Supreme Court of India
KALYANI MATHIVANANversusK. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 207
- Decided
- 11 March 2015
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA
Holding
UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and partly directory; they bind central universities but do not override the State University Act unless adopted by the State, so the appointment of Dr. Mathivanan as Vice‑Chancellor stands.
Summary
Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan was appointed Vice‑Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University by a Tamil Nadu government order, but two writ petitions challenged her appointment on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2010. The High Court set aside the appointment, holding that the Regulations were mandatory and that the appellant was not a "distinguished academician" with the required ten years of experience. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory or directory, whether they can override the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965, and whether the post of Vice‑Chancellor is part of the teaching staff. The Court held that the Regulations are partly mandatory and partly directory, that they apply to central universities but are only applicable to state universities if the state government adopts them, and that, since Tamil Nadu had not adopted the Regulations, there was no conflict with the State Act. Consequently, the appointment was upheld and the High Court's order was set aside.
Issues considered
- The nature of UGC Regulations, 2010 – whether they are mandatory or directory.
- Whether UGC Regulations, 2010 can override the qualifications prescribed under the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965.
- Whether the post of Vice‑Chancellor is to be treated as part of the teaching staff for the purpose of UGC Regulations.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art. 246, s. Art. 254, s. List I Entry 66, s. List III Entry 25
- Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965s. 10, s. 12, s. 23, s. 24, s. 2(m), s. 2(n), s. 2(t), s. 32, s. 8, s. 9
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 12, s. 14, s. 26, s. 28
Subjects
appointment of Vice‑ChancellorUGC Regulations 2010eligibility criteriarepugnancy of state and central lawmandatory vs directory regulationsconstitutional lawhigher educationservice law
Judgment
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 467
KALYANI MATHIVANAN A
v.
K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 5946-5947 of2014 B
MARCH 11, 2015.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
N. V. RAMANA, JJ.]
'C
Service law-Appointment- Post of Vice-Chancellor
of the University- Appellant's appointment to the said post
challenged, on the ground that as per the UGC Regulations
2010, appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria -Appellant
neither a distinguished academician, with a minimum of 10 D
years experience as professor in a University system nor 10
years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed
research/academic organization -Appellant's case that she
was qualified for the post as per the 1965 Act; and that UGC
Regulations, 2010 were directory and cannot override the E
provisions of the 1965 Act- Appointment set aside by the
High Court- On appeal, held: Post of Vice-Chancellor under
the 1965 Act is a post of an Officer - Provisions regarding
Vice-Chancellor was made for the first time under UGC F
Regulations, 201 O"'" UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory
to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central
Universities and Colleges thereunder; and directory for the
Universities, Colleges and other higher educational
institutions under the State Legislation as the matter has been G
left to the State Government to adopt and implement the
Scheme - Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory
and is partly directory- UGC Regulations, 2010 having not
adopted by the State, the conflict between State Legislation
.H
467
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A and Statutes framed under Central Legislation does not arise
- Once it is adopted by the State Government, the State
Legislation is to be amended appropriately and there shall
be no conflict between the State Legislation and the Central
Legislation - Thus, the appointment of the appellant as Vice
B Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University upheld - UGC
Regulations of Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards
C inHigher Education 2010- Regulations 7.0.0., 7.3.0., 7.4.0
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - ss. 12, 14, 26,
28- Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965 - ss. 2(m), (n),
(t), 8, 9, 10, 12, 23, 24, 32-Constitution of/ndia, 1950-Art.
246, Seventh Schedule List I entry 66, List Ill entry 25, Art.
D 254.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appointment of the appellant as
ViceChancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University as made by
E the G.O. (1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 is upheld
and the judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Para 45] [525-A-B]
F 1.2 The post of Vice-Chancellor under the
University Act, 1965 isa post of an Officer. The University
Grants Commission Act 1956 as also University Grants
Commission Regulations, 2000 are silent in regard to
G post of Vice-Chancellor. The provisions regarding Vice-
Chancellor have been made for the firsttime under UGC
Regulations, 201 o. UGC Regulations, 2010 is not
applicable to the Universities, Colleges and other higher
educational institutions coming under the purview of the
H · State Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 469
and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and A
conditions therein. The University Act has not been
amended in terms of UGC Regulations, 2010 nor was
any action taken by the UGC under Section 14 of UGC
Act, .1956 as a consequence of failure of University to
comply with the recommendations of the Commission B
under Section 14ofthe UGCAct, 1956. (Para 39, 40] (520-
F-H; 521-A-B, C-D]
1.3 To the extentthe State Legislation is in conflict
with Central Legislation including sub-ordinate C
legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry
25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the
Central Legislation and would be inoperative. The UGC
Regulations being passed by both the Houses of D
Parliament, though a sub-ordinate legislation has binding
effect on the Universities to which it applies. UGC
Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other
academic staff in all the Central Universities and Colleges
thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be Universities E
whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. UGC
Regulations, 2010 is directory for the Universities,
Colleges and other higher educational institutions under
the purview of the State Legislation as the matter has
been left to the State Government to adopt and F
implement the Scheme. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is
partly mandatory and is partly directory. UGC
Regulations, 2010 having not adopted by the State Tamil
Nadu, the question of conflict between State Legislation
and Statutes framed under Central Legislation does not G
arise. Once it is adopted by the State Government, the
State Legislation to be amended appropriately. In such
case also there shall be no conflict between the State
Legislation and the Central Legislation. [Para 44] [524- H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A B-H]
1.4 The finding of the Bombay High Court in
*Suresh Patilkhede case that Regulation 7 .3.0 of the UGC
~egulations, 2010 is not traceable to clause (e) or (g) of
B . Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956 cannot be accepted. Also
it cannot be accepted that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 being a sub-ordinate legislation under
the Act of Parliament cannot override the preliminary
legislation enacted by the State Legislature. However,
C the finding of the Bombay High Court that Regulation
7.3.0 has to be treated as recommendatory in nature is
upheld in so far as it relates to Universities ~nd Colleges
under the State Legislation. [Para 43) [523-F-H; 524-A]
D Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government,
Information and Tourism Department and Others 2009
(3) SCR 355: (2009) 4 sec 590 - relied on .
.
Suresh Patilkhede of Thane vs. Chancellor, University
E of Maharashtra 2012 (6) ALLMR 336; State of Tamil
Nadu and another vs. Adhiyhaman Education &
Research Institute and Others 1995 (2)
SCR 1075: (1995) 4SCC104; Dr. Preeti Srivastava
and another vs. State of M.P. and others 1999 (1)
F Suppl. SCR 249: (1999) 7 SCC 120- referred to.
Case Law Reference
2012 (6) ALLMR 336 Referred to. Para 9
G
1995 (2) SCR 1075 Referred to. Para 34
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 Referred to. Para 35
2009 (3) SCR 355 Relied on. Para 36
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 471
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. A
5946-5947 of2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2014 of
the High Court of Madras in Madurai bench in W. P. (MD)
Nos.11350of2012and3318of2013 B
WITH
C. A. Nos. 8602-8603 and 6455-6456 of 20:14
K. K. Venugopal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Guru Krishna C
Kumar, R. Venkataramani, Subramonium Prasad,AAG, Gopal
Sankranarayanan, Prerna Priyadarshni, Pooja Dhar,
Vikramaditya, MegaAggarwal, S. Janani, M. Yogesh Kanna,
V. Shyamohan, C. Y. Dhinoja,Abhishek Kumar, G Balaji, Athira . D
Nair, Mahalakshmi Pavani, Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co., Satya
Mitra Garg, ManjuAggarwal, Neelam Singh, Geetha Kovilan
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. These
appeals have been preferred· by the appellants against a
common judgment and order dated 26th June, 2014 passed
by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai
Bench in Writ Petition (MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition F
(MD) No.3318of2013.
The aforesaid writ petitions were preferred by K.V.
Jeyaraj and I. Ismail respondents/writ petitioners praying for
issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing the appellant- Dr. G
Kalyani Mathivanan to show cause under what authority she
continues to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Madurai
Kamaraj University.
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 3 S.C.R.
A 2. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that
the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan did not satisfy the
eligibility criteria stipulated by the UGC Regulations of
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures
B for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010
(hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Regulations, 201 O') for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor and non-fulfilment of such
eligibility criteria cannot be completely white washed on the
C specious plea that the University Grants Commission
Regulations, 2010 are not mandatory. The High Court set aside
the order of appointment of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani
Mathivanan and allowed the writ petitions.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
D
The post of Vice-Chancellor in Madurai Kamaraj
University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') fell vacant
in the year 2011-2012 and the Government constituted a
search Committee to appoint a suitable candidate. All together
E names of 104 persons were considered by the search
Committee and finally three persons namely (1) Dr. R.
Jayaraman, Professor of Management Studies (Retd.),
Member Secretary, Centre for Entrepreneurship Development,
F Madurai, (2)Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, Head of the Department
of English, Ethiraj College for Women, Cherinai and (3)Dr. T.
Ramasamy, Professor of History (on lien) Re9istrar,
Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli were short listed. On
the basis of the recommendation of the search Committee,
G the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan was selected and
appointed as Vice-Chancellor by G.0.(1D)No.80, Higher
Education (H2)Department, Gov&1mment'ofTamil Nadu dated
9th April, 2012 for a period of three years with effect from the
date of assumption of office.
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K: V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 473
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
4. Challenging the selection of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani A
Mathivanan, two separate writ petitions were preferred by Dr.
K.V. Jeyaraj, and Dr. I. Ismail, who were aspirants to the said
post-respondents herein. The said challeng~ was mainly on
the ground that as per UGC Regulations, 2010, the person to
be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, should be a distinguished B
academician, with a minimum of 10 years experience as
Professor in a University system or 10 years of experience in
an equivalent position in a reputed research/academic
organization and Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan does not satisfy the C
said criteria. The High Court took up both the writ petitions
together for disposal and by the judgment and order allowed
the writ petitions and set aside the appointment order of
appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor.
D
5. The appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan on notice.
appeared before the High Court and brought to the notice of
the Court the following facts:
She was appointed as Assistant Professor in Ethiraj
College on 16th January, 1981. The Government of Tamil Nadu E
on 5th December, 1983 redesignated the post of Assistant
Professor as Lecturer and Professor as Lecturer [Senior
Scale/Selection Grade]. She was promoted as Lecturer
(Senior Scale) in Ethiraj College on 22nd August, 1991. Since, F
1995, the appellant has been a recognized Guide for M.Phil.
candidates in the University of Madras. The appellant was
promoted as Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader on 7th May,
1998 and since then she has been a Recognized Guide for
Ph.D candidate in the University of Madras. In 2008, She was G
promoted as Head of the English Department, Ethiraj College.
On 9th September, 2009, the Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu based on the report of the Official
Committee constituted to examine the recommendations of
H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A the GK. Chadha Committee, passed an order that there shall
be only three designations in respect of Teachers in
Universities and Colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors. It was further ordered
that the posts of Professors shall be created for under-
B Graduate and Post-Graduate Colleges on the basis of
guidelines prescribed therein. However, this direction has not
been implemented till date in the State of Tamil Nadu.
6. On behalf of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, it
C · was further contended that she is qualified for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor of the University as per the Madurai Kamaraj
University Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'University
· Act, 1965'). It was further contended that the UGC Regulations,
2010 are not mandatory but directory and cannot override the
0 provisions of the UniversityAct, 1965.
7. The High Court by the impugned order framed the
fol.lowing questions for consideration, namely:
E (i) whether the post of Associate Professor held by the
appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan in a private aided
College can be considered as an equivalent post,
satisfying requirement of paragraph 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010;
F
(ii) whether the prescriptions contained in paragraph
7.3.. 0 of theAnnexure. to the UGC Regulations, 2010 is
. mandatory or directory; and whether the U.G.C.
Regulation, 2010 would override the provisions of the
G University Act, 1965 and the Statute framed thereunder.
8. The High Court after taking into consideration the
qualification laid down in theAnnexure to the UGC Regulations,
2010 answered the first question in negative, against the.
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 475
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan. A
The High Court also rejected the submission that the Vice-
Chancellor need not be a Professor or teacher and
observed as follows:
B
"44. Therefore, it is not possible to accept contention
that drawing inspiration from the past, one need not be
a Professor or even a teacher to become a Vice-
Chancellor. As a matter of fact, several committees
were constituted in the past about 70 years by the c
Government of India, to improve the standards of
Universities. Recently, a study was conducted by two
persons by name K. Sudha Rao, Vice-Chancellor,
Karnataka State Open University, Mysore and Advisor
ASERF and Mithilesh Kr. Singh, Senior Fellow, D
(ASERF), New Delhi analysing the different methods
adopted for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor in
Indian Universities in comparison to those adopted by
some foreign Universities.
E
45. This paper indicates that as per the reports of
the Radhakrishnan Commission (1948:422-23),
Kothari Commission (1964-1966: 333-35), Gnanam
Committee (1990: 27-30) and Ram/al Parujg
Committee (1993:15-17), the Vice-Chancellors have
an important role in maintaining the quality and
relevance of universities. The highlights of some of the
committees were extracted in the said paper by the
learned authors as follows:-
G
Generally the Vice-Chancellor should be a
distinguished educationist or eminent scholar in any
of the disciplines or professions, with a high standing
in his/her field and adequate administrative
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 3 S.C.R.
A experience. We are not generally in favour of
appointment of persons who have retired from other
fields. An exception to this general recommendation
should be made only in the case of very outstanding
persons whose association with the universities would
B be desirable from every point of view and should not
be made an excuse for accommodating' or 'rewarding
individuals who do not fulfill the conditions laid down. A
Vice-Chancellor is one who stands for the commitment
of the University to scholarship and pursuit of
c truth.(Kothari Commission 1964-66:334)
A Vice-Chancellor should be a person with vision.
and (have) qualities of academic leadership with ability
for administration. 1-/e should command high respect
D
among all sections of the society. The Vice-Chancellor
should be a distinguished academic ... (who) has
commitment to the values for which the Universities
stand .... He must have the ability to provide leadership
E to the University by his academic worth, administrative
competence and moral stature,. (Kothari Commission
1964-66:334)
Parikh Committee was not in favour of appointing
F Government officials as VCs. Quoting the Kothari
Commission Report, the Parikh Committee mentions
that the Vice-Chancellor is the most important
functionary in a University not only on the
administrative side but is also charged with the
G responsibility of creating the right atmosphere for
teachers and students.
The Universities need distinguished and dignified
persons as VCs and it is necessary to ensure that they
H are treated with dignity and regard, which the office
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 477
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
merits. (Ram/a/ Parikh Committee 1993: 15). A
The Vice-Chancellor is the most important
functionary in a University, not only on the
administrative side but also for securing the right
atmosphere for the teachers and the students to do their 8
work effectively and in the right spirit. (Report of the
Committee on Model Act for Universities 1964:11)
The Vice-Chancellor being the principal executive
and academic officer of the University, should exercise c
general supervision and control over the affairs of the
University and give effect to the decision of all its
authorities. He shall be the ex-officio Chairman of the
Court, Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance
Committee and Selection Committees and shall, in the D
absence of the Chancellor preside at any convocation
of the University for conferring degrees. It shall be .the
duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that the provisions
of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances and Regulations
E
are fully observed and he should have the power
necessary for the discharge of this duty.
(Gajendragadkar Committee on the Governance of the
Unviersity, 1971 :60).
In accordance with Regulation 1 for the office of F
VG (Statutes and Ordinances of Cambridge University,
June 2002:655) ... VG is of a stature and his/her
presence commensurate to lead a distinguished
academic institution. The stated mission of the
G
University is to contribute to society through the pursuit
of education, learning, and research at the highest
international levels of excellence. The VG must f?e of
exceptional caliber with academic credibility, clear
strategic vision, and outstanding leadership qualities. H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A He/she should have strong management skills and ·
senior level experience gained in a complex institution
and the ability to bring them to bear in a democratic,
self governing University. The ability to promote the
University in a regional, national and international
B context, and to increase the financial resources
available to the University, should be key, particularly
in order to realise the full potential of the University."
9. By the impugned judgment, the Madras High Court
C differed with the finding of the Bombay High Court in a similar
case, "Suresh Patilkhede of Thane vs. Chancellor,
University of Maharashtra, in PIL (L} No.8012011, 2012
(6) ALLMR 336. The Bombay High Court by the said judgment
held that Vice-Chancellor in his said capacity cannot be
.o considered as a member of the academic or teaching staff of
the University and also held that the UGC Regulations, 2010
is directory in nature. In the impugned judgment Madras High
Court observed as follows:
E "46. Therefore, with great respect, we are unable to
subscribe to the view expressed by the Bombay High
Court in paragraph 13 of the decision in Suresh
Patikhede that the Vice-Chancellor need not be
considered as a member of the academic teaching
F
staff.
10. The High Court further observed:
"48. If University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010
G will have to be given effect to (subject to our finding on
the next two facets of question No.2), the Vice-
Chancel/or should actually be a distinguished
academician. Today, Albert Einstein cannot be
appointed as the Vice-Chanceilor of any University (at
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 479
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
least in India) unless he fulfills the qualifications A
prescribed by University Grants Commission, the
reason being that after a legislative enactment lays
down the objective criteria, there is no place for
subjective satisfaction.
B
49. We do not mean to say that the fourth respondent is
not an academician. She has always been a teacher
and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, teamed Advocate General took
great pains to highlight the academic and other
achievements of the fourth respondent. But we are c
solely on the question as to whether we could concur
with the opinion of the Bombay High Court that a Vice-
Chancellor is not part of the teaching staff. There may
be a hair splitting difference between being part of an
D
academic stream and being part of the teaching faculty.
But it is not possible for us to accept the interpretation
that one can be the academic head but cannot be
considered as part of the teaching staff."
E
11. For determination of the second question, the
High Court formulated three issues as follows:
"33. In our considered view, the second question
before us, actually has three facets namely:-
F
a) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor is not to be
considered as part of the teaching staff;
b) Whether the Madurai Kamaraj University Act
and the Statutes issued thereunder prescribe a different G
set of qualifications for the post of Vice-Chancellor than
those prescribed by the University Grants Commission
Regulations, 2010 leading to a conflict; and
c) Whether in the event of a conflict between the H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 3 S.C.R.
A State enactment and the University Grants Commission
Regulations, 2010, the provisions of the State
enactment would prevail."
12. The High Court held that the post of Vice-Chancellor
B is a part of academia i.e. teaching staff and the UGC
Regulations, 2010 will prevail over the State enactment i.e.
University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder in the event
of a conflict.
c 13. The High Court in the impugned judgment discussed
the background history of appointment of Vice-Chancellor in
India and observed as follows:
"43. It is true that when the seeds of Western
D education were shown in this country about 150 years
ago, men of eminence from various walks of life were
appointed as Vice-Chancellors. Several Judges of this
Court have adorned the post of Vice-Chancellor of
various Universities including the Madras University
E itself. But apart from being great (and rare) Judges,
those men were also distinguished academicians who
excelled in various fields.
students of Indian History would know that Sir John
F George Woodraffwho was a Judge of the Calcutta High
Court and who retired as the Officiating Chief Justice
of the same Court, collaborated with Ameer Ali in
publishing the Civil Procedure Code. He was a great
Sanskrit scholar wl10 authored books on Mantra Sastra
G and Tantra Sastra, After retiring as the Officiating Chief
Justice, he served a Reader in law in the Oxford
University for seven years. Great Jurists, both (Lawyers
and Judges) such as Sir Subramanya Ayyar, Sir
PS.SivaswamyAwar; JusticeF.D. Oldfield were among
H
•
+
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 481
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
a few who became the Vice-Chancellors of Madras A
University, ever since its inception about 150 years.
But today, it is not possible to continue with the same
legacy or two reasons, namely:-
(a) that we do not have such tall men of great B
eminence and
(b) that today the field is regulated by law."
14. The High Court also relied on an Article titled 'Why C
Socrates should be in the Boardroom in Research
Universities', published in 2010 by Amanda H. Goodall, for
determining the case and observed as follows:
"47. In an interesting Article, titled Why Socrates
D
should be in the Boardroom in Research Universities,
published in 2010 by Amanda H. Goodall, Leverhulme
Fellow, Warwick Business School, the author points out
two contrasting events that happened in 2003 and 2004.
It is common knqwledge that Cambridge University E
came into existence in 1209 and almost about 800
years later, a distinguished Anthropologist, by name
Alison Richard, was appointed as the 344th President
or Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge. She was an
acclaimed academician. In contrast to what happened F
at Cambridge in 2003, Oxford University appointed in
2004, a person by name John Hood, who was not an
academic but was only a businessman. He became
the first head of Oxford University, ever since the year
1230, to be elected to the Vice-Chancellorship from G
outside the University's current academic body. The
paper authored by Amanda Goodall considered the
question as to why Cambridge and Oxford chose such
different individuals to lead their ancient and reputed
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 3 S.C.R.
A institutions. The central theme of the paper was as to
whether there was a relationship between University
performance and leadership by an accomplished
researcher. Eventually, after analysing the statistics from
about 100 Universities throughout the world, the author
B came to the conclusion, supported by evidence that
Research Universities should be led by top scholars.
The conclusions reached by the author could be
summarized as follows:
c (i) That the best Universities in the world are led by
more established scholars;
(ii) That scholar-leaders are considered to be more
credible leaders in Universities, commanding greater
D respect from their academic peers.
(iii) That setting an organisation's academic
standards is a significant part of the function of the Vice-
Chancellor and hence one should expect the standard
E bearer to first year that standard.
(iv) That a leader, who is an established scholar,
signals the institution's priorities, internally to its faculties
and externally to potential new academic recruits,
F students, alumni, donors and the media. '
(v) That since scholarship cannot be viewed as a
proxy for either management experience or leadership
skills, an expert leader must also have expertise in
G areas other than scholarship."
15. Learned counsel for parties relied on the aforesaid
observation made by the High Court but we are of the view
that it is not necessary to notice the background history of
·H appointment of Vice-Chan~llors or the great personalities who
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 483
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
held such posts or the interestingArticle, titled 'Why Socrates A
should be in the Boardroom in Research Universities',
published in 2010 by Amanda H. Goodall as they are not
relevant for determining the issue involved in the present case.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-Dr. Kalyani B
Mathivanan, has taken similar pleas as were taken before the
High Court.
17. The contesting respondent No.1-Dr. K.Y. Jeyaraj
has taken the following pleas: c
{i) The words "Teaching Staff of the University" occuning
in Clause (e) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956 are
words of wide import. Section 2(n) of the Madurai
Kamaraj University Act defines Teachers of the D
University, as persons appointed by the University to
give instruction on its behalf. Any person appointed to
the University including the Vice-Chancellor, other than
mere administrative staff can be required by the
University to give instructions on its behalf. Thus, E
teaching staff should include those who are appointed
to contribute and who can be called upon to contribute
to or assigned to contribute to educational activities of
the University in its functional sense.
F
(ii) The UGC regulations having been perceived to be
for the advancement and promotion of University
education, will qualify as a high principle of persuasive
public policy which would commend itself for acceptance
by the University. It is a matter of fact that no University G
Act .has provided for, or enacted in respect of
qualifications for appointment of Vice-Chancellors. To
the extent that such a matter is not occupied by State
University legislation falling under Entry 25 of the
H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A concurrent list, it would be subject to all provisions
enacted including regulations, traceable to Entry 66,
List- I. This Hon'ble Court has declared that regulations
made under statutes traceable to Entry 66 would also
fall within the scope of Entry 66 and would override
B legislation under Entry 25.
(iii) The UGC Regulations are persuasive principles
of public policy relevant for the promotion and
advancement of University and higher education.
c Consequently in the absence of any higher standards
and in the absence of any other relevant guidelines,
the appointing authority cannot act in disregard of the
UGC guidelines. The selection process will be a
process void for Jack of any standard. Acting in this
D
regard would thus be in frustration of the object and
purposes of UGC Act as well as the University
legislation itself.
(iv) A person appointed to a public office without
E reference to any standards or norms or criteria, has no
right to hold such an office. Since all appointments to
all public offices created by statutes have to be made
on the basis of a norm, standard or a criterion, the onus
is on the person appointed to show that a relevant norm,
F
standard or criterion has been adopted. This has not
been done by the appellant.
(v) No case has been canvassed that the appointment
in question is otherwise based on a relevant standard
G
or criterion, higher in quality than the UGC Regulations.
No case has also been made out that on the application
of such a higher criterion that the appointing authority
did not find any other person considered for
H appointment, as suitable and fit enough to be appointed
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 485
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
as Vice-Chancellor. A
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and the issues that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether UGC Regulations, 2010 is mandatory in
B
nature; and
(ii) Whether in the event of conflict between the
University Act, Regulations framed thereunder and the
UGC Regulations, 2010, the provisions of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 would prevail or not; and
c
(iii) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor of a University
is to be considered as part of teaching staff.
19. For determination of these issues, it is necessary D
to notice the relevant provisions of University Commission Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'UGC Act, 1956'), UGC
Regulations, 2010, the University Act, 1965 and the statutes
framed thereunder.
E
University Grants Commission Act, 1956:
UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisions for
the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities
and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants F
Commission.
Section 12 deals with the 'function of the Commission', relevant
of which is quoted hereunder:
G
"12. It shall be the general duty of the Commission to
take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies
concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the
promotion and co-ordination of University education
and for the determination and maintenance of standards H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 3 S.C.R.
A of teaching, examination and research in Universities,
and for the purpose of performing its functions under
this Act, the Commission may-
(a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities;
B
(b) ............................. .
(c) ............................. .
(d) recommend to any University the measures
c necessary for the improvement of University education
and advise the University upon the action to be taken
for the purpose of implementing such recommendation;
(e) to (i) ... ....................... .
D
(j) perform such other functions as may be
prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the
Commission for advancing the cause of higher
education in India or as maybe incidental or
E conducive to the discharge of the above functions."
Section 14 deals with 'consequences offailure of
Universities to comply with recommendations of the
Commission' which is as follows:
F
14. If any University 1[grants affiliation in respect of any
course of study to any college referred to in subsection
(5) of section 12A in contravention of the provisions of
that. sub-section or] fails within a reasonable time to
G comply with any recommendation made by the
Commission under section 12 or section 13, 2[or
contravenes the provision of any rule made under
clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 25,
or of any regulation made underclause(e) orclausejf)
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 487
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
or clause (g) of section 26,] the Commission, after A
taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by
the University 3[for Such failure or contraventions may
withhold from the University the grants proposed to be
made out of the Fund of the Commission."
B
20. Another relevant provision with which we are
concerned is Section 26 - 'power to make regulations'. The ·
. relevant portion of the said section is quoted below:
"Section 26. (1) The Commission {may, by notification c
in the Official Gazette, make regulations] consistent with
this Act and the rules made thereunder-
(a) to (d) x x x x x
D
"(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily
be required of any person to be appointed to the
· teaching staff of the University, having regard to the
branch of education in which he is expected to give
instruction;" E
(f)xxxx
"(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the
co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities."
F
21. As per Section 28 the Rules and Regulations framed
under the U. GC. Act are required to be laid before each House
of Parliament and when both the Houses agree then the Rules
and Regulations can be given effect with such modification as
may be made by the Parliament. Section 28 reads as below: G
"Section 28. Every rule and every regulation made
under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is
made, before each House of Parliament while it is in
H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A session, for a total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session
immediately following the session, or the successive
sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any
B modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses
agree that the rule or regulation should not be made,
the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in
such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may,
be; so, however, that any such modification or
c
annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done under that rule or regulation.']
[No rule made or purporting to have been made, with
retrospective effect, under section 25 of the principal
D
Act before the commencement of this Act shall be
deemed to have been invalid or ever to have been
invalid merely on the round that such rule was made
with retrospective effect and accordingly every such rule
E and every action taken or thing done thereunder shall
be as valid and effective as if the provisions of section
25 of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, were in
force at all material times when such rule was made or
action or thing was taken or done.]"
F
22. From the aforesaid provisions, we find that the
University Grants Commission has been established for the
determination of standard of Universities, promotion and co-
ordina~ion of University education, for the determination and
G maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and
research in Universities, for defining the qualifications
regarding the teaching staff of the University, maintenance of
standards etc. For the purpose of performing its functions under
the UGC Act (see Section 12) like defining the qualifications
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 489
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
and standard that should ordinarily be required of any person A
to be appointed in the Universities [see Section 26(1)(e)(g)]
UGC is empowered to frame regulations.
It is only when both the Houses of the Parliament
approve the regulation, the same can be given effect. Thus, B
we hold that the U.G.C. Regulations though a subordinate
legislation has binding effect on the Universities to which it
applies; and consequence of failure of the University to comply
with the recommendations of the Commission, the UGC may
withhold the grants to the university made out of the Fund of C
the Commission. (See Section 14)
23. UGC Regulations, 2010 and Annexure
enclosed therein
D
For the appointment and career· advancement of
teachers in the Universities and Institutions affiliated to it UGC
by Regulation No.F.3-1/2000(PS) dated 4th April, 2000,
enacted the University Grants Commission(Minimum
qualifications required for the appointment and career E
advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions
affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as
the "UGC Regulations, 2000"). In the said Regulation of 2000,
no qualifications were prescribed for the post of 'Pro-
Chancellor' or ·v:ce-Chancellor'. F
The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by
letter No.1-32/2006-U.ll/U.l(i) dated 31st December, 2008
communicated the Secretary, University Grants Commission, G
New Delhi the Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and
equivalent cadres in Universities and Colleges following the
revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on
the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission. H
\
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A . By the said letter, the Government of India directed that there
shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in
Universities and Colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors.
B 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 Pro-Vice-ChancellorNice-Chancellor
C 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 State legislature, provided State Governments wish to adopt
and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions
0
mentioned therein.
24. In view of the aforesaid letter No.1-3212006-U .II/
U.l(i), dated 31st December, 2008 issued by the Government
of India and in exercise of the powers conferred under clause
E (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act,
1956, UGC enacted Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the
UGC Regulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of
India on 28th June, 2010 and came into force with immediate
F effect. Relevant portion of the said Regulations is as follows:
"UGC REGULATIONS
ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER
ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND
G COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION 2010
To be published in the gazette of India
Part Ill Sector 4
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 491
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
University Grants Commission A
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi-110002.
No.F.3-112009 28 June, 2010
In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) 8
and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956), and in
pursuance of the MHRD O.M.No.F.23-712008-IFD
dated 23rd October; 2008, read with Ministry of Finance
(Department of Expenditure) O.M.No.F.1-112008-IC
c
dated 30th August, 2008, and in terms of the MHRD
Notification No.1-3212006-U./llU.1(1) issued on 31st
December; 2008 and in supersession of the University
Grants Commission (minimum qualifications required D
for the appointment and career advancement of
teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to
it)Regulations, 2000, issued by University Grants
Commission vide Regulation No. F.3-112000 (PS)
dated 4th April, 2000, together with all amendments E
made therein from time to time, the University Grants
Commission hereby frames the following Regulations,
namely:"
1. Short title, application and commencement: F
1. 1. These R~ulations may be called the University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications
for Appointment of Teachers and other
. Acad~mic Staff in Universities and Colleges G
and other Measures for the Maintenance of
Standards in Higher Education) Regulations,
2010.
1.2. They shall apply to every university established H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 3 S.C.R.
A or incorporated by or under a Central Act,
Provincial Act or a State Act, every institution
including a constituent or an affiliated college
recognized bythe Commission, in consultation
with the university concerned under Clause (f)
B of Section 2 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 and every institution
deemed to be a university under Section 3 of
the said Act.
c 1.3 They shall come into force with immediate
effect.
Provided that in the event, any candidate becomes
eligible for promotion under Career Advancement
D Scheme in terms of these Regulations on or after 31st
December; 2008, the promotion of such a candidate
shall be governed by the provisions of these
Regulations.
E Provided further that notwithstanding anything
contained in these Regulations, in the event any
candidate became eligible for promotion under Career
Advancement Scheme prior to 31st December; 2008,
the promotion of such a candidate under Career
F Advancement Scheme shall be governed by the
University Grants Commission (Minimum
Qualifications Required for the Appointment and Career
Advancement of Teachers in Universities and
institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 notified
G
vide Notification No. F.3-1/2000(PS) dated 4th April,
2000, as amended from time to time, read with
notifications and guidelines issued by the University
Grants Commission (UGC) from time to time, in this
H regard.
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 493
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
2. The Minimum Qualifications for appointment and A
other service conditions of University and College ·
teachers, Librarians and Directors of Physical
Education and Sports as a measure for the maintenance
of standards in higher education, shall be as provided
in the Annexure to these Regulations. 8
3.Consequences of failure of the Universities to
comply with the recommendations of the
Commission, as provision of Section 14 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956: c
If any University grants affiliation in respect of any
course of study to any college referred to in sub-
section(5) of Section 12-A in contravention of the
provisions of the sub-section, or fails within a D
reasonable time to comply with any recommendations
made by the Commission under Section 12 or Section.
13, or coritravenes ·the provisions of any rule made
under clause (f) of sub•seciion (2) of Section 25 or of
E
any regulations made under clause (e) orclause (f) or
clause (g) of Sub~section (1) of Section 26, the
Commission after taking into consideration the cause,
if any, shown by the University foi such failure or
contravention, may withhold from the university the F
grants proposed to be made out of the fund of the .
Commission.
Secretary. "
25. Annexure to UGC Regulations, 2010 prescribes the G
minimum qualifications for app9intment and other service
conditions of University and College Teachers, Librarians,
Directors of Physical Education an.d Sports.
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015) 3 S.C.R.
·A Regulation 2.0.0 relates tO pay scales, pay fixation and
age of superannuation, etc. Regulation 7.0.0. relates to
selection of Pro-Vice-ChancellorNice-Chancellor of
Universities. In Regulation 7.3.0. standards to be followed and
qualifications necessary for selection to the post of Vice-
B Chancellor have been mentioned, Regulation 7.4.0 relates to
adoption of Regulations by the universities and State
Governments.
· , The relevant provisions of the Annexure to the UGC
C · Regulations, 2010 are quoted hereunder:
"ANNEXURE
UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
D FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE TEACHERS AND OTHER
ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVESITEIS AND COLLEGES
AND MEAUSRES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF
STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATOIN, 2010
E
These Regulations are issued for minimum qualifications
for appointment and other service conditions of University
and College Teachers, Librarians, Directors of Physical
F Education and Sports for the maintenance of standards in
higher education and revision of pay scales.
2.0.0 PAY SCALES, PAYFIXATION FORMULA AND
AGE OF SUPERANNUATION; ETC.
G 2.1.0 · The revised scales of pay and other service
conditions including age of superannuation in central
universities and other institutions maintained and/or
funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC),
shall be strictly in accordance with the decision of the
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 495
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Central Government, Ministry of Human Resource A
Development (Deparlment of Education), as contained
in Appendix-I.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
B
2.3.1. The revised scales of pay and age of
superannuation as provided in Clause 2.1.0 above,
may also be extended to Universities, institutions
coming under the purview of the State Legislature and
maintained by the State Governments, subject to the c
implementation of the scheme as a composite one in
adherence of the terms and conditions laid down in the
MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in the
MHRD letter No.F.1-712010-U II dated 11 May, 2010
with all conditions specified by the UGC in the D
Regulations and other Guidelines.
xxx xxx . xxx xxx xxx
7.0.0.SELECTION OF PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR/ E
VICE - CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES:
7.1.0. PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR:
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole time Professor
of the University and shall be appointed by the F
Executive Council on the recommendation of Vice-
Chancel/or.
7.2.0. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a
period which is co-terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor. G
However, it shall be the prerogative of the Vice-
Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice-Chancellor
to the Executive Council, during his tenure. These
Regulations, for selection of Pro- Vice- Chancellor shall
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A be adopted by the concerned University through
amendment of their Act/Statute.
7.3.0. VICE-CHANCELLOR:
B i. Persons of the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals andinstitutional commitment are
to be appointed as Vice-Chancel/ors. The Vice-
Chancel/or to. be appointed should be a
distinguished academician, with a minimum often
c years of experience as Professor in a University
system or ten years of experie,,ce in an equivalent
position in a reputed research and I or academic
administrative organization,
D ii. The s.election 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
E above Search Committee shali be per8ons of
eminence in the sphere of higher education and
shall not be connectecl in any manner with the
University concerned or its colleges. While
preparing the panel, the search committee must
F give proper weightage to academic excellence,
exposure to the higher education system in the
country and abrqad, and adequate experience in
acad_emic and administrative governance to be
given in writing along with the panel to be submitted
G
to the Visitor/Chanceilor. In respect of State. and
Central Universities,. the following shall be the
constitution of the Search Committee. ·
. '
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN·v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 497
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
a) a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who A
should be the Chairperson of the
Committee.
· b) a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants
Commission. B
c) a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive
Council I Board of Management of the
University.
iii, The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-
c
Chancellor out of the Panel of names .
recommended by the Search Committee
iv. The conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor
D
shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the
Universities concerned in conformity with these
Regulations. 1
v. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall
form part of the service period of the incumbent E
concerned making him/her eligible for all
selVice related benefits.
7.4.0 The Universities/State Governments shall modify .
or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities F
concerned within 6 months of adoption of these
Regulations.
8.0. DUTY LEAVE, STUDY LEAVE, SABBATICAL
LEAVE" G
26. Letter No.1-32/2006-U.ll/U.1(1)(i) dated 31st
December, 2008 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Human Resource Development, Department of Higher
H
•
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Education, New Delhi has been appended as Appendix I and
is part of the UGC Regulations, 2010. The relevant portion of
the said letter is quoted below:
"APPENDIX I
B No.1-3212006-U.lllU.l(i)
Government of India
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Deparlment of Higher Education
New Delhi, dated the 31 St December, 2008
c
To
The Secretary,
University Grants. Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.
D
Subject: Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and
equivalent cadres in universities and colleges following
E the revision of pay scales of Central Government
employees on the recommendations of the Sixth
Central Pay Commission. ·
Sir,
F I am directed to say that the Government of India have
decided, after taking into consideration the
recommendations made by the University Grants
Commission (UGC) based on the decisions taken at
the meeting of the Commission held on 7-8 October
G
2008, to revise the pay scales of teachers in the Central
Universities. The revision of pay scales of teachers
shall be subject to various provisions of the Scheme
of revision ofpay scales as contained in this letter, and
H Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this behalf in
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. · 499
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
accordance with the Scheme given below. The revised A
pay scales and other provisions of the Scheme are as
under:-
1. General
B
(i) There shall be only three designations in respect of
teachers in universities and colleges, namely, Assistant
Professors, Associate Professors and Professors.
However, there shall be no change in the present
designation in respect of Library and Physical c
Education Personnel at various levels.
(ii) No one .shall be eligible to be appointed, promoted
or designated as Professor, unless he or she
possesses a Ph.D. and satisfies other academic D
conditions, as laid. downy the University Grants
Commission (UGC) from time to time. This shall,
however; not affect those who are already designated
as 'Professor'.
E
(iii) The pay of teachers and equivalent positions in
Universities and Colleges shall be fixed according to
their designations in two pay bands of Rs. 15, 600 -
Rs. 39, 100 and Rs. 37,400 - Rs. 67,000 with
appropriate ''Academic Grade Pay" (AGP in short). F
Each Pay Band shall have different stages ofAcademic
Grade Pay which shall ensure that teachers and other
equivalent cadres covered under this Scheme, subject
to other conditions of eligibility being satisfied, have
multiple opportunities for upward movement during G
their career.
(iv) Posts of Professors shall be created in under-
graduate (UG) colleges as well as in postgraduate (PG)
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A colleges. The number of posts of Professors in a UG
College shall be equivalent to 10 percent of the number
ofposts-ofAssociate Professors in that College. There
shall be as many posts of Professors in each PG
College as the number of Departments in that College.
B No. new Departments shall be created in UG or PG
Colleges without prior approval of the UGC.
(v) Up to 10% of the posts of Professors in universities
shall be in the higher Academic Grade Pay of Rs.
c 12,000 with eligibility conditions to be prescribed by
theUGC.
(vi) National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be compulsory
for appointment at the entry level ofAssistant Professor,
D subject to the exemptions to the degree of Ph.D. in
respect of those persons obtaining the award through
a process of registration, course·work and external
evaluation, as have been/ or may be laid down by the
UGC through its regulations, and so adopted by the
E University. NET shall not be required for such Masters'
programmes in disciplines for which there is no NET.
2. Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and
Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and·
F equivalent positions:
The pay structure for different categories of teachers
and equivalent positions shall be as indicated below:-
G (a) Assistant Professor/Associate Professors/
Professors in Colleges and Universities.
3. Pay Scales of Pro Vice-Chancel/or I Vice-
Chance/lor of Universities:
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 501
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(i) Pro-Vice-Chancellor A
The posts of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be in the Pay
BandofRs.37,400-Rs. 67,000withAGPofRs. 10,000
or Rs. 12, 000, as the case may be, along with a Special
Allowance of Rs.4, 000 per month, subject to the B
condition that the sum total ofpay in the Pay Band, the
Academic Grade Pay and the Special Allowance shall
notexceedRs. 80,000.
(ii) Vice-Chancellor C
The posts of Vice-Chancellor shall carry a fixed pay of
Rs. 75, 000 along with a Special Allowance of Rs. 5, 000
per month.
D
8. Other terms and conditions:
{a) Increments:
xxx xxx xxx xxx
E
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(p) Applicability of the Scheme:
(i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers and
other equivalent cadres of Librarv and Physical F
Education in all the Central Universities and Colleges .
there-under and the Institutions Deemed to be
Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by
the UGC. The implementation of the revised scales
G
. shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions
mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be
framed by the UGC in this behalf. Universities
implementing this Scheme shall be advised by the
UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A in line with the UGC Regulations within three months
from the date of issue of this letter.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
B From paragraph S(p)(i) and (v) of Appendix-I dated 31st
December, 2008 read with Regulation 7 .4.0 we find that the
Scheme of regulation is applicable to teaching staffs of all
Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the
institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance
c expenditure is met by the UGC. However, the Scheme under
UGC Regulations, 2010 is not applicable to the teaching
staffs of the Universities, Colleges and other higher
educational institutions coming under the purview of
State Legislature, unless State Government wish to
D adopt and Implement the Scheme subject to terms and
conditions mentioned therein.
27. The Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965
(University Act)
E
[(Tamil Nadu) ACT No.33of1965]
The above said Act was enacted by the State Legislature to
provide for the establishment and incorporation of a University
F at Madurai enacted by the State Legislature. ~ection 2(m)
of the University Act defines 'teachers' as under:
"2(m)."teachera" means such lecturera, readera,
assistant professora, professora and other peraons
giving instruction in Univeraity colleges or laboratories,
G
in affiliated or approved colleges, or in hostels, and
librarians as may be declared by the statutes to be
teachera;
Section 2(n) defines 'teachers of the University' as
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 503
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
follows: A
"2(n)"teachers of the University" means persons
appointed by the University to give instruction on its
behalf;
B
'University Lecturer', 'University Reader' or 'University
Professor' are defined under Section 2(t) as follows:
"2(t)"University Lecturer'', "University Reader" or
"University Professor'' means Lecturer, Reader or
Professor respectively appointed as such by the
c
University;"
Section 8 stipulates the Officers of the University. The
said Section is as follows:
D
"Section 8.0fficers of the University.- The University
shall consist of the following officers, namely:-
(1) The Chancellor;
E
(2) The Pro-Chancel/or;
(3)The Vice-Chancellor;
(4)The Registrar; and
F
(5)Such other persons as may be declared by the
statutes to be officers of the University."
Section 9 relates to Chancellor, Section 1Orelates to
Pro-Chancellor and Se9tion 11 relates to the Vice-Chancellor. G
The said Sections are as follows:
"Section 9. The ChancettQ;. -(1) The Governor of Tamil
Nadu shall be the Chancellor of the University. He
shall, by virlue of his office, be the head of the University H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015J 3 s~c.R.
A and the President of the Senate and shall, when
present, preside at meetings of the Senate and at any
convocation of the University.
(2) The Chancellor shall exercise such powers as
B may be conferred on him by or under this Act.
(3) Where power is conferred upon the Chancellor
to nominate persons to authorities, the Chancel/or
shall, · to the extent necessary, nominate persons to ·
c represent interests not otherwise adequately
represented.
Section 10. The Pro-Chancellor· (1) The Minister in.
charge of the portfolio of education in the State of Tamil
o Nadu shall be the Pro-Chancellor of the University.
(2) In the absence of the Chancellor, or during the
Chancellor's inability tO act, the Pro~Chancellor shall
exercise all the powers of the Chancellor.
E Section 11. The Vice-Chancellor - (1) Every
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor shall be made by
the. Chancellor from out of a panel of three names·
recommended by the Committee referred to in sub-
section (2).Such panel shall not contain the name of
F
any member of the said Committee.
Provided that if the Chancellor does not approve any
of the persons in the panel so recommended by the
Committee, he may take steps to constitute another
G
Committee, in accordance with sub-section (2), to
' .
. give a fresh panel of three different names and shall
appoint one of the persons named in the fresh panel
as the Vice-Chancellor.
H·
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 505
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(2)For the purpose of sub-section (1), the Committee A
shall consist of three persons of whom one shall be ·
nominated by the Chancellor.
Provided that the person so nominated shall not be a
member of any of the authorities of the University. B
(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period of
three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment for
not more than two successive terms.
(4)When any termporary vacancy occurs in the office
c
of the Vice-Chancellor or if the Vice-Chancellor is, by
reason of absence or for any other reason, unable to
exercise the powers and perform the duties of his office,
the Syndiate shall, as soon as possible, make the D
requisite arrangements for exercising the powers and
performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor.
(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time officer
of the University and shall be entitled to such E
emoluments, allowances and privileges as may be
prescribed by the statutes."
The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are
mentioned in Section 12 which is as follows: F
"Section 12. Powers and duties of the Vice-
Chancel/or. - (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be
academic head and the principal executive officer of
the University and shall, in the absence of the
G
Chancellor and Pro-Chancellor, preside at meetings
of the Senate and at any convocation of the University.
He shall be a member ex-officio and Chairman of the
Syndicate, the Academic Council and the Finance
Committee and shall be entitled to be present at and H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 3 S.C.R.
A to address any meeting of any authority of the
University but shall not be entitled to vote there at
unless he is a member of the authority concerned.
(2)/t shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure
B that the provisions of this Act, the statutes, ordinances
and regulations are observed and carried out and he
may exercise all powers necessary for this purpose.
(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to convene
c meetings of the Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic
Council and the Finance Commtitee.
(4) (a) In any emergency which in the opinion of the
Vice-Chancellor requires that immediate action should
D be taken, he may take such action with the sanction of
the Chancellor or the Pro-Chancellor; as the case may
be, and shall as soon as may be thereafter report .his
action to the officer or authority who or which would have
ordinarily dealt with the matter.
(
E
(b) When action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under this
sub-section affects any person in the service of the
University, such person shall be entitled to prefer an
appeal to the Syndicate within thirty days from the date
F on which he has notice of such action.
(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the orders
of the Syndicate regarding the appointment,
suspension and dismissal of the teachers and servants
G
over the affairs of the University.
.
of the University and shall exercise general control
.
.
(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other
powers as may be prescribed."
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 507
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
The above provisions indicate that the Vice-Chancellor A
is the academic head [Section 12(1)], heads the Academic
Council, and has general control over teaching and
examination within the University and is responsible for the
maintenance of the standards thereof.
B
28. Chapter V of the University Act deals with the
'Academic Council', the Faculties, the Boards and Studies,
the Finance Committee and other Authorities. Section 23
relates to the Academic Council and Section 24 deals with
. the Constitution of the Academic Council. The relevant portion C
of the said provisions reads as under:
CHAPTER V
THE ACADEMIC COUCIL, THE FACULTIES, THE D
BOARDS OF STUDIES, THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE AND OTHER AUTHORITIES.
Section 23. The Academic Council.- The Academic
Council shall be the academic authority of the E
University and shall, subject to the provisions of this
Act and the statutes, have the control and general
regulation of teaching and examination within the
University and be responsible for the maintenance of
the standards thereof and shall exercise such other F
powers and perfonn other duties as may be prescribed.
Section 24.Constitution of the Academic
Council.- (a) The Academic Council shall, in addition
G
to the Vice-Chancellor, consist of the following persons,
namely;-
C/ass I - Ex-officio members-
H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A (1) The Director of Higher Education, Madras;
(2) The Director of Secondary Education, Madras;
(3) The Director of Technical Education, Madras;
B (3-A) The Director of Medical Educatoin;
(4) The heads of University Departments of Study and
Research;
c (5)Members of the Syndicate who are not otherwise
members of the Academic Counci;
xxx xxx xxx xxx
29. Chapter VI of the University Act deals with
D Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations. Section 30 stipulates
the matters which can be provided under Statutes. This inclu_des
the constitution or reconstitution, powers and duties of the
authorities of the University. Section 32 deals with Ordinances
E which may provide for all or any of the matters mentioned
therein including the qualifications and emoluments of teachers
of the University [Section 32(d)].
30. The word statutes with respect to University
F means law of the University. In the present context it means
the provisions of the University Act and the statutes, ordinances
and regulations framed therein. ChapterVofthe Statutes of
Madurai Kamaraja University relates to Vice-Chancellor.
Clause 2(1) of Chapter V stipulates that Vice-Chancellor
G should be a whole-time Officer of the University who would be
the academic head and principal executive officer of the
University with powers and duties mentioned therein. Relevant
portion of the provision reads as follows:
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 509
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
"CHAPTER V A
THE VICE-CHANCELLOR
1. The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor from out of a panel of 3 names
B
recommended by the Committee referred to in Statute
5 hereunder. Such panel shall not contain the name of
any member of the said Committee.
(Act S.11 The Vice-Chancellor)
c
Provided that if the Chancellor does not approve any
of the persons in the panel so recommended by the
Committee, he may take steps to constitute another
Committee, in accordance with Statue 5, to give a
D
fresh panel of three different names and shall
appoint one of the persons named in the fresh panel
as the Vice-Chancellor.
2.(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time Officer
E
of the University. He shall be the academic head and
Principal executive officer of the University.
(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall in the absence of the
Chancellor and the Pro-Chancellor preside at the
meetings of the Senate, and at any Convocation of the F
University.
(Act S.12 Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor)
(3) The Vice-Chancel/or shall be a member ex-officio G
and Chairman of the Syndicate, the Academic Council
and the Finance Committee of the University and shall
be entitled to be present at and address any meeting of
any authority of the University but shall not be entitled
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A to vote there at unless he is a member of the authorities
concerned.
(4) The .Vice-Chancellor shall have power to convene
the meetings of the Senate, the Syndicate, the
B Academic Council and the Finance Committee of the
University.
(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise a general control
over all the affairs of the University. ·
c xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx."
31. · From UGC Regulations, 2010, it is clearthatthe
Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician with
a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a
0 University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent
position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative
organization. Whereas the post of Vice-Chancellor under
University Act, 1965 and statute made thereunder is not a
E teaching post but an officer of the University.
Constitutional Provisions:
32. Article 246 demarcates the matters in respect
of which Parliament and State Legislature may make laws.
F The legislative powers of the Central and State Governments
are governed by the relevant entries in the three lists given in
7th Schedule. ·
Entry 66 in List I provides for Co-ordination and
G determination of standards in institutions for higher education
or research and scientific and technical institutions. Prior to
42ndAmendment, education including Universities subject to
the provisions of the Entries 63, 64, 65, 66 of List-I and Entry
H 25 of List II I was shown in Entry 11 of the List II - State List. By
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 511
[SUDHANSU JYOTI ML!KHOPADHAYA, J.]
42ndAmendment of Constitution w.e.f. 3rd January, 1977 Entry A
11 of List II-State List was omitted and was added as Entry 25
of List-Ill.
At present the aforesaid provisions read as follows:
B
"Seventh Schedule
List I - Union List
Entry 66. Co-ordination and detennination of standards
in institutions for higher education or research and C
scientific and technical institutions.
List Ill - Concurrent List
Entry 25.- Education, including technical education, D
medical education and universities, subject to the
provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I;
vocational and technical training of labour."
Article 254 relates to repugnancy of Law made by the E
State with the law made by the Parliament. Article 254 reads
as follows:-
"254. Inconsistency between laws made by
Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of
F
States.-{11. If any provision of a law made by the
Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a
law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent
to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with
respect to one of the matters enumerated in the G
Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause
( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before
or after the law made by the Legislature of such State,
or; as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 3 S.C.R.
A and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall,
to the extent of the repugnancy, be void
(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with
respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
B concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the
provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an
existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so
made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has
been reserved for the consideration of the President
C and has received his assent, prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent
Parliament from enacting at any time any law with
respect to the same matter including a law adding to,
D amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the
Legislature of the State."
33. The effect in case of inconsistency between the
Legislation made by the Parliament and the State Legislature
E on the subject covered by List Ill has been decided by this
Court in numerous cases.
34. In State of Tamil Nadu and another vs.
Adhiyhaman Education & Research Institute and others,
F (1995) 4 SCC 104, this Court noticed that Entry 66 of List I of
the Seventh Schedule has remained unchanged from the
inception and that Entry 11 was !~ken out from List II and was
amalgamated with Entry 25 of List Ill. In the said case the
Court held as follows:
G
"12. The subject "coordination and determination of
standards in institutions for higher education or research
and scientific and technical institutions" has always
remained the special preserve of Parliament. This was
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 513
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
so even before the Forty-second Amendment, since A
Entry 11 of List II even then was subject, among others,
to Entry 66 of List I. After the said Amendment, the
constitutional position on that score has not undergone
any .change. All that has happened is that Entry 11 was
taken out from List II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of B
List Ill. However, even the new Entry 25 of List Ill is also
subject to the provisions, among others, of Entry 66 of
List I. It cannot, therefore, be doubted nor is it contended
before us, that the legislation with regard to coordination
and determination of standards in institutions for higher
c
education or research and scientific and technical
institutions has always been the preserve of Parliament.
What was contended before us on behalf of the State
was that Entry 66 enables Parliament to lay down the D
minimum standards but does not deprive the State
legislature from laying down standards above the said
minimum standards. We will deal w11h this argument at
its proper place.
E
xxx xxx xxxx
41. What emerges from the above discussion is as
follows:
(i) The expression 'coordination' used in Entry 66 of the F
Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
does not merely mean evaluation. It means
harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for
a concerted action according to a certain design, G
scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes
action not only for removal of disparities in standards
but also for preventing the occurrence of such
disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do
all things which are necessary to prevent what would H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A make 'coordination' either impossible or difficult. This
power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence
of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its
full effect according to its plain and express intention.
B (ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict
with the Central legislation though the former is
purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the
Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon
legislation including subordinate legislation made by
c the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to
give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void
and inoperative.
(iiij If there is a conflict between the two legislations,
D unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions
of the main part of clause (2) of Article 254, the State
legislation being repugnant to the Central legislation,
the same would be inoperative.
E (iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of
the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the
Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have
to be determined by the examination of the two laws
and will depend upon the facts of each case.
F
(v) When there are more applicants than the available
situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented
from laying down higher standards or qualifications than
those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority
G to short-list the applicants. When the State authority
does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union
List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law.
(vi) However, when the situations/seats are available
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 515
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
and the State authorities deny an applicant the same A
on the ground that the applicant is not qualified
according to its standards or qualifications, as the case
may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards
or qualifications laid down by the Central Jaw, they act
unconstitutionally. So a/so when the State authorities B
de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not
satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by
them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements
laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities
act i/legally."
c
35. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State
ofM.P. and others, (1999) 7SCC120, a Constitution Bench
of five Judges dealt with the State coms>etence under List Ill
0
Entry 25 to control or regulate higher education which is subject
to standards laid down by the Union of India. The Court noticed
that the standards of higher education can be laid down under
List I Entry 66 by the Central Legislation and held as follows:
"35. The legislative competence of Parliament and the E
legislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246
is regulated by the VJ/th Schedule to the Constitution.
In the VJ/th Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of
List II gave to the State an exclusive power to legislate F
on
"education including universities, subject to the
provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and
Entry 25 of List JI/".
G
Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List Ill was
amended with effect from 3-1-1976 as a result of the
Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present
Entry 25 .in the Concurrent List is as follows:
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A "25.Education, including technical education, medical
education and universities, subject to the provisions of
Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and
technical training of labour."
B Entry 25 ls subject, inter a/ia, to Entry 66 of List I. Entry
66 of List I is as follows:
"66. Coordination and determination of standards in
'institutions for higher education or research and
c scientific and technical institutions."
Both the Union as well as the States have the power to
· legislate on education including medical education,
subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with
D laying down standards in institutions for higher
education or research and scientific and technical
institutions as a/so coordination of such standards. A
State has, therefore, the right to control education
including medical education so long as the field is not
E occupied by any Union legislation. Secondly, the State
cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge
on standards in institutions for higher education.
Because this is exclusively within the 'purview of the
Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the
F criteria for admission to the institutions for higher
education including higher medical education, the State
cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the
Union of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while
considering the cases on the subject it is a/so necessary
G
torememberthatfrom 1977, education, including, inter
alia, medical and university education, is now in the
Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on
admission criteria a/so. If it does so, the State will not
H be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 517
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
Article 254. A
36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for
admission have no connection with the standard of
education, or that the rules for admission am covered
only by Entry 25 of List Ill. Norms of admission can have 8
· · a dimct impact on the standards of education. Of course,
them can be rules for admission which are consistent
with or do not affect adversely the standards of education
prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under
Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State may, for c
admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay
down qualifications in addition to those prescribed
under Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with
promoting higher standards for admission to the higher
D
educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid
down can and does have an adverse effect on the
standards of education in the institutes of higher
education. Standards of education in an institution or
college depend on various factors. Some of these am: E
(1) the calibm of the teaching staff;
(2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a
high level of education in the given span of time;
F
(3) the student-teacher ratio;
(4) the ratio between the students and the
hospital beds available to each student;
G
(5) the calibre of the students admitted to the
. institution;
(6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or
hospital facilities for training in the case of mP,dical
H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A colleges;
(7) adequate accommodation for the college
and the attached hospital; and
(8) the standard of examinations held including
B
the manner in which the papers are set and examined .
and the clinical performance is judged..
37. While considering the standards of education in any
college or institution, the calibre of students who are
c admitted to that institution or college cannot be ignored.
If the students are of a high calibre, training
programmes can be suitably moulded so that they can
receive the maximum benefit out of a high level of
D teaching. If the calibre of the students is poor or they
are unable to follow the instructions being imparted, the
standard of teaching necessarily has to be lowered to
make them understand the course which they have ·
undertaken; and it may not be possible to reach the
E levels of education and training which can be attained
with a bright group. Education involves a continuous
interaction between the teachers and the students. The
pace of teaching, the level to which teaching can rise
and the benefit which the students ultimately receive,
F depend as much on the calibre of the students as on
the calibre of the teachers and the availability of
adequate infrastructural facilities. That is why a lower
student-teacher ratio has been considered essential at
the levels of higher university education, particularly
G
when the training to be imparted is a highly professional
training requiring individual attention and on-hand
training to the pupils who are already doctors and who
are expected to treat patients in the course of doing
H their postgraduate courses."
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 519
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
36. In Annama/ai University vs. Secretary to A
Government, Information and Tourism Department and
others, (2009) 4 SCC 590, this Court observed that UGC Act
was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry
66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India
whereas the Open University Act was enacted by Parliament B
in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List Ill. It was held
that in such circumstances the question of repugnancy between
the provisions of the said two Acts, does not arise. The Court
while holding that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding C
on all the Universities held as follows:
"40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in
exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas
D
the Open University Act was enacted by Parliament in
exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List Ill thereof.
The question ofrepugnancy of the provisions of the said
two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is true that the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Open E
University Act shows that the formal system of education
had not been able to provide an effective means to
equalise educational opportunities. The system is rigid
inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms.
Combinations of subjects are also inflexible. F
42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all
universities whether conventional or open. Its powers
are very broad. The Regulations framed by it in terms
of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section G
26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open
universities as also to formal conventional universities.
In the matter of higher education, it is necessary to
maintain minimum standards of instructions. Such
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A minimum standards of instructions are required to be
defined by UGC. The standards and the coordination
of work or facilities in universities must be maintained
and for that purpose required to be regulated. The
powers of UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are
8 very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation as is well
known when validly made becomes part of the Act. We
have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of UGC
are all-pervasive in respect of the matters specified in
clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses
c
(a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof"
37. The aforesaid judgment makes it clear that to the
extent the State Legislation is in conflict with Central Legislation
including sub-ordinate legislation made by the Central
0
Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall
be repugnant to the Central Legislation and would be
inoperative.
38. The question that now arises is whether any of the
E provisions of the State Legislation (University Act, 1965) and
statutes framed thereunder is in conflict with the Central
Legislation i.e. UGC Act, 1956 including UGC Regulations,
2010.
F 39. We find that post of Vice-Chancellor under the
University Act, 1965 is a post of an Officer. The UGCAct 1956
is silent about this aspect. The UGC Regulations, 2000 are
also silent in regard to post of Vice-Chancellor. Pro11isions
G regarding Vice-Chancellor have been made for the first time
under UGC Regulations, 2010.
We have noticed and held that UGC Regulations, 2010
is notaP.plicable to the Universities, Colleges and other higher
H educational institutions coming under the purview of the State
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 521
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt and A
implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions
therein. In this connection, one may refer paragraph B(p)(v) of
Appendix-I dated 31st December, 2008 and Regulation 7.4.0
ofUGC Regulations, 2010.
B
40. It is also not the case of the respondents that the
Scheme as contained in Appendix-I to the Annexure of UGC
Regulations, 2010 has been adopted and implemented by the
State Government. It is also apparent from the facts that
University Act has not been amended in terms of UGC C
Regulations, 2010 nor was any action taken by the UGC under
Section 14 of UGCAct, 1956 as a consequence offailure of
University to comply with the recommendations of the
Commission under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956.
D
41. Almost similar Public Interest Litigation was filed
before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Public
Interest Litigation (Lodging) NO.BO of 2011 Suresh Patilkhede
vs. The Chancellor, Universities of Maharashtra (supra).
In the said case the writ petitioner challenged the appointment E
of Search Committee for recommending the panel of suitable
person for selection of Vice-Chancellor of Pune University on
the ground that the appointment of the Search Committee by
the Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Section F
12 of the Maharasthra University Act is not in conformity with
the provisions of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,
2010 made under the UGCAct.
42. In the said case also, State of Maharashtra and the G
Chancellor of Pune University while opposing the writ petition
had taken a plea that UGC Regulations, 2010 being in the
nature of subordinate Legislation cannot override the provisions
of Section 12 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994, which
is a preliminary Legislation made by the State Legislature. In H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A the said case the Bombay High Court held:
"16 .........Applying the aforesaid test of "dir(;lct
impact on the standard of Education" and the principles
laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view
B that the qualifications and the method of appointment
for the post of Pro-Chancellor and Vir;e-Chancellor of
a University cannot be considered as having "direct
impact on the standards of education.
c 17. We are, accordingly, of the considered view that
Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations for
appointment of Pro-Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor
of the University governed by UGC Act cannot be
treated as falling under Clauses (e) and (g) of Section
D 26(1)oftheUGCAct, 1956."
The Bombay High Court further held:
'
"46. As already h~lcf by us, Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0 _
E of UGC Regulations, 2010 are traceable to Section
12(d) of UGC Act, 1956. The same are not without any
authority of law but at the same time, they are merely
recommendatory in nature and, therefore, neither the
State Legislature nor the State Government is bound to
F accept the same. Accordingly, when the State
Government issued order dated 15th February, 2011
at Exhibit 'F' enumerated those regulations which are
adopted by the State Government out of UGC
Regulations, 2010, the State Government decided not
G to adopt Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0. We, therefore, find
considerable substance in the argument of learned
Advocate· General that non-adoption of directory
Regulation 7. 3. Owould not render the State legislation
or the Government order dated 15th February, 2011
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 523
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
invalid or unconstitutional. A
47. To sum up-
(i) Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010 is
not traceable to clause (e) or clause (g) of
B
Section 26(1) of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956.
(ii) The source of making Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC
Regulations, 2010 is Section 12(d) and (j) of
UGCAct, 1956. However, since Section 12(d),-
c
and (j) of UGC Act merely enables UGC to
make recommendations to Universities,
Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as
recommendatory in nature. D
(iii) Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010
being a subordinate legislation under an Act of
Parliament cannot override plenary legislation
enacted by the State Legislature and, therefore, E
also Regulation 7.3.0 does not override,
Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,
1994."
43. We do not agree with the finding of the Bombay F
High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010
is not traceable to clause (e) or (g) of Section 26(1) of UGC
Act, 1956. We also refuse to agree that Regulation 7.3.0 of
the UGC Regulations, 2010 being a sub-ordinate legislation
under the Act of Parliament cannot override the preliminar)t G
legislation enacted by the State Legislature. However, the
finding of the Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 has to
be treated as recommendatory in nature is upheld in so far as
it relates to Universities and Colleges under the State
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R.
A Legislation.
44. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold:
(i) To the extent the State Legislation is in conflict with
B Central Legislation including sub-ordinate legislation made
by the .Central Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent
Listshall be repugnant to the Central Legislation and would
be inoperative.
(ii) The UGC Regulations being passed by both the
c Houses of Parliament, though a sub-ordinate legislation has
binding effect on the Universities to which it applies.
(iii) UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and
other academic staff in all the Central Universities and
D
Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be
Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the
UGC.
(iv) UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the Universities,
E Colleges and other higher educational institutions under the
purview of the State Legislation as the rriatter has been left
to the State Government to adopt and implement the
Scheme.
F Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and
is partly directory.
(v) UGC Regulations, 2010 having not adopted by the State
Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between State
G Legislation and Statutes framed under Central Legislation
does not arise. Once it is adopted by the State Government,
the State Legislation to be amended appropriately. In such
case also there shall be no conflict between the State
Legislation and the Central iegislation.
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. 525
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
45. In view of the reasons and finding as recorded A
above, we uphold the appointment of Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan
as Vice-Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University as made by
the G.0.(1 D)No.80, Higher Education (H2)Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 and set aside
the impugned common judgment and order dated 26th June, B
2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court,
Madurai Bench in Writ Petition (MD) No.11350 of 2012 and
Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of2013. The appeals are allowed
but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be C
no order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appointment of Vice‑Chancellor"Sign in to search