Supreme Court Upholds Chancellor’s Authority in Vice-Chancellor Reappointment: State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 11 October 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J
Can a State government bypass the Chancellor’s authority in the reappointment of a University Vice-Chancellor? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Calcutta University Act, 1979. This judgment clarifies the roles and powers of the State government and the Chancellor in the appointment and reappointment of Vice-Chancellors in State Universities. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University. Initially, Professor Dr. Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee was appointed as VC by the Chancellor on 28 August 2017, for a four-year term, as per Section 8(1)(a) and 8(2)(a) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. Her term was set to end on 27 August 2021.

The State government proposed her reappointment to the Chancellor on 4 June 2021 and 17 June 2021, but the Chancellor sought clarifications. On 17 August 2021, the Chancellor extended her tenure by three months under Section 8(2)(b) of the Act. The State government, however, issued a notification on 27 August 2021, reappointing the incumbent VC for four years, invoking Section 60, and stating that the Chancellor’s extension was void. This action was challenged in a public interest petition.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court at Calcutta, in its judgment dated 13 September 2022, allowed a writ of quo warranto, challenging the State government’s reappointment of the VC. The High Court held that the State government lacked the authority to reappoint the VC under Section 8 or Section 60 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. The High Court set aside the State government’s order of 27 August 2021, stating that the VC had no authority to hold office based on that order. Aggrieved by the decision, both the State of West Bengal and the VC appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in the interpretation of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, particularly Section 8, which deals with the appointment and reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

✓ Section 7(1) of the Act states that the Governor of the State is the Chancellor of the University.

✓ Section 8(1)(a) outlines the eligibility criteria for the position of Vice-Chancellor, requiring a distinguished academic with proven competence, integrity, and a minimum of ten years of experience in a University system, or in a reputed research or academic administrative organization.

✓ Section 8(1)(b) specifies that the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of three names recommended by a Search Committee constituted by the State government.

✓ Section 8(2)(a), as amended in 2019, states that the Vice-Chancellor is eligible for reappointment for another term of four years, subject to the satisfaction of the State government and based on their past academic excellence and administrative success. The original provision stated:

“(2)(a) The Vice -chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years or till he attains the age of sixty -five years, whichever is earlier, and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of four years or till he attains the age of sixty -five years, whichever is earlier, following the provisions of sub- section (1).”

The amended provision is:

“(2)(a) The Vice -Chancellor shall hold office for a period of four years appointed as such in terms of the provisions of sub-section (1), and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years subject to the satisfaction of the State Government and on the basis of his past academic excellence and administrative success established during his term of office in the capacity of Vice- Chancellor, or till he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier.”

✓ Section 8(2)(b) allows the Chancellor to extend the term of the VC for up to two years, in consultation with the Minister, subject to the satisfaction of the State Government and based on the VC’s past performance.

✓ Section 8(5) empowers the Chancellor to appoint a person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the VC in cases of temporary inability or vacancy.

✓ Section 8(6) mandates that vacancies in the office of the VC be filled by appointment in accordance with Section 8(1) within six months.

✓ Section 60 of the Act is a “removal of difficulties” clause, allowing the State government to address any difficulties in implementing the Act. It states:

“If on account of any lacuna or omission in the provisions of this Act, or for any other reason whatsoever, any difficulty arises as to the first constitution of any authority of the University under this Act, or otherwise in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government, as occasion may require, may by order do anything which appears to it to be necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

Arguments by the State of West Bengal:

• The State government argued that Section 8(5) and 8(6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, apply only when the power of reappointment under Section 8(2)(a) has not been exercised.

• They contended that Section 8(2)(a) explicitly grants the State government the power to reappoint a VC for another term of four years, based on their satisfaction with the VC’s past academic excellence and administrative success.

• The State government highlighted that the phrase “following the provisions of sub-section (1)” was deleted from the amended Section 8(2)(a), implying that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) for the appointment of a VC does not apply to reappointment.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

• The petitioner argued that Section 8(2)(a) does not take away the Chancellor’s power to appoint a VC under Section 8(1)(b).

• They submitted that the procedure prescribed by Section 8(1), including the constitution of a Search Committee, must be followed for the reappointment of a VC.

• The petitioner emphasized that the UGC Regulations stipulate that the appointment of a VC must be made by the Chancellor.

• They argued that while Section 8(2)(a) provides for the satisfaction of the State government, it does not remove the Chancellor’s power to make the appointment.

• The petitioner noted that the State government itself had forwarded the file regarding the VC’s reappointment to the Chancellor, acknowledging the Chancellor’s authority in the matter.

Arguments by the Vice-Chancellor:

• The VC argued that Section 8(6) does not align with Section 8(2), as Section 8(6) mandates the appointment of a VC according to Section 8(1), which requires a three-member search committee.

• The VC highlighted that the High Court had specifically held that the procedure prescribed by Section 8(1)(b) for constituting a search committee does not apply to reappointment.

• The VC contended that Section 8 envisages distinct situations, including the appointment of a VC by the Chancellor, reappointment by the State government under Section 8(2)(a), extension of the term by the Chancellor under Section 8(2)(b), and temporary appointment by the Chancellor under Section 8(5).

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the State government has the power to reappoint the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University under Section 8(2)(a) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979.
2. Whether the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) of the Act for the appointment of a VC is also applicable for reappointment.
3. Whether the State government could invoke Section 60 of the Act to reappoint the VC.

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:

Cases:

• University of Mysore v. C.D. Govindra Rao [1964] 4 SCR 575 – The Court referred to this case to explain the nature and scope of a writ of quo warranto, emphasizing that it is a judicial inquiry to determine if a person holding a public office has a valid title to it.
• High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [2003] 4 SCC 712 – This case was cited to highlight that a writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules.
• B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. [2006] 11 SCC 731 – The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the appointment is contrary to statutory rules.
• Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo [2014] 1 SCC 161 – This case was used to emphasize that a writ of quo warranto is issued when a person holding public office lacks eligibility or when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules.
• Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka [2018] 6 SCC 162 – The Court referred to this case to reiterate the settled position that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law.
• Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat [2022] 5 SCC 179 – This case was cited to emphasize that the UGC Regulations are binding and that any appointment contrary to these regulations is a violation of statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.
• Union of India v. Hansoli Devi [2002] 7 SCC 273 – This case was cited to reiterate the principle that a statute must be read to avoid a construction that would make certain provisions meaningless or redundant.
• Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose [1953] SCR 1 – This case was cited to support the principle that words in a statute should not be brushed aside as surplusage if they can have an appropriate application.
• Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry [AIR 1920 PC 181] – This case was cited to support the principle that the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain.
• Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India [1975] 3 SCC 765 – This case was cited to explain the purpose and limitations of a “removal of difficulty clause.”

Legal Provisions:

• Section 7(1) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 – Defines the Governor as the Chancellor of the University.
• Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 – Deals with the appointment, reappointment, and term of the Vice-Chancellor.
• Section 60 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 – Provides for the removal of difficulties in implementing the Act.
• University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2018 – These regulations prescribe the minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities to arrive at its decision.

The Court’s view on the authorities is as follows:

✓ University of Mysore v. C.D. Govindra Rao [1964] 4 SCR 575*: The Court used this case to define the scope of a writ of quo warranto, emphasizing that it is a judicial inquiry to determine if a person holding a public office has a valid title to it.

✓ High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [2003] 4 SCC 712*: The Court cited this case to state that a writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules.

✓ B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. [2006] 11 SCC 731*: The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to cases where the appointment is contrary to statutory rules.

✓ Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo [2014] 1 SCC 161*: This case was used to emphasize that a writ of quo warranto is issued when a person holding public office lacks eligibility or when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules.

✓ Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka [2018] 6 SCC 162*: The Court referred to this case to reiterate the settled position that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law.

✓ Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat [2022] 5 SCC 179*: This case was cited to emphasize that the UGC Regulations are binding and that any appointment contrary to these regulations is a violation of statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.

✓ Union of India v. Hansoli Devi [2002] 7 SCC 273*: This case was cited to reiterate the principle that a statute must be read to avoid a construction that would make certain provisions meaningless or redundant.

✓ Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose [1953] SCR 1*: This case was cited to support the principle that words in a statute should not be brushed aside as surplusage if they can have an appropriate application.

✓ Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry [AIR 1920 PC 181]*: This case was cited to support the principle that the legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain.

✓ Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India [1975] 3 SCC 765*: This case was cited to explain the purpose and limitations of a “removal of difficulty clause.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by a commitment to upholding the statutory scheme of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, and ensuring that appointments to public offices are made in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the statute in a manner that gives effect to all its provisions, avoiding any construction that would render certain provisions meaningless or redundant. The Court’s analysis also reflected a concern for maintaining the autonomy of universities and preventing the misuse of “removal of difficulty” clauses to circumvent statutory restrictions.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal considerations, with a focus on statutory interpretation and the application of established legal principles.

Logical Reasoning

Ratio Decidendi & Obiter Dicta

Ratio Decidendi (Core Holding):

The core holding of the Supreme Court in this case is that the power to reappoint a Vice-Chancellor of a State University rests solely with the Chancellor, not the State government. The Court clarified that Section 8(2)(a) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, only establishes the eligibility criteria for reappointment based on the satisfaction of the State government but does not grant the State government the power to make the reappointment. The Court emphasized that the power to appoint, including the power to reappoint, is vested in the Chancellor under Section 8(1)(b).

Obiter Dicta (Incidental Remarks):

• The Court clarified that the deletion of the phrase “following the provisions of sub-section (1)” in the amended Section 8(2)(a) means that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) for the appointment of a VC does not apply to reappointment. This implies that the State government is not required to constitute a search committee for the purpose of reappointment.

• The Court emphasized that Section 60, the “removal of difficulties” clause, cannot be used to bypass the specific provisions of the Act, such as Section 8. This means that the State government cannot use Section 60 to reappoint a Vice-Chancellor when the power to do so rests with the Chancellor.

• The Court reiterated that the UGC Regulations are binding and that any appointment contrary to these regulations is a violation of statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto. This underscores the importance of adhering to UGC guidelines in the appointment process for Vice-Chancellors.

Consequences

The consequences of the Supreme Court’s judgment are significant and have far-reaching implications for the appointment and reappointment of Vice-Chancellors in State Universities.

• Reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor: The Supreme Court’s decision set aside the State government’s notification reappointing the Vice-Chancellor. This means that the incumbent VC’s reappointment was deemed invalid, and the position was required to be filled in accordance with the provisions of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, and the UGC Regulations.

• Authority of the Chancellor: The judgment reaffirmed the authority of the Chancellor in the appointment and reappointment of Vice-Chancellors. This clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the State government and the Chancellor, ensuring that the appointment process is in accordance with the law.

• Interpretation of Statutory Provisions: The Court’s interpretation of Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, provides a clear understanding of the appointment and reappointment process for Vice-Chancellors. This will guide future appointments and prevent similar disputes.

• Limitation of “Removal of Difficulties” Clauses: The judgment clarified the limitations of “removal of difficulties” clauses, emphasizing that they cannot be used to bypass specific provisions of the Act. This ensures that such clauses are not misused to circumvent statutory restrictions.

• Adherence to UGC Regulations: The Court’s emphasis on the binding nature of UGC Regulations underscores the importance of adhering to these guidelines in the appointment process for Vice-Chancellors. This ensures that appointments are made in accordance with national standards.

• Precedent for Other State Universities: The judgment serves as a precedent for other State Universities, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the State government and the Chancellor in the appointment and reappointment of Vice-Chancellors.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. clarifies the roles and powers of the State government and the Chancellor in the appointment and reappointment of Vice-Chancellors in State Universities. The Court held that the power to reappoint a Vice-Chancellor rests solely with the Chancellor, not the State government. The Court emphasized that Section 8(2)(a) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, only establishes the eligibility criteria for reappointment based on the satisfaction of the State government but does not grant the State government the power to make the reappointment. The Court also clarified that the deletion of the phrase “following the provisions of sub-section (1)” in the amended Section 8(2)(a) means that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) for the appointment of a VC does not apply to reappointment. Moreover, the Court reiterated that Section 60, the “removal of difficulties” clause, cannot be used to bypass the specific provisions of the Act. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and UGC Regulations in the appointment process for Vice-Chancellors, ensuring that such appointments are made in accordance with the law and national standards.