Supreme Court of India
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVIversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
- Citation
- 2022 INSC 259
- Decided
- 3 March 2022
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- M R SHAH
Holding
The appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice‑Chancellor was void because it violated the UGC Regulations, 2018, which, as central subordinate legislation, prevail over the State Act, justifying the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice‑Chancellor of Sardar Patel University, alleging that the appointment violated the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010/2018 which require ten years of professorial experience and a search committee constituted as per those regulations. The Court examined whether the UGC Regulations, made under the UGC Act, 1956, constitute subordinate legislation that binds the State of Gujarat and its universities, and whether, under Article 254 of the Constitution, central legislation prevails over the State Act in the concurrent field of education. It held that the State had adopted the central pay scheme and, by receiving 80% central assistance, was bound by the UGC Regulations; the search committee was not constituted as required and the appointee did not meet the eligibility criteria. Consequently, a writ of quo warranto lay and the appointment was void. The Court quashed the appointment and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice‑Chancellor complied with the eligibility criteria prescribed in UGC Regulations, 2010/2018.
- Whether UGC Regulations, as subordinate legislation, bind the State of Gujarat and its universities under the repugnancy doctrine of Article 254.
- Whether a writ of quo warranto is appropriate where the appointment contravenes statutory regulations.
- Whether the search committee constituted under the SPU Act satisfied the composition requirements of UGC Regulation 7.3.0.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 254
- Sardar Patel University Act, 1955s. 10, s. 9
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 12, s. 14, s. 26, s. 28
Subjects
UGC RegulationsVice Chancellor appointmentquo warrantorepugnancyArticle 254higher educationsubordinate legislationeligibility criteriasearch committeestate legislationcentral legislation
Judgment
406 SUPREME COURT
[2022]REPORTS
4 S.C.R. 406 [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019)
B MARCH 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Universities: Appointment of Vice Chancellor – Writ of quo
warranto – Writ petition alleging that eligibility criteria was diluted
and UGC Regulations, 2018 were violated – Held: Being a
C
subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act
and in case of any conflict between State legislation and Central
legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/
principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Art.254 of the Constitution
as the subject ‘education’ is in the concurrent list – By adopting the
D scheme and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure
from the central government and when respondent No.4 is paid a
fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/
- per month, the State and the Universities thereunder are bound by
the UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018 –
Respondent No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not
E
constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 and also does not
fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018,
namely, having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor
in the university system – Appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor of respondent No.2-University, is contrary to the UGC
F provisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018 – Writ of quo warranto
issued for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent
No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University – UGC Regulations,
2010/2018 – Regn. 7.3.0 – Writ of quo warranto – Constitution of
India – Art.254.
G Universities: Universities are autonomous and the Vice
Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution – As per
the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician, excellent
administrator and also someone who has a high moral stature –
The said reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari
Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee have
H
406
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 407
highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellor in A
maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in addition to
its growth and development, keeping in view, the much needed
changes from time to time – These committees have also made
suggestions and recommendations for identifying the right person
for the said position – A Vice Chancellor is the king pin of a
B
University’s system and a keeper of the University’s conscience –
Further, the Search/Selection Committee plays a vital and significant
role in the selection of the Vice Chancellor; yet the selected Vice
Chancellor’s performance in the universities vary from university
to university – Therefore, the members of the Search Committee,
who are given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting C
names for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or
indirectly responsible for the achievement of the University.
Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 – ss. 9, 10 – Governor of
Gujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue
of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the D
Senate – As the head of the University, his advice is binding upon
the University – Universities.
Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued E
when a person holding public office does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. [Para 9.1][423-H;
424-A]
Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1 F
SCC 501 : [2012] 10 SCR 883; Retd. Armed Forces
Medical Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2006) 11 SCC 731 : 2006 (10) SCALE 224 – relied
on.
1.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for G
the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities
and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission.
Section 12 deals with “Functions of the Commission”, while Section
14 speaks of “Consequences of failure of Universities to comply
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A with recommendations of the Commission”. Section 26 deals with
“Power to make regulations”. As per Section 28, the rules and
regulations framed under the UGC Act are required to be laid
before each House of the Parliament and when both the Houses
agree then rules and regulations can be given effect with such
modification as may be made by the Parliament. Therefore, any
B
regulation enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can
be said to be subordinate legislation. [Para 11.2][424-E-G]
2. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by
Letter No.132/2006 U.II/U.I(i) dated 31.12.2008 communicated
C to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi the
scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in
universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales of
the Central Government employees on the recommendations of
the 6th Central Pay Commission. By the said letter, the
D Government of India directed that there shall be only three
designations in respect of teachers in the universities and
colleges, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and
Professors. In the said letter revised pay scales, service conditions
and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent
positions including the post of Assistant Professors/Associate
E Professors/Professors in universities and colleges were
intimated. Pay scales of ProVice Chancellor/Vice Chancellor were
also mentioned therein. It was intimated that the said Scheme
may be extended to the universities, colleges and other higher
educational institutions coming under the purview of the State
F Legislature, provided the State Governments wish to adopt and
implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned therein. In view of the aforesaid Letter dated
31.12.2008 issued by the Government of India and in exercise of
the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1)
of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the Regulations,
G 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. Regulation
7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellor. UGC Regulations,
2010, inter alia, prescribes in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall
have ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in a
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 409
university system. It also provides for constitution of a search A
committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/
Executive Council of the University and the search committee
has to recommend the names of the successful candidates. [Paras
11.3 - 11.3.3][425-A-G; 426-G-H]
B
3.1 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Union
Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down a scheme
of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the
Universities following the 6th Central Pay Commission. The
Scheme provides a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special
allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para C
8(p)(v) of the said scheme provides that it is extended to
Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions
coming under the purview of the State Legislature provided the
State Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme with
certain conditions, inter alia, financial assistance from the Central D
Government to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure
and remaining 20% shall be met by the State Government. It
further provides that payment of Central assistance for
implementing the scheme is subject to the condition that the
entire scheme of revision of pay scales together with all the
conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations and E
other guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governments
and the Universities thereunder without any modification. [Para
11.4][427-A-D]
3.2 In the present case, State of Gujarat has adopted the
said Scheme dated 31.12.2008 by a Resolution dated 11.11.2009 F
with effect from 01.01.2006 subject to the conditions mentioned
in the said resolution. Even in the said resolution, condition No.13
provides that the State Government will publish the educational
qualifications as per the UGC instructions published from time
to time and quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms, G
instructions, resolutions will have to be implemented. It is not in
dispute that the SP University is receiving Central financial
assistance under the Scheme and it is included in the State
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A universities receiving Central financial assistance as per Section
12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having adopted the UGC
Scheme and implemented the same and getting Central financial
assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure,
the State Government and the SP University are bound by the
UGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are
B
superseded by the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, the
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor and the
constitution of the search committee for appointment of a Vice
Chancellor remains the same. Therefore, the State of Gujarat
and the universities thereunder including the SP University are
C bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations,
2018. [Para 11.4][427-D-G]
4. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Vice Chancellor of
the SP University under the SPU Act, 1955. Section 10 of the
said Act relates to the post of Vice Chancellor. As per Section 10
D of the Act, 1955 the search committee shall consist of two
members (not being persons connected with the respondent -
University or with any affiliated college or recognised institution)
out of whom, one shall be a person nominated in the manner
prescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic Council
jointly and the other shall be a person nominated in the manner
E prescribed by Statutes by the Vice Chancellor of all the
Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat and the
third member to be nominated by the Chancellor. Section 10 of
the SPU Act does not provide any qualification whatsoever for
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. Even the eligibility
F criteria to be prescribed is left to the Search Committee. There
are no guidelines whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to be
prescribed by the Search Committee. On the other hand, the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 specifically prescribes the
qualification / eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor. It
also provides for the constitution of the Search Committee. As
G observed hereinabove as per Regulation 7.3.0 a person shall have
ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in the
university system and it also provides for constitution of a search
committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 411
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/ A
Executive Council of the University. But respondent No.4 did
not/ does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. He was/is not having ten years of
teaching work experience as a professor in the university system.
Moreover, his name was not recommended by the legally
B
constituted search committee, constituted as per the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018. Also, the search committee has
prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor
by diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018. Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act,
1955/provisions under the State legislation are just contrary to C
the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, which, as observed
hereinabove, are binding on the State Government and the
universities thereunder. Even the State Government has not
bothered to amend the State legislation – to put at par with the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 and has continued the appointment
D
in the universities dehors the UGC Regulations. [Paras 12 –
12.2][427-H; 429-B-H; 430-A]
5. By adopting the Scheme and having accepted 80% of
the maintenance expenditure from the Central government and
when respondent No.4 is paid a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along
with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is E
prescribed as per the Scheme of 2008, the State and the
universities thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations,
including the UGC Regulations, 2018. The appointment of
respondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibility criteria
prescribed by the Search Committee. In fact, in the instant case, F
H.E. – Governor of Gujarat who is also the Chancellor of all the
Universities in the said State had through his Principal Secretary
directed that the communication from the Secretary, University
Grants Commission, Government of India, New Delhi dated 11th
August, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps be taken in that
regard. This Court has referred to the aforesaid letter dated 30th G
August, 2014. The letter of the Secretary of the UGC dated 11th
August, 2014 to H.E. – Governor of Gujarat informing about the
regulations titled “Minimum qualifications for appointment of
teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges
H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher
education, 2010” has also been extracted above in the said letter.
It has been clearly stated that the UGC has prescribed minimum
qualifications for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor and
therefore, such an appointment must be in accordance with the
provisions laid down in the aforementioned regulations of the
B
UGC. It is clear that the respondent-state of Gujarat has failed to
take note of the communication from the UGC and instead the
respondent-University has left to the sweet will of the search
committee to prescribe eligibility criteria for the appointment of
the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The eligibility criteria when
C once fixed by the UGC under its regulations would apply to all
the universities which are aided by the UGC to be bound by the
said regulations even in the absence of the same being
incorporated under the respective universities Act of the
respective States. Therefore, when the appointment of respondent
No.4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and
D
the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, this is a fit
case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside
the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of
the SP University. [Para 15][434-H; 435-A-H; 436-A-C]
6. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are
E enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section 26(1)(e)
and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act
every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid
before each House of the Parliament. Therefore, being a
subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the
F Act. In case of any conflict between State legislation and Central
legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/
principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the
Constitution as the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List
(List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore,
any appointment as a Vice Chancellor contrary to the provisions
G of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the
statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto. [Para
16][436-C-E]
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 413
Annamalai University represented by Registrar v. A
Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 : [2009] 3 SCR
355; Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors, (2015)
6 SCC 363 : [2015] 3 SCR 467 – referred to.
Case Law Reference B
[2009] 3 SCR 355 referred to Para 3.7
[2015] 3 SCR 467 referred to Para 3.7
[2012] 10 SCR 883 relied on Para 9
C
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1525 of 2019.
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
I.H. Syed, Sr. Adv., Varinder Kumar Sharma, Shantanu Sharma,
Prithu Parimal, Ms. Parul Sharma, Advs. for the petitioner. D
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, Manoj
Ranjan Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the
Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of quo warranto challenging
the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of respondent F
No.2 – Sardar Patel University (hereinafter referred to as “SP
University”) and to quash and set aside the notification dated 29.08.2019,
bearing No.GH/SH/76/SPY/122010/2626/ KH-2 passed by respondent
No.1 – State of Gujarat, appointing respondent No.4 as the Vice
Chancellor of the respondent - SP University. The petitioner has also G
prayed for any other appropriate writ, direction and order directing
respondent authorities to recover from respondent No.4 all consequential
benefits not limited to pay, with retrospective effect, that have been
extended to him by virtue of his illegal appointment as Vice Chancellor
of the SP University.
H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the University
Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC”) framed UGC
Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as the “UGC Regulations, 2010”) which, inter alia, prescribes
B
in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching work
experience as a professor in the University system. It also provides for
constitution of a Search Committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/
Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of UGC, a nominee of Syndicate/
Executive Council of the University. That the Search Committee has to
C recommend the names of suitable candidates for appointment as Vice
Chancellor of a University.
2.1 That the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been substituted
subsequently vide UGC Regulations, 2018 with slight modifications which
shall be referred to hereinbelow.
D
2.2 It is the further case on behalf of the petitioner that the Union
Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down a Scheme of
revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the Universities
following the 6th Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
“Scheme”). The Scheme provides a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with
E a special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Vice Chancellor.
Para 8(p)(v) of the said Scheme provides that it is extended to Universities,
Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the
purview of the State Legislature, provided the State Governments wish
to adopt and implement the scheme with certain conditions, inter alia,
financial assistance from the Central Government to the extent of 80%
F
of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20% shall be met by the
State Government. Payment of Central assistance for implementing the
scheme was subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revision
of pay scales together with all the conditions to be laid down by the
UGC by way of regulations and other guidelines shall be implemented
G by the State Governments and the Universities thereunder without any
modification. According to the petitioner, the State of Gujarat passed a
Resolution dated 11.11.2009 adopting the Scheme. Since the Scheme
has been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon
the State of Gujarat including the respondent - SP University. That on
adoption of the Scheme by the State Government as well as the SP
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 415
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
University, the said University is receiving Central financial assistance A
under the Scheme and is included in the list of State universities receiving
Central financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956.
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that since the Scheme has been
adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon the State
of Gujarat including the SP University.
B
2.3 The UGC addressed a communication dated 11.08.2014 to
H.E. - the Governor of Gujarat seeking compliance with the UGC
Regulations, 2010 with respect to appointment of Vice Chancellors in
the State of Gujarat. That H.E. - the Governor of Gujarat communicated
to the Government of Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 to C
comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to the appointment
of Vice Chancellors. At this stage, it is required to be noted that H.E. –
Governor of Gujarat is the ex-officio Chancellor of all the Universities in
the State including the SP University.
2.4 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that ignoring Regulation D
7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, a Search Committee was constituted
under Section 10(2)(b) of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the “SPU Act”) on 29.07.2016 with no
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. According to the petitioner, even
as per Section 10(2)(b), the Search Committee has only the authority to
recommend a panel of suitable candidates. The Search Committee, in E
the present case, exceeded its jurisdiction and prescribed its own eligibility
criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criteria
laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010. That respondent No.2 issued
an advertisement, inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor,
while mentioning the aforesaid eligibility criteria prescribed by the Search F
Committee. Thereafter the State issued a notification appointing
respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University for his first
term of three years. According to the petitioner respondent No.4 was
not having teaching work experience as a professor for a period of ten
years, which is mandatory as per the UGC Regulations, 2010. That
respondent No.4 herein was promoted to the post of Professor with G
effect from 08.03.2008. According to the petitioner though respondent
No.4 lacked the eligibility, he was appointed as the Vice Chancellor at
the fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- which is as per the revised Scheme –
Appendix I dated 31.08.2008.
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A 2.5 That the petitioner challenged the said appointment of
respondent No.4 before the High Court by way of filing Special Civil
Application (SCA) No.18922 of 2017. By judgment and order dated
05.07.2018 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said
SCA by observing and holding that the UGC Regulations had not been
adopted by the State of Gujarat and thus were not binding upon respondent
B
University. While dismissing the SCA and upholding the appointment of
respondent No.4 to the post of Vice Chancellor of the University, the
Division Bench of the High Court referred to Section 10 of the SPU
Act, which does not provide for any qualification whatsoever for
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. The Division Bench of the
C High Court observed that such a position would leave room for a lot of
arbitrariness in the matter of selection of persons for appointment as
Vice Chancellor. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that
though it is true that UGC Regulations provides for certain qualifications,
however, the same are not binding unless the State legislation is
appropriately amended. That the Division Bench of the High Court also
D
noted the communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed by the UGC to
H.E. – Governor of Gujarat. By the said communication it was requested
to ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are
made in accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations.
The said Regulations, inter alia, provide for minimum qualifications for
E the appointment of Vice Chancellor in Regulation 7.3.0. The High Court
noted that the Principal Secretary to H.E. – the Chancellor had addressed
a communication dated 30.08.2014 to the Principal Secretary,
Government of Gujarat, requesting him to take note of the said important
communication and take necessary steps at the Government level but
the same had been ignored by the State and no steps had been taken
F
pursuant thereto. Therefore, the High Court observed that it is high time
the State of Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the State
legislation appropriately so that no room is left for any manipulation,
arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that despite the above observations made in para 24 by the High
G Court, no further steps have been taken by the State Government to
adopt the UGC Regulations and amend the State legislation appropriately.
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the High Court dismissing SCA No.18922/2017, upholding the
appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Vice Chancellor of SP
H University, petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 417
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
this Court by filing SLP (C) No.21792/2018. The said SLP came up A
before this Court for final hearing on 30.07.2019. However, by the time
the said SLP could be heard, only one month remained in the first term
of respondent No.4, therefore, this Court did not interfere with the
appointment of respondent No.4 and vide order dated 30.07.2019 disposed
of the same; however, this Court specifically observed that all questions
B
of law are left open.
2.7 That thereafter an advertisement dated 12.06.2019 was
published, inviting applications to the post of Vice Chancellor of
respondent No.2 – SP University. According to the petitioner again the
Search Committee was not constituted as per the UGC Regulations.
According to the petitioner in the said advertisement the Search C
Committee has further diluted the eligibility criteria to suit respondent
No.4, in so far as it states that persons who have remained Vice Chancellor
for one term are eligible. That thereafter respondent No.4 has been
again appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University vide
notification dated 29.08.2019 for a further term of three years. It is the D
case on behalf of the petitioner that impugned notification appointing
respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University is absolutely
illegal and in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC
Regulations, 2018. Therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred
for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent
No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University. E
2.8 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the earlier decision
of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in Special Civil Application
No.18922/2017 may come in the way of the petitioner and if again the
petitioner approaches the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. This is because the petitioner will have F
to face the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in
SCA No.18922/2017 which though challenged before this Court, the
same was disposed of without considering the legality and/or correctness
of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in SCA No.18922/2017. This was because by the time the matter G
was heard, only one month of service of respondent No.4 was left and
while disposing of the SLP, it was observed by this Court that all questions
of law are left open. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A entertain the present writ petition and consider the same on merits in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Shri I.H. Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the appointment of respondent
No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP University is absolutely illegal and contrary
B to the statutory guidelines issued by the UGC.
3.1 It is contented that appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice
Chancellor is by a Search Committee not legally constituted as per the
UGC guidelines.
3.2 It is submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing
C on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time when his first
appointment was made as Vice Chancellor, he was not fulfilling the
eligibility criteria required as per the UGC guidelines as well as even the
eligibility criteria fixed by even the Search Committee. It is further
submitted that at the relevant time when respondent No.4 was appointed,
D he was not having ten years of experience as a professor which was
mandatorily required as per the UGC guidelines as well as the eligibility
criteria fixed by the Search Committee.
3.3 It is further contended by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case the Search
E Committee constituted was not legal and valid. It is urged that as per the
UGC guidelines which the State and universities were bound, one of the
members of the Search Committee should be the Chairman of the UGC
and/or his nominee. It is submitted that in the present case the Search
Committee constituted did not include the Chairman of the UGC and/or
his nominee. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.4 by such an
F illegal Search Committee is absolutely illegal and contrary to the statutory
provisions and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set
aside by issuing a writ of quo warranto.
3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case even the
G Search Committee prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice
Chancellor. That the SPU Act as such does not provide and/or prescribe
any eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor which as such is a
very important and prestigious post so far as the University is concerned.
That even the Division Bench of the High Court in the earlier round of
litigation in paragraph 24 of the judgment specifically criticised the State
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 419
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
for not prescribing/providing the minimum qualifications for appointment A
of Vice Chancellor at par with the UGC Regulations, 2010. It is submitted
that Division Bench of the High Court even noted the communication
dated 11.08.2014 addressed to H.E. – Governor of Gujarat to ensure
that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations/
B
guidelines which provide for minimum qualifications for the appointment
of Vice Chancellor as per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,
2010 and also noted that even H.E. – Governor of Gujarat addressed a
communication dated 30.08.2014 to the State Government to take note
of the communication dated 11.08.2014 and to take necessary steps at
the Government level. That thereafter the Division Bench of the High C
Court has noted that said communications have been ignored by the
State government and no steps have been taken pursuant thereto and
therefore, it is high time that the State government adopts the UGC
Regulations and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no
room is left for manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism.
D
That despite the above and even thereafter also no further steps have
been taken by the State Government to amend the State legislation.
3.5 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by adopting the Scheme dated
31.12.2008 vide Resolution dated 11.11.2009, all regulations framed by
the UGC shall be binding on the State Government including the SP E
University. That UGC Regulations, 2010 which, inter alia, prescribe in
Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching work
experience as a professor in the University system. It also provides for
constituting of the search committee, consisting of a nominee of the
Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee F
of the Syndicate/Executing Council of the University. That such a search
committee has to recommend the names of the successful candidates.
It is submitted that in the present case respondent No.4 was appointed
as Vice Chancellor for the second term even though he did not fulfil the
said criteria.
G
3.6 It is submitted that even respondent No.4 was being paid a
fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/-
per month as per the Scheme dated 31.12.2008. It is submitted that once
the Scheme dated 31.12.2008 had been adopted by the State government
and the SP University and the said University started receiving central
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A financial assistance and even it is included in the list of State universities
receiving financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act,
1956, thereafter it will not be open to the State and/or the University not
to follow the UGC Regulations and to continue to appoint the Vice
Chancellor illegally and contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations,
2010 (now UGC Regulations, 2018).
B
3.7 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the UGC Regulations, 2010/
2018 are Central legislation and therefore, the State and/or the State
universities are bound by the Central legislation and UGC Regulations,
2010/2018, the subject ‘education’ being in the Concurrent List of the
C
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decisions
of this Court in the cases of Annamalai University represented by
Registrar Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 and Kalyani Mathivanan
Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors, (2015) 6 SCC 363.
D
3.8 Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has submitted that the post of Vice Chancellor in a University
is a very important and prestigious post. Post of Vice Chancellor can be
said to be holding of a public office. It is submitted that the future of the
students – next generation can be said to be in the hands of the Vice
E Chancellor who has to run the administration and management and lead
the University and guide the students. It is urged that therefore greater
care and caution should be taken while making the appointment of the
Vice Chancellor of a University and the best talent shall have to be
appointed as Vice Chancellor. It is submitted that any appointment as a
Vice Chancellor contrary to the statutory rules and regulations warrants
F
issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is submitted that the Vice Chancellor,
not having the requisite qualifications and who does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria and/or who is appointed by a search committee which is not
legally constituted, cannot hold such an important public office.
3.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
G
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition and to issue a
writ of quo warranto as prayed in the petition.
4. Shri Manoj Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the UGC – respondent No.3 herein has as such supported the
petitioner. It is submitted that in a search committee for appointment as
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 421
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
Vice Chancellor, one of the members of the search committee shall be a A
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. It is submitted that UGC
Regulations, 2010 and 2018 were/are binding to all the States and the
Universities.
4.1 It is further submitted that even as per clause 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, the members of the Search cum Selection B
Committee, can be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education.
It further provides that one member of the search committee shall be
nominated by the Chairman of the UGC for selection of Vice Chancellors
of the State, Private and Deemed to be universities. That as per the
UGC Regulations, Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor
out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search cum Selection C
committee. It is contended that being a Central legislation all the States,
Private and Deemed to be Universities are bound by the UGC Regulations
and the guidelines issued from time to time.
5. The present petition is opposed by Shri Vinay Navare, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University. D
5.1 Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University has vehemently submitted
that in the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition and did not interfere with the appointment
of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University and the E
SLP against the same was dismissed by this Court. Therefore, it is not
open for the petitioner to again challenge the appointment of respondent
No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for the second term. It is submitted that as
such the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the subsequent Regulations, 2018
have not been adopted by the State government and therefore, the UGC F
Regulations are not binding to the State and/or universities and in the
present case SP University.
5.2 It is submitted that appointment of respondent No.4 is governed
under the SPU Act, 1955 and the Search Committee was constituted by
the State government under the SPU Act. That as such Section 10 of G
the said Act, does not provide for any specific eligibility criteria/minimum
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor, therefore, the Search
Committee itself prescribed the eligibility criteria. That after selecting
respondent No.4 and on the recommendations made by the Search
Committee, respondent No.4 has been appointed.
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A 5.3 It is submitted that in the absence of any statutory breach,
appointment of respondent No.4 has been made as per the SPU Act,
1955 and hence no writ of quo warranto be issued. It is submitted that
while challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 in the first term,
the Division Bench of the High Court rightly refused to issue a writ of
quo warranto. Therefore, with regard to the appointment of respondent
B
No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for the second term also, no writ of quo
warranto can be issued.
5.4 It is further submitted by Shri Navare, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University that even
otherwise the petitioner has no locus standi. It is submitted that the
C
petitioner is an ex-employee of the respondent - University and has a
grudge against the University and therefore, the present writ petition
has been preferred challenging the appointment of Vice Chancellor. It is
prayed not to entertain the writ petition at the instance of such a person.
6. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
D
respondent No.4, while adopting the submissions made by Shri Navare,
has further submitted that so far as the appointment of respondent No.4
as a Vice Chancellor for the second term is concerned, UGC Regulations,
2010 are not applicable as UGC Regulations, 2010 have been substituted
by the UGC Regulations, 2018.
E
7. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 – State has opposed the present writ petition.
7.1 When a pointed question was asked to Ms. Kohli, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State, whether the
F State legislation is amended providing for the minimum eligibility criteria
at par with the UGC Regulations, as observed by the High Court in the
earlier round of litigation in para 24, she is not in a position to satisfy and/
or point out any such amendment in the State legislation.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
G respective parties at length.
9. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of quo warranto
by challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 herein as Vice
Chancellor of the SP University – respondent No.2 herein. When a writ
H of quo warranto will lie has been dealt with by this Court in the case of
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 423
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 501. A
In para 19, it has been observed and held as under: -
“19. A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made
contrary to the statutory provisions. This Court in Mor Modern
Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana [(2002) 6
SCC 269] held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when B
appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions. In B. Srinivasa
Reddy [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] ,
this Court has reiterated the legal position that the jurisdiction of
the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one
which can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to the
C
statutory rules. The said position has been reiterated by this Court
in Hari Bansh Lal [(2010) 9 SCC 655 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)
771] wherein this Court has held that for the issuance of writ of
quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy itself that the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.”
D
9.1 In the case of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association
and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731, it has been
observed by this Court that strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to
some extent in a quo warranto proceedings. It is further observed in the
said decision that broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a
judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive E
public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right
he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be
duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office
has no title, he would be ousted from that office by a judicial order. It is
further observed that in other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives
the judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making appointments F
to public office against law and to protect citizens from being deprived
of public office to which they have a right. These proceedings also tend
to protect the public from usurpers of public office. It is further observed
that it will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ
of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the court that the office in question is G
a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that
inevitably would lead to an enquiry, as to, whether, the appointment of
the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. Thus,
as per the law laid down in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of the
High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A only be issued when a person is holding the public office does not fulfil
the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or
when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. Keeping in mind
the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the jurisdiction
of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto, the factual and legal
controversy in the present petition is required to be considered.
B
10. Respondent No.4 is holding the post of Vice Chancellor. The
post of Vice Chancellor in a University can be said to be a public office.
There cannot be any dispute about the same. It is nobody’s case that
holding the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be holding a post of
public office.
C
11. Now the next question which is posed for consideration of this
Court is, whether, the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor of the SP University – respondent No.2 herein can be said to
be contrary to any statutory provisions and whether, can it be said that
respondent No.4 fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice
D Chancellor
11.1 While examining the aforesaid issues the relevant provisions
of the UGC Regulations, 2010 enacted in exercise of powers conferred
under clauses (e) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions of the SPU
E Act, 1955, are required to be referred to.
11.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for the
co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that
purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission. Section 12 deals
with “Functions of the Commission”, while Section 14 speaks of
“Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with recommendations
F
of the Commission”. Section 26 deals with “Power to make regulations”.
As per Section 28 the rules and regulations framed under the UGC Act
are required to be laid before each House of the Parliament and when
both the Houses agree then rules and regulations can be given effect
with such modification as may be made by the Parliament. Therefore,
G any regulation enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can be
said to be subordinate legislation.
11.3 For the appointment and career advancement of teachers in
the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC by Regulation dated
04.04.2000, enacted the University Grants Commission (Minimum
H Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 425
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, A
2000. However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were
prescribed for the post of “Pro-Chancellor” or “Vice Chancellor”.
Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by Letter
No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated 31-12-2008 communicated to the B
Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi the scheme of
revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and
colleges following the revision of pay scales of the Central Government
employees on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.
By the said letter, the Government of India directed that there shall be
only three designations in respect of teachers in the universities and C
colleges, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and
Professors. In the said letter revised pay scales, service conditions and
Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions
including the post of Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/
Professors in universities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of D
Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor were also mentioned therein. It
was intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to the universities,
colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the
purview of the State Legislature, provided the State Governments wish
to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned therein. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/ E
U.I(i), dated 31-12-2008 issued by the Government of India and in
exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-
section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the
Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It was
published in the Gazette of India on 28-6-2010 and came into force with F
immediate effect.
11.3.1 Regulation 7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellor
which reads as under: -
“7.3.0. Vice-Chancellor.—(i) Persons of the highest level of
competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to G
be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be
appointed should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum
of ten years of experience as Professor in a university system or
ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed
research and/or academic administrative organization.
H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A (ii) The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper
identification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee
through a public notification or nomination or a talent search
process or in combination. The members of the above Search
Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher
education and shall not be connected in any manner with the
B
university concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel,
the Search Committee must give proper weightage to academic
excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country
and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and
administrative governance to be given in writing along with the
C panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. In respect of State
and Central universities, the following shall be the constitution of
the Search Committee:
(a) a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be the
Chairperson of the Committee.
D (b) a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission.
(c) a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council/Board of
Management of the university.
(iii) The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out
of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.
E
(iv) The conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be
prescribed in the statutes of the universities concerned in
conformity with these Regulations.
(v) The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part of
the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her
F eligible for all service related benefits.”
11.3.2 Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/State
Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes of the
universities concerned within six months of adoption of these Regulations.
11.3.3 Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter-alia, prescribes in
G
Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching work
experience as a professor in a university system. It also provides for
constitution of a search committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/
Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the
Syndicate/Executive Council of the University and the search committee
H has to recommend the names of the successful candidates.
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 427
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
11.4 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Union A
Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down a scheme of revision
of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the Universities following
the 6th Central Pay Commission. The Scheme provides a fixed pay of
Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to
the Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said scheme provides that it is
B
extended to Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions
coming under the purview of the State Legislature provided the State
Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme with certain
conditions, inter alia, financial assistance from the Central Government
to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining
20% shall be met by the State Government. It further provides that C
payment of Central assistance for implementing the scheme is subject
to the condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales together
with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations
and other guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governments
and the Universities thereunder without any modification. In the present
D
case, State of Gujarat has adopted the said Scheme dated 31.12.2008 by
a Resolution dated 11.11.2009 with effect from 01.01.2006 subject to
the conditions mentioned in the said resolution. Even in the said resolution,
condition No.13 provides that the State Government will publish the
educational qualifications as per the UGC instructions published from
time to time and quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms, instructions, E
resolutions will have to be implemented. It is not in dispute that the SP
University is receiving Central financial assistance under the Scheme
and it is included in the State universities receiving Central financial
assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having
adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and getting Central
F
financial assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure,
the State Government and the SP University are bound by the UGC
Regulations, 2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the
UGC Regulations, 2018. However, the eligibility criteria for the post of
Vice Chancellor and the constitution of the search committee for
appointment of a Vice Chancellor remains the same. Therefore, the G
State of Gujarat and the universities thereunder including the SP University
are bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations, 2018.
12. Respondent No.4 herein has been appointed as a Vice
Chancellor of the SP University under the SPU Act, 1955. Section 10 of
the said Act relates to the post of Vice Chancellor which reads as under: H
-
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A “[10. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the State
Government from amongst three persons recommended under
sub-section (3) by a committee appointed for the purpose under
sub-section (2).
(2) (a) for the purpose of sub-section (1) the Chancellor shall
B appoint a Committee which shall consist of the following members,
namely:—
(i) two members (not being persons connected with the
University or with any affiliated college or recognised institution)
out of whom one shall be a person nominated in the manner
C prescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic
Council jointly and the other shall be a person nominated in the
manner prescribed by Statutes by the Vice-Chancellor of all
the Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat;
(ii) one member to be nominated by the Chancellor.
D (b) The Chancellor shall appoint one of three members of the
Committee as its chairman.
(3) The Committee so appointed shall, within such time and in
such manner as may be prescribed by Statutes, select three persons
whom it considers fit for being appointed Vice-Chancellor and
E shall recommend to the State Government the names of the persons
so selected together with such other particulars as may be
prescribed by the Statutes.
(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of three years
and he shall be eligible for being appointed to that office for a
further term of three years only.
F
(5) The emoluments to be paid to the Vice-Chancellor, and the
terms and conditions subject to which he shall hold office, 1 [shall
be determined by the State Government]:
Provided that such emoluments or such terms and conditions shall
G not, during the currency of the term of the holder of that office, be
varied to his disadvantage without his consent.
(6) (a) During the leave or absence of the Vice-Chancellor, or
(b) in the event of a permanent vacancy in the office of the Vice-
Chancellor, until an appointment is made under sub-section (1) to
H that office,
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 429
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, and in the absence of the Pro-Chancellor, A
one of the Deans nominated by 3 [the State Government], for that
purpose shall carry on the current duties of the office of the Vice-
Chancellor.”
12.1 As per Section 10 of the Act, 1955 the search committee
shall consist of two members (not being persons connected with the B
respondent - University or with any affiliated college or recognised
institution) out of whom, one shall be a person nominated in the manner
prescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic Council jointly
and the other shall be a person nominated in the manner prescribed by
Statutes by the Vice-Chancellor of all the Universities established by
law in the State of Gujarat and the third member to be nominated by the C
Chancellor.
Section 10 of the SPU Act does not provide any qualification
whatsoever for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. Even the
eligibility criteria to be prescribed is left to the Search Committee. There
are no guidelines whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to be prescribed D
by the Search Committee. On the other hand, the UGC Regulations,
2010/2018 specifically prescribes the qualification / eligibility criteria for
the post of Vice Chancellor. It also provides for the constitution of the
Search Committee. As observed hereinabove as per Regulation 7.3.0 a
person shall have ten years of teaching work experience as a professor E
in the university system and it also provides for constitution of a search
committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee
of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive
Council of the University. But respondent No.4 did not/ does not fulfil
the eligibility criteria prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018.
He was/is not having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor F
in the university system. Moreover, his name was not recommended by
the legally constituted search committee, constituted as per the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018. Also, the search committee has prescribed the
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor by diluting the eligibility
criteria laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. G
12.2 Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act, 1955/provisions under
the State legislation are just contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2010/
2018, which, as observed hereinabove, are binding on the State
Government and the universities thereunder. Even the State Government
has not bothered to amend the State legislation – to put at par with the H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 and has continued the appointment in the
universities dehors the UGC Regulations.
13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case
the UGC vide communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed to the H.E. –
Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of the University has
B drawn the attention of H.E. – Governor of Gujarat to ensure that all the
appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in accordance
with the provisions laid down in the Regulations of UGC. The letter/
communication dated 11.08.2014 reads as under: -
“University Grants Commission
C
Prof. Dr. Jaspal S. Sandhu
Secretary
D.O.No.F.1-1/2014(Secy) 11th August, 2014
At the outset kindly allow me to apologise for encroaching upon
D your precious time. But it is the criticality of the subject which has
compelled me to draw your kind attention to it.
The appointment of Vice-Chancellors in our University system
has become a subject of widespread criticism. We need visionary
leadership to give proper direction to higher education in today’s
E competitive world. It is possible only when we have persons of
the highest competence & integrity, in the position of the Vice-
Chancellor. In this connection, the University Grants Commission
had brought out a Regulations titled “Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities
F and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education, 2010. The UGC has prescribed the minimum
qualifications for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor in this
Regulation, which reads as under:
“Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals
G and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should
be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years
of experience as Professor in a University system or ten
years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed
research and/or academic administrative organization.”
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 431
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
It hardly needs any mention that the notifications published in The A
Gazette of India are mandatory. May I, therefore, request your
Excellency to use your good offices to ensure that all the
appointments of Vice-Chancellors in your State are made in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the aforementioned
Regulations of the UGC.
B
I am certain that your guidance and support in this regard will
make a huge difference in the governance of higher education in
the country.
Yours faithfully
Jaspal S.Sandhu C
Shri O.P. Kohli
Hon’ble Governor of Gujarat, Raj Bhawan
Gandhinagar 382 020 Gujarat”
13.1 That thereafter H.E. – Governor of Gujarat – Chancellor of D
the Universities communicated to the Principal Secretary to the
Government of Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 and
emphasized and requested him to take note of the UGC communication
dated 11.08.2014 and take necessary steps at the Government level.
The communication dated 30.08.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary
to the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, reads as under: - E
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNER OF GUJARAT
Raj Bhavan Ghandhinagar-382020.
Date: 30 AUG 2014 F
Important:
To,
The Principal Secretary to the
Government of Gujarat G
Education Department,
Block No.5, 7th Floor,
New Sachivalay, Gandhinagar
Sub: Appointment of Vice Chancellors
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A Ref: A Communication from the Secretary, University Grant
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi dated 11th August,
2014.
Sir,
With reference to the above subject, it is stated that recently
B we have received a communication from Prof. (Dr.) Jaspal S.
Sandhu, Secretary, University Grant Commission, New Delhi
reading the appointment of the vice chancellors in the universities.
It has been emphasized that the order to ensure maintenance of
standards in Higher Education, the UGC has prescribed certain
C minimum qualifications for the appointment of the Vice
Chancellors. Hon. Governor has been requested to ensure the all
the appointment of the Vice Chancellors in Gujarat are made in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulation.
(Copy of the communication is enclosed herewith for ready
reference)
D
You are requested to note the above pertinent communication
and take necessary steps at the Government level.
Regards,
Yours faithfully,
E sd/-
(Arvind Joshi)
Principal Secretary to Hon. Governor
13.2 Despite the above clear instructions from the office of H.E.
F – Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of all the universities,
it is unfortunate that till date the State legislation has not been amended
by the State Government and the appointments to the post of Vice
Chancellor in the Universities in the said State are being made just contrary
to the UGC guidelines and Regulations. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that even in the earlier round of litigation being SCA No.18922 of
G 2017 in which this very petitioner challenged the appointment of this
very respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of SPU made in the year
2016, the Division Bench of the High Court made certain observations
against the State Government not adopting the UGC Regulations and
not amending the State legislation appropriately. The relevant observations
H made by the High Court in para 24 are as under: -
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 433
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
“24. Even while upholding the appointment of the sixth respondent A
to the post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, this
court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that section 10 of the SPU
Act does not provide for any qualification whatsoever for
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor which would leave
room for a lot of arbitrariness in the matter of selection of persons
B
for appointment as Vice Chancellor. The UGC Regulations provide
for certain qualifications. However, the same are not binding unless
the State legislation is appropriately amended. The UGC, by a
communication dated 11 th August 2014, addressed to His
Excellency the Governor of Gujarat, has requested him to use his
good offices to ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors C
in the State are made in accordance with the provisions laid down
in the UGC Regulations, which provide for minimum qualifications
for the appointment of Vice Chancellor with reference to regulation
7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Pursuant thereto, the Principal
Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat addressed a D
communication dated 30th August 2014 to the Principal Secretary,
Government of Gujarat, requesting him to note the said important
communication and take necessary steps at the Government level.
However, it appears that such communication has been ignored
and no steps have been taken pursuant thereto. It is, therefore,
high time that the State of Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations E
and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room is
left for any manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism.”
Even the aforesaid observations made in para 24 were taken note
of by this Court while disposing of the SLP (C) No.21792 of 2018 in
which the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was under F
challenge.
13.3 Thus, despite the communication by the UGC dated
11.08.2014 and thereafter, the communication by the H.E. – Governor
of Gujarat dated 30.08.2014 and even the observations made by the
Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 24 in its judgment and G
order dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, reproduced
hereinabove, it is unfortunate that as on today, no further steps have
been taken by the State Government, to amend the State legislation and
to put the same at par with the UGC Regulations, and the State and the
universities thereunder have continued to make the appointments of Vice
H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A Chancellors just contrary to the UGC Regulations, which as observed
hereinabove are binding.
13.4 At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section 9
of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat is the Chancellor of
the University and he shall, by virtue of his office, be the head of the
B University and the President of the Senate. Therefore, even as the head
of the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University and
therefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary steps at the
Government level as requested in the communication dated 30.08.2014.
Even the request made by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also
the Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very lightly.
C The State ought to have taken the corrective measures by suitably
amending the State legislation on par with the UGC Regulations.
14. The submissions made by Shri Navare, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – SP University that
as the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, in which the
D appointment of respondent No.4 herein as the Vice Chancellor, was
under challenge came to be dismissed and the High Court refused to
issue a writ of quo warranto and the judgment and order passed by the
High Court in SCA No.18922 of 2017 was not disturbed by this Court
and therefore, the controversy stands concluded and it is not open for
E the petitioner to raise the same issue again is concerned, the aforesaid
submissions is noted only to be rejected. This Court did not opine anything
on the merits of the judgment and order passed by the High Court. This
Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the ground
that by the time the same was taken up for hearing the tenure of
respondent No.4 herein as a Vice Chancellor was coming to an end.
F Even while dismissing the same on the aforesaid ground alone, this Court
specifically observed that all the questions of law are left open.
15. Thus, we find that the appointment of respondent No.4 is
contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent No.4 has been
appointed by a search committee, not constituted as per the UGC
G Regulations, 2018. Moreover, respondent No.4 does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, namely, having ten years of
teaching work experience as a professor in the university system. As
observed hereinabove, by adopting the Scheme and having accepted
80% of the maintenance expenditure from the Central government and
H when respondent No.4 is paid a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 435
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is prescribed as per A
the Scheme of 2008, the State and the universities thereunder are bound
by the UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018. The
appointment of respondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibility
criteria prescribed by the Search Committee, which is as under: -
“1. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals B
and institutional commitment.
2. Persons should be a distinguished academician with proven
leadership qualities shall be satisfying anyone of the
following:
10 years’ experience of teaching and research. C
As professor or
Vice Chancellor / Pro Vice Chancellor of any
University including former Vice Chancellor / Pro
Vice Chancellor or
D
Director / Principal of a college / institution / Research
Organization with 15 years of teaching / research /
administration.”
In fact, in the instant case, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat who is
also the Chancellor of all the Universities in the said State had through
E
his Principal Secretary directed that the communication from the
Secretary, University Grants Commission, Government of India, New
Delhi dated 11th August, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps be
taken in that regard. We have referred to the aforesaid letter dated 30th
August, 2014. The letter of the Secretary of the UGC dated 11th August,
2014 to H.E. – Governor of Gujarat informing about the regulations F
titled “Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other
academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the
maintenance of standards in higher education, 2010” has also been
extracted above in the said letter. It has been clearly stated that the
UGC has prescribed minimum qualifications for the appointment of a
G
Vice-Chancellor and therefore, such an appointment must be in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the afore-mentioned
regulations of the UGC. It is clear that the respondent-State of Gujarat
has failed to take note of the communication from the UGC and instead
the respondent-University has left to the sweet will of the search
committee to prescribe eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Vice- H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A Chancellor of the University. The eligibility criteria when once fixed by
the UGC under its regulations would in our view apply to all the universities
which are aided by the UGC to be bound by the said regulations even in
the absence of the same being incorporated under the respective
universities Act of the respective States. Therefore, when the appointment
of respondent No.4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations,
B
2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, we are of
the opinion that this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to
quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice
Chancellor of the SP University.
16. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted
C by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g)
of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation
made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament.
Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes
part of the Act. In case of any conflict between State legislation and
D Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/
principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution
as the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh
Schedule 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
E quo warranto.
17. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
above, the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of the
SP University – respondent No.2 herein, is contrary to the UGC
provisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018. We hence allow the present
F writ petition and issue a writ of quo warranto quashing and setting aside
the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP
University. The present petition is accordingly, Allowed.
17.1 Before parting we may hope and trust that wiser counsel
will now prevail and the State Government shall amend the State legislation
G accordingly on par with the UGC Regulations, which as such was
recommended by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat as far as back in the
year 2014 and even thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court
had made observations in para 24 of its judgment and order dated
05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, in which, the High Court observed
H that it is high time that the State Government adopts the UGC Regulations
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 437
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room is left for A
any manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism, before any
fresh appointment as a Vice Chancellor in the State and the universities
thereunder are made. As observed hereinabove, prescribing the eligibility
criteria shall not be left to the sweet will of the search committee. It may
lead to arbitrariness and different search committees in absence of any
B
statutory guidelines and/or prescription, may prescribe different eligibility
criteria.
17.2 It is to be noted that the post of Vice Chancellor of the
University is a very important post so far as the University is concerned.
Being a leader and head of the institution, the Vice Chancellor of the
University has to play very important role. While academic qualifications, C
administrative experience, research credentials and track record could
be considered as basic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities of a
Vice Chancellor would be one who is a true leader and a passionate
visionary. A Vice Chancellor needs to be one who understands and
handles the affairs of the University as ethical business and maintains a D
pellucidity in his conduct towards the betterment of the University as
well as the students therein. A Vice Chancellor should be one who can
inspire students and guarantee entry of high-quality teachers into the
University system. A Vice Chancellor functions as a bridge between the
executive and academic wings of a university as he is the head of both
a ‘teacher’ and an ‘administrator’. E
We may refer to some of the significant commission reports
concerning the personality and role of a Vice-Chancellor of a university
as under:
a) The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated that F
originally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian University
was regarded as an honorary post to be filled by a prominent
man in his leisure time. But now the position has changed,
there is enough work to justify a full-time appointment and
the Universities should have full time paid Vice-Chancellors.
While discussing the duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the G
Commission stated that a Vice-Chancellor must be the chief
liaison between the University and the public and must be a
keeper of the university’s conscience, both setting the highest
standard by example and dealing firmly and promptly with
indiscipline and malpractice of any kind. He/she must have H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A the strength of character to resist unflinchingly the many
forms of pressure. Being a full-time task, it needs an
exceptional man (or woman) to undertake it. The
Commission rejected the proposal of selecting the Vice-
Chancellor by an external body and recommended that the
Chancellor should appoint the Vice-Chancellor upon the
B
recommendation of the Executive.
b) The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governance of
Universities and Collegesby the University Grants
Commission chaired by Dr. P.B. Gajendragadkar,
former Chief Justice of India while reiterating the
C recommendations and observations made by the aforesaid
commissions alsostated that the selection of a Vice-
Chancellor is the single most important decision that the
governing body of the university may be called upon to
make. While the Chancellor of a University may be a high
D dignitary of the State of Union of India or an eminent scholar
or eminent person in public life of the State, the appointment
of Vice-Chancellor, being the important functionary of the
University is most strategic. The powers of proper
maintenance of discipline and a healthy environment for
both teachers and students in the university is vested with
E the Vice-Chancellor along with all the other powers vested
in him/her by various Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations.
The Commission also stated that appointment of a Vice-
Chancellor is made in most of the Universities out of a panel
of at least three names by the Chancellor in case of State
F Universities and by the Visitor in case of Central
Universities. The panel of names is prepared by a Search
Committee constituted in accordance with the provision of
Act/Statute. Since it was difficult to have a uniform system
of forming a committee in all the States, the alternatives to
constitute the Search Committee were also provided in the
G report.
c) The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards New
Educational Management by Professor A. Gnanam
(also called as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990)
accentuated the role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating that the
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 439
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
Vice-Chancellor should be a person with vision and qualities A
of academic leadership and with a flair for administration
because what the universities need is a sensitive, efficient,
fair and bold administrator. The Vice-Chancellor should be
a distinguished educationist from the higher education system
having highest level of competence, integrity, morals and
B
self-respect.
d) The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented that the
universities need distinguished and dignified persons as Vice-
Chancellors and it is necessary to ensure that they are
treated with dignity and regard, which the office merits.
C
e) The University Grants Commission in its hand book
titled Governance in Higher Education: Hand Book
for Vice-Chancellors published in 2019 has penned down
the role of Vice-Chancellor of Indian Universities having
gained a paramount importance in the recent times. In the
words of the Prof. D.P. Singh, the then Chairman of D
University Grants Commission and Former Director of
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC):-
“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads of Universities,
the Vice Chancellors are expected to be efficient and
effective in terms of: - E
a. Implementation of National Higher Education Policy
and programmes,
b. Institutional change in tune with the national reforms
package, F
c. Quality and innovation enhancement and their
sustainability,
d. Productive engagement with ‘communities of
scholars’ from within their universities and from
national and international domains, G
e. Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation Ecosystem’
and translation of deliverables to society and economy
f. Adoption of international best practices of ‘Good
Governance.”
H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 4 S.C.R.
A ‘The Vice Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of a
symphony of orchestra with the attributes of: -
a. Developing teams and teamwork, building
partnerships and collaborations delicately interwoven
by collegiality, friendship and intellectual engagement;
B b. devising a strategy and action plan with defined
milestones and deliverables;
c. ensuring primary accountabilities of self and the
above-mentioned university governing bodies; and
C d. steering an institutional monitoring and evaluation
mechanism on university performance built on
principles of transparency.’
Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle of governance
as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra- ‘Yatha Raja Tatha Praja’, the
D sense of morality must begin from the door of the leader who preaches
it.
Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-Chancellor is the
leader of a higher education institution. As per the norm, he/she should
be an eminent academician, excellent administrator and also someone
who has a high moral stature. The aforesaid reports of the Radhakrishnan
E
Commission, Kothari Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh
Committee have highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellor
in maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in addition to its
growth and development, keeping in view, the much-needed changes
from time to time. Further, these committees have also made suggestions
F and recommendations for identifying the right person for the said position.
At this stage, it is correct to say that a Vice-Chancellor is the king-pin of
a University’s system and a keeper of the University’s conscience.
Further, in our view, the Search / Selection Committee plays a
vital and significant role in the selection of the Vice Chancellor; yet the
G selected Vice Chancellor’s performance in the universities vary from
university to university. Therefore, the members of the Search Committee,
who are given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting names
for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or indirectly
responsible for the achievement of the University. Commitment to the
quality and the objectives of the universities in particular and higher
H
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 441
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
education system in general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting A
the right person.
We are sure and we hope and trust that while making afresh
appointment of Vice Chancellor in the State and the universities
thereunder, the aforesaid aspects shall be kept in mind by the State and
the concerned universities. With this hope and trust we leave the matter B
there.
Devika Gujral Writ Petition allowed.
(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "UGC Regulations"Sign in to search