Specifies the process for selecting a Vice-Chancellor, including the requirement of a Search Committee recommending a panel of 3-5 names.
• Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015: Outlines the composition of the Search Committee and the procedure for recommending a panel of not less than three suitable persons for the Vice-Chancellor position.
• Article 254 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the principle of repugnancy between Central and State laws, stating that Central law prevails in case of conflict in the Concurrent List.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments

• The UGC Regulations, 2010, were adopted by the State Government vide order dated 10.12.2010.
• The UGC Regulations, specifically Clause 7.3.0, mandate that the Search Committee must recommend a panel of 3-5 names, which was not followed in this case.
• The Search Committee was not duly constituted as per the UGC Regulations, and therefore, the appointment based on its recommendation is void ab initio.
• Even under Section 13 of the University Act, the Search Committee was required to recommend a panel of not less than three suitable persons, which was also not followed.
• The decisions in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 and State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022, establish that the UGC Regulations prevail over State laws in matters of higher education.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The State is not bound by the UGC Regulations unless they are specifically adopted by the State Government, relying on Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363.
• The Search Committee was validly constituted, consisting of a member nominated by AICTE and the Chief Secretary of the State.
• Even if the UGC Regulations, 2013, were applicable, the Search Committee was not contrary to these regulations.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice-Chancellor should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)?
2. Whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice-Chancellor can be said to be a duly constituted Committee?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon

Legal Provisions Considered

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the decisions in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 and State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022. These cases established the principle that UGC Regulations are binding and prevail over State laws in matters of higher education. The Court distinguished the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363, clarifying that while it also discussed the repugnancy of State law with Central law, it did not concern the specific issue of the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor under the UGC Regulations.

The Court emphasized that Clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2013, and Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, both require the Search Committee to recommend a panel of names, which was not followed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the integrity of the higher education system and ensure that appointments to key positions like Vice-Chancellor are made in accordance with established norms and regulations. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Primacy of UGC Regulations: The Court reiterated that the UGC Regulations are binding and prevail over State laws in matters of higher education. This is crucial for maintaining uniform standards and quality across universities.
• Importance of the Vice-Chancellor’s Role: The Court highlighted the significance of the Vice-Chancellor’s position as a leader and head of the institution. The Vice-Chancellor must be a person of high competence, integrity, and moral stature, and the selection process must be rigorous and transparent.
• Role of the Search Committee: The Court underscored the vital role of the Search Committee in identifying suitable candidates for the Vice-Chancellor’s position. The committee must follow the prescribed procedures and recommend a panel of qualified individuals.
• Adherence to Procedure: The Court stressed the need for strict adherence to the prescribed procedures for appointments, emphasizing that any deviation from these procedures would render the appointment illegal and void ab initio.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them based on the clear language of the UGC Regulations and the University Act, as well as the binding precedents set by previous Supreme Court decisions. The Court concluded that the appointment was illegal due to the failure to follow the prescribed procedures.

The Supreme Court held that the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice-Chancellor was illegal and void ab initio. The Court reasoned that the UGC Regulations are binding and prevail over State laws in matters of higher education. The Court also found that the Search Committee was not duly constituted as it did not recommend a panel of 3-5 names as required by the UGC Regulations and Section 13(4) of the University Act.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The UGC Regulations are binding and prevail over State laws in matters of higher education.
• The Search Committee was not duly constituted as it did not recommend a panel of 3-5 names.
• The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was in violation of the UGC Regulations and the University Act.

Key quotes from the judgment include:

• “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.”
• “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.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench was unanimous in its decision.

The implications of this judgment are significant for future cases involving appointments in higher education. It reinforces the primacy of UGC Regulations and emphasizes the need for strict adherence to prescribed procedures. It also highlights the importance of a transparent and rigorous selection process for key positions like Vice-Chancellor.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles of the primacy of Central law in the Concurrent List and the binding nature of UGC Regulations.

Key Takeaways

• UGC Regulations are binding on all universities and institutions of higher education, and any State law conflicting with them is void.
• The Search Committee for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors must follow the prescribed procedures, including recommending a panel of 3-5 names.
• Appointments made in violation of UGC Regulations and the relevant University Acts are illegal and void ab initio.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of a transparent and rigorous selection process for key positions in higher education.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, as void ab initio. Consequently, the appointment was quashed and set aside.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the UGC Regulations are binding on all universities and institutions of higher education, and any State law conflicting with them is void. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the UGC Regulations prevail over State laws in matters of higher education appointments, and any appointment made in violation of these regulations is illegal and void ab initio. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position and does not introduce any new legal principles, but it does clarify the application of the principle of repugnancy in the context of higher education appointments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a significant ruling that reinforces the primacy of the UGC Regulations in matters of higher education appointments. The Court quashed the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, for violating UGC Regulations and the University Act. This decision underscores the importance of following established procedures and maintaining transparency in the appointment process, ensuring the integrity of higher education institutions.