GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

[2022] 4 S.C.R.

GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019)

BMARCH 03, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Universities: Appointment of Vice Chancellor – Writ of quowarranto – Writ petition alleging that eligibility criteria was dilutedand UGC Regulations, 2018 were violated – Held: Being aCsubordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Actand in case of any conflict between State legislation and Centrallegislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Art.254 of the Constitutionas the subject ‘education’ is in the concurrent list – By adopting theDscheme and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditurefrom the central government and when respondent No.4 is paid afixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month, the State and the Universities thereunder are bound bythe UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018 –Respondent No.4 has been appointed by search committee, notEconstituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 and also does notfulfil the eligibility criteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018,namely, having ten years of teaching work experience as professorin the university system – Appointment of respondent No.4 as ViceChancellor of respondent No.2-University, is contrary to the UGCFprovisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018 – Writ of quo warrantoissued for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondentNo.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University – UGC Regulations,2010/2018 – Regn. 7.3.0 – Writ of quo warranto – Constitution ofIndia – Art.254.

GUniversities: Universities are autonomous and the ViceChancellor is the leader of higher education institution – As perthe norm, he/she should be an eminent academician, excellentadministrator and also someone who has high moral stature –The said reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, KothariCommission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee haveH

highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellor inmaintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in addition toits growth and development, keeping in view, the much neededchanges from time to time – These committees have also madesuggestions and recommendations for identifying the right personfor the said position – Vice Chancellor is the king pin of aUniversity’s system and keeper of the University’s conscience –Further, the Search/Selection Committee plays vital and significantrole in the selection of the Vice Chancellor; yet the selected ViceChancellor’s performance in the universities vary from universityto university – Therefore, the members of the Search Committee,who are given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggestingnames for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly orindirectly responsible for the achievement of the University.

Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 – ss. 9, 10 – Governor ofGujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtueof his office, be the head of the University and the President of theSenate – As the head of the University, his advice is binding uponthe University – Universities.

Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue awrit of quo warranto is limited one, which can only be issuedwhen person holding public office does not fulfil the eligibilitycriteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when theappointment is contrary to the statutory rules. [Para 9.1][423-H;424-A]

Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1SCC 501 : [2012] 10 SCR 883; Retd. Armed ForcesMedical Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,(2006) 11 SCC 731 : 2006 (10) SCALE 224 – reliedon.

1.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision forthe co-ordination and determination of standards in Universitiesand for that purpose, to establish University Grants Commission.Section 12 deals with “Functions of the Commission”, while Section14 speaks of “Consequences of failure of Universities to comply

ABC

Awith recommendations of the Commission”. Section 26 deals with“Power to make regulations”. As per Section 28, the rules andregulations framed under the UGC Act are required to be laidbefore each House of the Parliament and when both the Housesagree then rules and regulations can be given effect with suchmodification as may be made by the Parliament. Therefore, anyBregulation enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 canbe said to be subordinate legislation. [Para 11.2][424-E-G]

2. The Government of India, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment Department of Higher Education, New Delhi byLetter No.132/2006 U.II/U.I(i) dated 31.12.2008 communicatedCto the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi thescheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres inuniversities and colleges following the revision of pay scales ofthe Central Government employees on the recommendations ofthe 6th Central Pay Commission. By the said letter, theDGovernment of India directed that there shall be only threedesignations in respect of teachers in the universities andcolleges, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors andProfessors. In the said letter revised pay scales, service conditionsand Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalentpositions including the post of Assistant Professors/AssociateEProfessors/Professors in universities and colleges wereintimated. Pay scales of ProVice Chancellor/Vice Chancellor werealso mentioned therein. It was intimated that the said Schememay be extended to the universities, colleges and other highereducational institutions coming under the purview of the StateFLegislature, provided the State Governments wish to adopt andimplement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditionsmentioned therein. In view of the aforesaid Letter dated31.12.2008 issued by the Government of India and in exercise ofthe powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1)of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the Regulations,G2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. Regulation7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellor. UGC Regulations,2010, inter alia, prescribes in Regulation 7.3.0 that person shallhave ten years of teaching work experience as professor in

university system. It also provides for constitution of searchcommittee consisting of nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, anominee of the Chairman of the UGC, nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the University and the search committeehas to recommend the names of the successful candidates. [Paras11.3 - 11.3.3][425-A-G; 426-G-H]

3.1 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the UnionMinistry of Human Resource Development laid down schemeof revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in theUniversities following the 6th Central Pay Commission. TheScheme provides fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with specialallowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para8(p)(v) of the said scheme provides that it is extended toUniversities, Colleges and other higher educational institutionscoming under the purview of the State Legislature provided theState Governments wish to adopt and implement the scheme withcertain conditions, inter alia, financial assistance from the CentralGovernment to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditureand remaining 20% shall be met by the State Government. Itfurther provides that payment of Central assistance forimplementing the scheme is subject to the condition that theentire scheme of revision of pay scales together with all theconditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations andother guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governmentsand the Universities thereunder without any modification. [Para11.4][427-A-D]

3.2 In the present case, State of Gujarat has adopted thesaid Scheme dated 31.12.2008 by Resolution dated 11.11.2009with effect from 01.01.2006 subject to the conditions mentionedin the said resolution. Even in the said resolution, condition No.13provides that the State Government will publish the educationalqualifications as per the UGC instructions published from timeto time and quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms,instructions, resolutions will have to be implemented. It is not indispute that the SP University is receiving Central financialassistance under the Scheme and it is included in the State

Auniversities receiving Central financial assistance as per Section12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having adopted the UGCScheme and implemented the same and getting Central financialassistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure,the State Government and the SP University are bound by theUGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 areBsuperseded by the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, theeligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor and theconstitution of the search committee for appointment of ViceChancellor remains the same. Therefore, the State of Gujaratand the universities thereunder including the SP University areCbound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations,2018. [Para 11.4][427-D-G]4. Respondent No.4 was appointed as Vice Chancellor ofthe SP University under the SPU Act, 1955. Section 10 of thesaid Act relates to the post of Vice Chancellor. As per Section 10Dof the Act, 1955 the search committee shall consist of twomembers (not being persons connected with the respondent -University or with any affiliated college or recognised institution)out of whom, one shall be person nominated in the mannerprescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic Counciljointly and the other shall be person nominated in the mannerEprescribed by Statutes by the Vice Chancellor of all theUniversities established by law in the State of Gujarat and thethird member to be nominated by the Chancellor. Section 10 ofthe SPU Act does not provide any qualification whatsoever forappointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. Even the eligibilityFcriteria to be prescribed is left to the Search Committee. Thereare no guidelines whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to beprescribed by the Search Committee. On the other hand, theUGC Regulations, 2010/2018 specifically prescribes thequalification / eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor. Italso provides for the constitution of the Search Committee. AsGobserved hereinabove as per Regulation 7.3.0 person shall haveten years of teaching work experience as professor in theuniversity system and it also provides for constitution of searchcommittee consisting of nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor,

nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the University. But respondent No.4 didnot/ does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under theUGC Regulations, 2010/2018. He was/is not having ten years ofteaching work experience as professor in the university system.Moreover, his name was not recommended by the legallyconstituted search committee, constituted as per the UGCRegulations, 2010/2018. Also, the search committee hasprescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellorby diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in the UGCRegulations, 2010/2018. Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act,1955/provisions under the State legislation are just contrary tothe UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, which, as observedhereinabove, are binding on the State Government and theuniversities thereunder. Even the State Government has notbothered to amend the State legislation – to put at par with theUGC Regulations, 2010/2018 and has continued the appointmentin the universities dehors the UGC Regulations. [Paras 12 –12.2][427-H; 429-B-H; 430-A]

5. By adopting the Scheme and having accepted 80% ofthe maintenance expenditure from the Central government andwhen respondent No.4 is paid fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- alongwith special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which isprescribed as per the Scheme of 2008, the State and theuniversities thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations,including the UGC Regulations, 2018. The appointment ofrespondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibility criteriaprescribed by the Search Committee. In fact, in the instant case,H.E. – Governor of Gujarat who is also the Chancellor of all theUniversities in the said State had through his Principal Secretarydirected that the communication from the Secretary, UniversityGrants Commission, Government of India, New Delhi dated 11thAugust, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps be taken in thatregard. This Court has referred to the aforesaid letter dated 30thAugust, 2014. The letter of the Secretary of the UGC dated 11thAugust, 2014 to H.E. – Governor of Gujarat informing about theregulations titled “Minimum qualifications for appointment ofteachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges

Aand measures for the maintenance of standards in highereducation, 2010” has also been extracted above in the said letter.It has been clearly stated that the UGC has prescribed minimumqualifications for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor andtherefore, such an appointment must be in accordance with theprovisions laid down in the aforementioned regulations of theBUGC. It is clear that the respondent-state of Gujarat has failed totake note of the communication from the UGC and instead therespondent-University has left to the sweet will of the searchcommittee to prescribe eligibility criteria for the appointment ofthe Vice-Chancellor of the University. The eligibility criteria whenConce fixed by the UGC under its regulations would apply to allthe universities which are aided by the UGC to be bound by thesaid regulations even in the absence of the same beingincorporated under the respective universities Act of therespective States. Therefore, when the appointment of respondentNo.4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 andDthe UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, this is fitcase to issue writ of quo warranto and to quash and set asidethe appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor ofthe SP University. [Para 15][434-H; 435-A-H; 436-A-C]

6. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations areEenacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section 26(1)(e)and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Actevery rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laidbefore each House of the Parliament. Therefore, being asubordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of theFAct. In case of any conflict between State legislation and Centrallegislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of theConstitution as the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List(List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore,any appointment as Vice Chancellor contrary to the provisionsGof the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of thestatutory provisions, warranting writ of quo warranto. [Para16][436-C-E]

Annamalai University represented by Registrar v.Secretary to Government, Information and TourismDepartment and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 : [2009] 3 SCR355; Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors, (2015)6 SCC 363 : [2015] 3 SCR 467 – referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.1525 of 2019.

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

I.H. Syed, Sr. Adv., Varinder Kumar Sharma, Shantanu Sharma,Prithu Parimal, Ms. Parul Sharma, Advs. for the petitioner.

Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, ManojRanjan Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. RuchiKohli, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution ofIndia the petitioner has prayed for writ of quo warranto challengingthe appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of respondentNo.2 – Sardar Patel University (hereinafter referred to as “SPUniversity”) and to quash and set aside the notification dated 29.08.2019,bearing No.GH/SH/76/SPY/122010/2626/ KH-2 passed by respondentNo.1 – State of Gujarat, appointing respondent No.4 as the ViceChancellor of the respondent - SP University. The petitioner has alsoprayed for any other appropriate writ, direction and order directingrespondent authorities to recover from respondent No.4 all consequentialbenefits not limited to pay, with retrospective effect, that have beenextended to him by virtue of his illegal appointment as Vice Chancellorof the SP University.

A2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the UniversityGrants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC”) framed UGCRegulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachersand Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measuresfor the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafterreferred to as the “UGC Regulations, 2010”) which, inter alia, prescribesBin Regulation 7.3.0 that person shall have ten years of teaching workexperience as professor in the University system. It also provides forconstitution of Search Committee consisting of nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, nominee of the Chairman of UGC, nominee of Syndicate/Executive Council of the University. That the Search Committee has toCrecommend the names of suitable candidates for appointment as ViceChancellor of University.

2.1 That the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been substitutedsubsequently vide UGC Regulations, 2018 with slight modifications whichshall be referred to hereinbelow.D

2.2 It is the further case on behalf of the petitioner that the UnionMinistry of Human Resource Development laid down Scheme ofrevision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the Universitiesfollowing the 6[th] Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as the“Scheme”). The Scheme provides fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along withEa special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Vice Chancellor.Para 8(p)(v) of the said Scheme provides that it is extended to Universities,Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under thepurview of the State Legislature, provided the State Governments wishto adopt and implement the scheme with certain conditions, inter alia,financial assistance from the Central Government to the extent of 80%Fof the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20% shall be met by theState Government. Payment of Central assistance for implementing thescheme was subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revisionof pay scales together with all the conditions to be laid down by theUGC by way of regulations and other guidelines shall be implementedGby the State Governments and the Universities thereunder without anymodification. According to the petitioner, the State of Gujarat passed aResolution dated 11.11.2009 adopting the Scheme. Since the Schemehas been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding uponthe State of Gujarat including the respondent - SP University. That onadoption of the Scheme by the State Government as well as the SPH

University, the said University is receiving Central financial assistanceunder the Scheme and is included in the list of State universities receivingCentral financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956.It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that since the Scheme has beenadopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon the Stateof Gujarat including the SP University.

2.3 The UGC addressed communication dated 11.08.2014 toH.E. - the Governor of Gujarat seeking compliance with the UGCRegulations, 2010 with respect to appointment of Vice Chancellors inthe State of Gujarat. That H.E. - the Governor of Gujarat communicatedto the Government of Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 tocomply with the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to the appointmentof Vice Chancellors. At this stage, it is required to be noted that H.E. –Governor of Gujarat is the ex-officio Chancellor of all the Universities inthe State including the SP University.2.4 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that ignoring Regulation7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, Search Committee was constitutedunder Section 10(2)(b) of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the “SPU Act”) on 29.07.2016 with nonominee of the Chairman of the UGC. According to the petitioner, evenas per Section 10(2)(b), the Search Committee has only the authority torecommend panel of suitable candidates. The Search Committee, inthe present case, exceeded its jurisdiction and prescribed its own eligibilitycriteria for the post of Vice Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criterialaid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010. That respondent No.2 issuedan advertisement, inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor,while mentioning the aforesaid eligibility criteria prescribed by the SearchCommittee. Thereafter the State issued notification appointingrespondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University for his firstterm of three years. According to the petitioner respondent No.4 wasnot having teaching work experience as professor for period of tenyears, which is mandatory as per the UGC Regulations, 2010. Thatrespondent No.4 herein was promoted to the post of Professor witheffect from 08.03.2008. According to the petitioner though respondentNo.4 lacked the eligibility, he was appointed as the Vice Chancellor atthe fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- which is as per the revised Scheme –Appendix I dated 31.08.2008.

A2.5 That the petitioner challenged the said appointment ofrespondent No.4 before the High Court by way of filing Special CivilApplication (SCA) No.18922 of 2017. By judgment and order dated05.07.2018 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the saidSCA by observing and holding that the UGC Regulations had not beenadopted by the State of Gujarat and thus were not binding upon respondentBUniversity. While dismissing the SCA and upholding the appointment ofrespondent No.4 to the post of Vice Chancellor of the University, theDivision Bench of the High Court referred to Section 10 of the SPUAct, which does not provide for any qualification whatsoever forappointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. The Division Bench of theCHigh Court observed that such position would leave room for lot ofarbitrariness in the matter of selection of persons for appointment asVice Chancellor. The Division Bench of the High Court observed thatthough it is true that UGC Regulations provides for certain qualifications,however, the same are not binding unless the State legislation isappropriately amended. That the Division Bench of the High Court alsoDnoted the communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed by the UGC toH.E. – Governor of Gujarat. By the said communication it was requestedto ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State aremade in accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations.The said Regulations, inter alia, provide for minimum qualifications forEthe appointment of Vice Chancellor in Regulation 7.3.0. The High Courtnoted that the Principal Secretary to H.E. – the Chancellor had addresseda communication dated 30.08.2014 to the Principal Secretary,Government of Gujarat, requesting him to take note of the said importantcommunication and take necessary steps at the Government level butthe same had been ignored by the State and no steps had been takenFpursuant thereto. Therefore, the High Court observed that it is high timethe State of Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the Statelegislation appropriately so that no room is left for any manipulation,arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. At this stage, it is required to benoted that despite the above observations made in para 24 by the HighGCourt, no further steps have been taken by the State Government toadopt the UGC Regulations and amend the State legislation appropriately.2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and orderpassed by the High Court dismissing SCA No.18922/2017, upholding theappointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Vice Chancellor of SPHUniversity, petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) before

this Court by filing SLP (C) No.21792/2018. The said SLP came upbefore this Court for final hearing on 30.07.2019. However, by the timethe said SLP could be heard, only one month remained in the first termof respondent No.4, therefore, this Court did not interfere with theappointment of respondent No.4 and vide order dated 30.07.2019 disposedof the same; however, this Court specifically observed that all questionsof law are left open.

2.7 That thereafter an advertisement dated 12.06.2019 waspublished, inviting applications to the post of Vice Chancellor ofrespondent No.2 – SP University. According to the petitioner again theSearch Committee was not constituted as per the UGC Regulations.According to the petitioner in the said advertisement the SearchCommittee has further diluted the eligibility criteria to suit respondentNo.4, in so far as it states that persons who have remained Vice Chancellorfor one term are eligible. That thereafter respondent No.4 has beenagain appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University videnotification dated 29.08.2019 for further term of three years. It is thecase on behalf of the petitioner that impugned notification appointingrespondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University is absolutelyillegal and in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGCRegulations, 2018. Therefore, the present writ petition has been preferredfor writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondentNo.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University.

2.8 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the earlier decisionof the Division Bench of the High Court passed in Special Civil ApplicationNo.18922/2017 may come in the way of the petitioner and if again thepetitioner approaches the High Court by filing writ petition under Article226 of the Constitution of India. This is because the petitioner will haveto face the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court passed inSCA No.18922/2017 which though challenged before this Court, thesame was disposed of without considering the legality and/or correctnessof the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt in SCA No.18922/2017. This was because by the time the matterwas heard, only one month of service of respondent No.4 was left andwhile disposing of the SLP, it was observed by this Court that all questionsof law are left open. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petitionunder Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to

Aentertain the present writ petition and consider the same on merits in theaforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Shri I.H. Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner has vehemently submitted that the appointment of respondentNo.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP University is absolutely illegal and contraryBto the statutory guidelines issued by the UGC.

3.1 It is contented that appointment of respondent No.4 as ViceChancellor is by Search Committee not legally constituted as per theUGC guidelines.

3.2 It is submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocate appearingCon behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time when his firstappointment was made as Vice Chancellor, he was not fulfilling theeligibility criteria required as per the UGC guidelines as well as even theeligibility criteria fixed by even the Search Committee. It is furthersubmitted that at the relevant time when respondent No.4 was appointed,Dhe was not having ten years of experience as professor which wasmandatorily required as per the UGC guidelines as well as the eligibilitycriteria fixed by the Search Committee.3.3 It is further contended by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case the SearchECommittee constituted was not legal and valid. It is urged that as per theUGC guidelines which the State and universities were bound, one of themembers of the Search Committee should be the Chairman of the UGCand/or his nominee. It is submitted that in the present case the SearchCommittee constituted did not include the Chairman of the UGC and/orhis nominee. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.4 by such anFillegal Search Committee is absolutely illegal and contrary to the statutoryprovisions and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and setaside by issuing writ of quo warranto.

3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case even theGSearch Committee prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of ViceChancellor. That the SPU Act as such does not provide and/or prescribeany eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor which as such is avery important and prestigious post so far as the University is concerned.That even the Division Bench of the High Court in the earlier round oflitigation in paragraph 24 of the judgment specifically criticised the StateH

for not prescribing/providing the minimum qualifications for appointmentof Vice Chancellor at par with the UGC Regulations, 2010. It is submittedthat Division Bench of the High Court even noted the communicationdated 11.08.2014 addressed to H.E. – Governor of Gujarat to ensurethat all the appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made inaccordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations/guidelines which provide for minimum qualifications for the appointmentof Vice Chancellor as per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,2010 and also noted that even H.E. – Governor of Gujarat addressed acommunication dated 30.08.2014 to the State Government to take noteof the communication dated 11.08.2014 and to take necessary steps atthe Government level. That thereafter the Division Bench of the HighCourt has noted that said communications have been ignored by theState government and no steps have been taken pursuant thereto andtherefore, it is high time that the State government adopts the UGCRegulations and amends the State legislation appropriately so that noroom is left for manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism.That despite the above and even thereafter also no further steps havebeen taken by the State Government to amend the State legislation.

3.5 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate,appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by adopting the Scheme dated31.12.2008 vide Resolution dated 11.11.2009, all regulations framed bythe UGC shall be binding on the State Government including the SPUniversity. That UGC Regulations, 2010 which, inter alia, prescribe inRegulation 7.3.0 that person shall have ten years of teaching workexperience as professor in the University system. It also provides forconstituting of the search committee, consisting of nominee of theVisitor/Chancellor, nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, nomineeof the Syndicate/Executing Council of the University. That such searchcommittee has to recommend the names of the successful candidates.It is submitted that in the present case respondent No.4 was appointedas Vice Chancellor for the second term even though he did not fulfil thesaid criteria.

3.6 It is submitted that even respondent No.4 was being paid afixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with special allowance of Rs.5,000/-per month as per the Scheme dated 31.12.2008. It is submitted that oncethe Scheme dated 31.12.2008 had been adopted by the State governmentand the SP University and the said University started receiving central

Afinancial assistance and even it is included in the list of State universitiesreceiving financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act,1956, thereafter it will not be open to the State and/or the University notto follow the UGC Regulations and to continue to appoint the ViceChancellor illegally and contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations,2010 (now UGC Regulations, 2018).B

3.7 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the petitioner that the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 are Central legislation and therefore, the State and/or the Stateuniversities are bound by the Central legislation and UGC Regulations,2010/2018, the subject ‘education’ being in the Concurrent List of theCSeventh Schedule of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decisionsof this Court in the cases of Annamalai University represented byRegistrar Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and TourismDepartment and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 and Kalyani MathivananVs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors, (2015) 6 SCC 363.

3.8 Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner has submitted that the post of Vice Chancellor in Universityis very important and prestigious post. Post of Vice Chancellor can besaid to be holding of public office. It is submitted that the future of thestudents – next generation can be said to be in the hands of the ViceEChancellor who has to run the administration and management and leadthe University and guide the students. It is urged that therefore greatercare and caution should be taken while making the appointment of theVice Chancellor of University and the best talent shall have to beappointed as Vice Chancellor. It is submitted that any appointment as aVice Chancellor contrary to the statutory rules and regulations warrantsFissuance of writ of quo warranto. It is submitted that the Vice Chancellor,not having the requisite qualifications and who does not fulfil the eligibilitycriteria and/or who is appointed by search committee which is notlegally constituted, cannot hold such an important public office.

3.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aboveGdecisions, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition and to issue awrit of quo warranto as prayed in the petition.

4. Shri Manoj Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the UGC – respondent No.3 herein has as such supported thepetitioner. It is submitted that in search committee for appointment asH

Vice Chancellor, one of the members of the search committee shall be anominee of the Chairman of the UGC. It is submitted that UGCRegulations, 2010 and 2018 were/are binding to all the States and theUniversities.

4.1 It is further submitted that even as per clause 7.3.0 of theUGC Regulations, 2010/2018, the members of the Search cum SelectionCommittee, can be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education.It further provides that one member of the search committee shall benominated by the Chairman of the UGC for selection of Vice Chancellorsof the State, Private and Deemed to be universities. That as per theUGC Regulations, Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellorout of the panel of the names recommended by the Search cum Selectioncommittee. It is contended that being Central legislation all the States,Private and Deemed to be Universities are bound by the UGC Regulationsand the guidelines issued from time to time.

5. The present petition is opposed by Shri Vinay Navare, learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University.

5.1 Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of respondent No.2 - SP University has vehemently submittedthat in the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench of the HighCourt dismissed the writ petition and did not interfere with the appointmentof respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University and theSLP against the same was dismissed by this Court. Therefore, it is notopen for the petitioner to again challenge the appointment of respondentNo.4 as Vice Chancellor for the second term. It is submitted that assuch the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the subsequent Regulations, 2018have not been adopted by the State government and therefore, the UGCRegulations are not binding to the State and/or universities and in thepresent case SP University.

5.2 It is submitted that appointment of respondent No.4 is governedunder the SPU Act, 1955 and the Search Committee was constituted bythe State government under the SPU Act. That as such Section 10 ofthe said Act, does not provide for any specific eligibility criteria/minimumeligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor, therefore, the SearchCommittee itself prescribed the eligibility criteria. That after selectingrespondent No.4 and on the recommendations made by the SearchCommittee, respondent No.4 has been appointed.

A5.3 It is submitted that in the absence of any statutory breach,appointment of respondent No.4 has been made as per the SPU Act,1955 and hence no writ of quo warranto be issued. It is submitted thatwhile challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 in the first term,the Division Bench of the High Court rightly refused to issue writ ofquo warranto. Therefore, with regard to the appointment of respondentBNo.4 as Vice Chancellor for the second term also, no writ of quowarranto can be issued.

5.4 It is further submitted by Shri Navare, learned Senior Advocate,appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University that evenotherwise the petitioner has no locus standi. It is submitted that theCpetitioner is an ex-employee of the respondent - University and has agrudge against the University and therefore, the present writ petitionhas been preferred challenging the appointment of Vice Chancellor. It isprayed not to entertain the writ petition at the instance of such person.

6. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofDrespondent No.4, while adopting the submissions made by Shri Navare,has further submitted that so far as the appointment of respondent No.4as Vice Chancellor for the second term is concerned, UGC Regulations,2010 are not applicable as UGC Regulations, 2010 have been substitutedby the UGC Regulations, 2018.E7. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofrespondent No.1 – State has opposed the present writ petition.

7.1 When pointed question was asked to Ms. Kohli, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State, whether theFState legislation is amended providing for the minimum eligibility criteriaat par with the UGC Regulations, as observed by the High Court in theearlier round of litigation in para 24, she is not in position to satisfy and/or point out any such amendment in the State legislation.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of theGrespective parties at length.

9. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 32 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for writ of quo warrantoby challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 herein as ViceChancellor of the SP University – respondent No.2 herein. When writof quo warranto will lie has been dealt with by this Court in the case ofH

Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 501.In para 19, it has been observed and held as under: -

“19. writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is madecontrary to the statutory provisions. This Court in Mor ModernCoop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana [(2002) 6SCC 269] held that writ of quo warranto can be issued whenappointment is contrary to the statutory provisions. In B. SrinivasaReddy [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] ,this Court has reiterated the legal position that the jurisdiction ofthe High Court to issue writ of quo warranto is limited to onewhich can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to thestatutory rules. The said position has been reiterated by this Courtin Hari Bansh Lal [(2010) 9 SCC 655 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S)771] wherein this Court has held that for the issuance of writ ofquo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy itself that theappointment is contrary to the statutory rules.”

9.1 In the case of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Associationand Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731, it has beenobserved by this Court that strict rules of locus standi are relaxed tosome extent in quo warranto proceedings. It is further observed in thesaid decision that broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords ajudicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantivepublic office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what righthe holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may beduly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the officehas no title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order. It isfurther observed that in other words, the procedure of quo warranto givesthe judiciary weapon to control the executive from making appointmentsto public office against law and to protect citizens from being deprivedof public office to which they have right. These proceedings also tendto protect the public from usurpers of public office. It is further observedthat it will, thus, be seen that before person can effectively claim writof quo warranto, he has to satisfy the court that the office in question isa public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and thatinevitably would lead to an enquiry, as to, whether, the appointment ofthe alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. Thus,as per the law laid down in catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of theHigh Court to issue writ of quo warranto is limited one, which can

Aonly be issued when person is holding the public office does not fulfilthe eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office orwhen the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. Keeping in mindthe law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the jurisdictionof the Court while issuing writ of quo warranto, the factual and legalcontroversy in the present petition is required to be considered.B

10. Respondent No.4 is holding the post of Vice Chancellor. Thepost of Vice Chancellor in University can be said to be public office.There cannot be any dispute about the same. It is nobody’s case thatholding the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be holding post ofpublic office.C

11. Now the next question which is posed for consideration of thisCourt is, whether, the appointment of respondent No.4 as ViceChancellor of the SP University – respondent No.2 herein can be said tobe contrary to any statutory provisions and whether, can it be said thatrespondent No.4 fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of ViceDChancellor

11.1 While examining the aforesaid issues the relevant provisionsof the UGC Regulations, 2010 enacted in exercise of powers conferredunder clauses (e) and (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UniversityGrants Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions of the SPUEAct, 1955, are required to be referred to.

11.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for theco-ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for thatpurpose, to establish University Grants Commission. Section 12 dealswith “Functions of the Commission”, while Section 14 speaks of“Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with recommendationsFof the Commission”. Section 26 deals with “Power to make regulations”.As per Section 28 the rules and regulations framed under the UGC Actare required to be laid before each House of the Parliament and whenboth the Houses agree then rules and regulations can be given effectwith such modification as may be made by the Parliament. Therefore,Gany regulation enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can besaid to be subordinate legislation.

11.3 For the appointment and career advancement of teachers inthe universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC by Regulation dated04.04.2000, enacted the University Grants Commission (MinimumHQualifications Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement

of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations,2000. However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications wereprescribed for the post of “Pro-Chancellor” or “Vice Chancellor”.

Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Human ResourceDevelopment Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by LetterNo. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated 31-12-2008 communicated to theSecretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi the scheme ofrevision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities andcolleges following the revision of pay scales of the Central Governmentemployees on the recommendations of the 6[th] Central Pay Commission.By the said letter, the Government of India directed that there shall beonly three designations in respect of teachers in the universities andcolleges, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors andProfessors. In the said letter revised pay scales, service conditions andCareer Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positionsincluding the post of Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/Professors in universities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales ofPro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor were also mentioned therein. Itwas intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to the universities,colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under thepurview of the State Legislature, provided the State Governments wishto adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditionsmentioned therein. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i), dated 31-12-2008 issued by the Government of India and inexercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted theRegulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It waspublished in the Gazette of India on 28-6-2010 and came into force withimmediate effect.

11.3.1 Regulation 7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellorwhich reads as under: -

“7.3.0. Vice-Chancellor.—(i) Persons of the highest level ofcompetence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are tobe appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to beappointed should be distinguished academician, with minimumof ten years of experience as Professor in university system orten years of experience in an equivalent position in reputedresearch and/or academic administrative organization.

ABC

DEF

A(ii) The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through properidentification of panel of 3-5 names by Search Committeethrough public notification or nomination or talent searchprocess or in combination. The members of the above SearchCommittee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of highereducation and shall not be connected in any manner with theBuniversity concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel,the Search Committee must give proper weightage to academicexcellence, exposure to the higher education system in the countryand abroad, and adequate experience in academic andadministrative governance to be given in writing along with theCpanel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. In respect of Stateand Central universities, the following shall be the constitution ofthe Search Committee:

(a) nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be theChairperson of the Committee.

D(b) nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission.(c) nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council/Board ofManagement of the university.

(iii) The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor outof the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.

(iv) The conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall beprescribed in the statutes of the universities concerned inconformity with these Regulations.

(v) The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part ofthe service period of the incumbent concerned making him/herFeligible for all service related benefits.”

11.3.2 Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/StateGovernments shall modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes of theuniversities concerned within six months of adoption of these Regulations.

11.3.3 Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter-alia, prescribes inGRegulation 7.3.0 that person shall have ten years of teaching workexperience as professor in university system. It also provides forconstitution of search committee consisting of nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, nominee of theSyndicate/Executive Council of the University and the search committeeHhas to recommend the names of the successful candidates.

11.4 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the UnionMinistry of Human Resource Development laid down scheme of revisionof pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the Universities followingthe 6[th] Central Pay Commission. The Scheme provides fixed pay ofRs.75,000/- along with special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month tothe Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said scheme provides that it isextended to Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutionscoming under the purview of the State Legislature provided the StateGovernments wish to adopt and implement the scheme with certainconditions, inter alia, financial assistance from the Central Governmentto the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining20% shall be met by the State Government. It further provides thatpayment of Central assistance for implementing the scheme is subjectto the condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales togetherwith all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of regulationsand other guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governmentsand the Universities thereunder without any modification. In the presentcase, State of Gujarat has adopted the said Scheme dated 31.12.2008 bya Resolution dated 11.11.2009 with effect from 01.01.2006 subject tothe conditions mentioned in the said resolution. Even in the said resolution,condition No.13 provides that the State Government will publish theeducational qualifications as per the UGC instructions published fromtime to time and quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms, instructions,resolutions will have to be implemented. It is not in dispute that the SPUniversity is receiving Central financial assistance under the Schemeand it is included in the State universities receiving Central financialassistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, havingadopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and getting Centralfinancial assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure,the State Government and the SP University are bound by the UGCRegulations, 2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by theUGC Regulations, 2018. However, the eligibility criteria for the post ofVice Chancellor and the constitution of the search committee forappointment of Vice Chancellor remains the same. Therefore, theState of Gujarat and the universities thereunder including the SP Universityare bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations, 2018.

12. Respondent No.4 herein has been appointed as ViceChancellor of the SP University under the SPU Act, 1955. Section 10 ofthe said Act relates to the post of Vice Chancellor which reads as under:-

“[10. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the StateGovernment from amongst three persons recommended undersub-section (3) by committee appointed for the purpose undersub-section (2).

(2) (a) for the purpose of sub-section (1) the Chancellor shallBappoint Committee which shall consist of the following members,namely:—

(i) two members (not being persons connected with theUniversity or with any affiliated college or recognised institution)out of whom one shall be person nominated in the mannerCprescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the AcademicCouncil jointly and the other shall be person nominated in themanner prescribed by Statutes by the Vice-Chancellor of allthe Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat;

(ii) one member to be nominated by the Chancellor.

D(b) The Chancellor shall appoint one of three members of theCommittee as its chairman.

(3) The Committee so appointed shall, within such time and insuch manner as may be prescribed by Statutes, select three personswhom it considers fit for being appointed Vice-Chancellor andEshall recommend to the State Government the names of the personsso selected together with such other particulars as may beprescribed by the Statutes.

(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for term of three yearsand he shall be eligible for being appointed to that office for afurther term of three years only.F

(5) The emoluments to be paid to the Vice-Chancellor, and theterms and conditions subject to which he shall hold office, 1 [shallbe determined by the State Government]:

Provided that such emoluments or such terms and conditions shallGnot, during the currency of the term of the holder of that office, bevaried to his disadvantage without his consent.

(6) (a) During the leave or absence of the Vice-Chancellor, or

(b) in the event of permanent vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor, until an appointment is made under sub-section (1) toHthat office,

the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, and in the absence of the Pro-Chancellor,one of the Deans nominated by [3] [the State Government], for thatpurpose shall carry on the current duties of the office of the Vice-Chancellor.”

12.1 As per Section 10 of the Act, 1955 the search committeeshall consist of two members (not being persons connected with therespondent - University or with any affiliated college or recognisedinstitution) out of whom, one shall be person nominated in the mannerprescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic Council jointlyand the other shall be person nominated in the manner prescribed byStatutes by the Vice-Chancellor of all the Universities established bylaw in the State of Gujarat and the third member to be nominated by theChancellor.

Section 10 of the SPU Act does not provide any qualificationwhatsoever for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. Even theeligibility criteria to be prescribed is left to the Search Committee. Thereare no guidelines whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to be prescribedby the Search Committee. On the other hand, the UGC Regulations,2010/2018 specifically prescribes the qualification / eligibility criteria forthe post of Vice Chancellor. It also provides for the constitution of theSearch Committee. As observed hereinabove as per Regulation 7.3.0 aperson shall have ten years of teaching work experience as professorin the university system and it also provides for constitution of searchcommittee consisting of nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, nomineeof the Chairman of the UGC, nominee of the Syndicate/ExecutiveCouncil of the University. But respondent No.4 did not/ does not fulfilthe eligibility criteria prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018.He was/is not having ten years of teaching work experience as professorin the university system. Moreover, his name was not recommended bythe legally constituted search committee, constituted as per the UGCRegulations, 2010/2018. Also, the search committee has prescribed theeligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor by diluting the eligibilitycriteria laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018.12.2 Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act, 1955/provisions underthe State legislation are just contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, which, as observed hereinabove, are binding on the StateGovernment and the universities thereunder. Even the State Governmenthas not bothered to amend the State legislation – to put at par with the

AUGC Regulations, 2010/2018 and has continued the appointment in theuniversities dehors the UGC Regulations.

13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present casethe UGC vide communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed to the H.E. –Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of the University hasBdrawn the attention of H.E. – Governor of Gujarat to ensure that all theappointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in accordancewith the provisions laid down in the Regulations of UGC. The letter/communication dated 11.08.2014 reads as under: -

“University Grants Commission

Prof. Dr. Jaspal S. Sandhu

Secretary

D.O.No.F.1-1/2014(Secy) 11[th] August, 2014

At the outset kindly allow me to apologise for encroaching uponyour precious time. But it is the criticality of the subject which hascompelled me to draw your kind attention to it.

The appointment of Vice-Chancellors in our University systemhas become subject of widespread criticism. We need visionaryleadership to give proper direction to higher education in today’sEcompetitive world. It is possible only when we have persons ofthe highest competence & integrity, in the position of the Vice-Chancellor. In this connection, the University Grants Commissionhad brought out Regulations titled “Minimum Qualifications forAppointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in UniversitiesFand Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards inHigher Education, 2010. The UGC has prescribed the minimumqualifications for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor in thisRegulation, which reads as under:

“Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, moralsand institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed shouldbe distinguished academician, with minimum of ten yearsof experience as Professor in University system or tenyears of experience in an equivalent position in reputedresearch and/or academic administrative organization.”

It hardly needs any mention that the notifications published in TheGazette of India are mandatory. May I, therefore, request yourExcellency to use your good offices to ensure that all theappointments of Vice-Chancellors in your State are made inaccordance with the provisions laid down in the aforementionedRegulations of the UGC.

I am certain that your guidance and support in this regard willmake huge difference in the governance of higher education inthe country.

Yours faithfully

Jaspal S.Sandhu

Shri O.P. KohliHon’ble Governor of Gujarat, Raj Bhawan

Gandhinagar 382 020 Gujarat”

13.1 That thereafter H.E. – Governor of Gujarat – Chancellor ofthe Universities communicated to the Principal Secretary to theGovernment of Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 andemphasized and requested him to take note of the UGC communicationdated 11.08.2014 and take necessary steps at the Government level.The communication dated 30.08.2014 issued by the Principal Secretaryto the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, reads as under: -

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TOTHE GOVERNER OF GUJARATRaj Bhavan Ghandhinagar-382020.Date: 30 AUG 2014F

Important:

To,The Principal Secretary to theGovernment of GujaratEducation Department,Block No.5, 7[th] Floor,New Sachivalay, GandhinagarSub: Appointment of Vice Chancellors

ARef: Communication from the Secretary, University GrantCommission, Government of India, New Delhi dated 11[th] August,2014.

Sir,

With reference to the above subject, it is stated that recentlyBwe have received communication from Prof. (Dr.) Jaspal S.Sandhu, Secretary, University Grant Commission, New Delhireading the appointment of the vice chancellors in the universities.It has been emphasized that the order to ensure maintenance ofstandards in Higher Education, the UGC has prescribed certainCminimum qualifications for the appointment of the ViceChancellors. Hon. Governor has been requested to ensure the allthe appointment of the Vice Chancellors in Gujarat are made inaccordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulation.(Copy of the communication is enclosed herewith for readyreference)D

You are requested to note the above pertinent communicationand take necessary steps at the Government level.

Regards,

Yours faithfully,Esd/-

(Arvind Joshi)

Principal Secretary to Hon. Governor

13.2 Despite the above clear instructions from the office of H.E.F– Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of all the universities,it is unfortunate that till date the State legislation has not been amendedby the State Government and the appointments to the post of ViceChancellor in the Universities in the said State are being made just contraryto the UGC guidelines and Regulations. At this stage, it is required to benoted that even in the earlier round of litigation being SCA No.18922 ofG2017 in which this very petitioner challenged the appointment of thisvery respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SPU made in the year2016, the Division Bench of the High Court made certain observationsagainst the State Government not adopting the UGC Regulations andnot amending the State legislation appropriately. The relevant observationsmade by the High Court in para 24 are as under: -H

“24. Even while upholding the appointment of the sixth respondentto the post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent University, thiscourt cannot shut its eyes to the fact that section 10 of the SPUAct does not provide for any qualification whatsoever forappointment to the post of Vice Chancellor which would leaveroom for lot of arbitrariness in the matter of selection of personsfor appointment as Vice Chancellor. The UGC Regulations providefor certain qualifications. However, the same are not binding unlessthe State legislation is appropriately amended. The UGC, by acommunication dated 11[th] August 2014, addressed to HisExcellency the Governor of Gujarat, has requested him to use hisgood offices to ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellorsin the State are made in accordance with the provisions laid downin the UGC Regulations, which provide for minimum qualificationsfor the appointment of Vice Chancellor with reference to regulation7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Pursuant thereto, the PrincipalSecretary to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat addressed acommunication dated 30[th] August 2014 to the Principal Secretary,Government of Gujarat, requesting him to note the said importantcommunication and take necessary steps at the Government level.However, it appears that such communication has been ignoredand no steps have been taken pursuant thereto. It is, therefore,high time that the State of Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulationsand amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room isleft for any manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism.”

Even the aforesaid observations made in para 24 were taken noteof by this Court while disposing of the SLP (C) No.21792 of 2018 inwhich the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was underchallenge.

13.3 Thus, despite the communication by the UGC dated11.08.2014 and thereafter, the communication by the H.E. – Governorof Gujarat dated 30.08.2014 and even the observations made by theDivision Bench of the High Court in paragraph 24 in its judgment andorder dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, reproducedhereinabove, it is unfortunate that as on today, no further steps havebeen taken by the State Government, to amend the State legislation andto put the same at par with the UGC Regulations, and the State and theuniversities thereunder have continued to make the appointments of Vice

AChancellors just contrary to the UGC Regulations, which as observedhereinabove are binding.

13.4 At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section 9of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat is the Chancellor ofthe University and he shall, by virtue of his office, be the head of theBUniversity and the President of the Senate. Therefore, even as the headof the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University andtherefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary steps at theGovernment level as requested in the communication dated 30.08.2014.Even the request made by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is alsothe Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very lightly.CThe State ought to have taken the corrective measures by suitablyamending the State legislation on par with the UGC Regulations.

14. The submissions made by Shri Navare, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – SP University thatas the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, in which theDappointment of respondent No.4 herein as the Vice Chancellor, wasunder challenge came to be dismissed and the High Court refused toissue writ of quo warranto and the judgment and order passed by theHigh Court in SCA No.18922 of 2017 was not disturbed by this Courtand therefore, the controversy stands concluded and it is not open forEthe petitioner to raise the same issue again is concerned, the aforesaidsubmissions is noted only to be rejected. This Court did not opine anythingon the merits of the judgment and order passed by the High Court. ThisCourt refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the groundthat by the time the same was taken up for hearing the tenure ofrespondent No.4 herein as Vice Chancellor was coming to an end.FEven while dismissing the same on the aforesaid ground alone, this Courtspecifically observed that all the questions of law are left open.

15. Thus, we find that the appointment of respondent No.4 iscontrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent No.4 has beenappointed by search committee, not constituted as per the UGCGRegulations, 2018. Moreover, respondent No.4 does not fulfil the eligibilitycriteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, namely, having ten years ofteaching work experience as professor in the university system. Asobserved hereinabove, by adopting the Scheme and having accepted80% of the maintenance expenditure from the Central government andHwhen respondent No.4 is paid fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with

special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is prescribed as perthe Scheme of 2008, the State and the universities thereunder are boundby the UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018. Theappointment of respondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibilitycriteria prescribed by the Search Committee, which is as under: -

“1.Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, moralsBand institutional commitment.

2.Persons should be distinguished academician with provenleadership qualities shall be satisfying anyone of thefollowing:

�10 years’ experience of teaching and research.As professor or

�Vice Chancellor / Pro Vice Chancellor of anyUniversity including former Vice Chancellor / ProVice Chancellor or

�Director / Principal of college / institution / ResearchOrganization with 15 years of teaching / research /administration.”

In fact, in the instant case, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat who isalso the Chancellor of all the Universities in the said State had throughhis Principal Secretary directed that the communication from theSecretary, University Grants Commission, Government of India, NewDelhi dated 11[th] August, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps betaken in that regard. We have referred to the aforesaid letter dated 30[th]August, 2014. The letter of the Secretary of the UGC dated 11[th] August,2014 to H.E. – Governor of Gujarat informing about the regulationstitled “Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and otheracademic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for themaintenance of standards in higher education, 2010” has also beenextracted above in the said letter. It has been clearly stated that theUGC has prescribed minimum qualifications for the appointment of aVice-Chancellor and therefore, such an appointment must be inaccordance with the provisions laid down in the afore-mentionedregulations of the UGC. It is clear that the respondent-State of Gujarathas failed to take note of the communication from the UGC and insteadthe respondent-University has left to the sweet will of the searchcommittee to prescribe eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Vice-

AChancellor of the University. The eligibility criteria when once fixed bythe UGC under its regulations would in our view apply to all the universitieswhich are aided by the UGC to be bound by the said regulations even inthe absence of the same being incorporated under the respectiveuniversities Act of the respective States. Therefore, when the appointmentof respondent No.4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations,B2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, we are ofthe opinion that this is fit case to issue writ of quo warranto and toquash and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 as the ViceChancellor of the SP University.

16. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enactedCby the UGC in exercise of powers under Section 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g)of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulationmade under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament.Therefore, being subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomespart of the Act. In case of any conflict between State legislation andDCentral legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitutionas the subject ‘education’ is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the SeventhSchedule of the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as ViceChancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can besaid to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting writ ofEquo warranto.

17. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons statedabove, the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of theSP University – respondent No.2 herein, is contrary to the UGCprovisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018. We hence allow the presentFwrit petition and issue writ of quo warranto quashing and setting asidethe appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SPUniversity. The present petition is accordingly, Allowed.

17.1 Before parting we may hope and trust that wiser counselwill now prevail and the State Government shall amend the State legislationGaccordingly on par with the UGC Regulations, which as such wasrecommended by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat as far as back in theyear 2014 and even thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Courthad made observations in para 24 of its judgment and order dated05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, in which, the High Court observedHthat it is high time that the State Government adopts the UGC Regulations

and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room is left forany manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism, before anyfresh appointment as Vice Chancellor in the State and the universitiesthereunder are made. As observed hereinabove, prescribing the eligibilitycriteria shall not be left to the sweet will of the search committee. It maylead to arbitrariness and different search committees in absence of anystatutory guidelines and/or prescription, may prescribe different eligibilitycriteria.

17.2 It is to be noted that the post of Vice Chancellor of theUniversity is very important post so far as the University is concerned.Being leader and head of the institution, the Vice Chancellor of theUniversity has to play very important role. While academic qualifications,administrative experience, research credentials and track record couldbe considered as basic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities of aVice Chancellor would be one who is true leader and passionatevisionary. Vice Chancellor needs to be one who understands andhandles the affairs of the University as ethical business and maintains apellucidity in his conduct towards the betterment of the University aswell as the students therein. Vice Chancellor should be one who caninspire students and guarantee entry of high-quality teachers into theUniversity system. Vice Chancellor functions as bridge between theexecutive and academic wings of university as he is the head of botha ‘teacher’ and an ‘administrator’.

We may refer to some of the significant commission reportsconcerning the personality and role of Vice-Chancellor of universityas under:

a)The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated thatoriginally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian Universitywas regarded as an honorary post to be filled by prominentman in his leisure time. But now the position has changed,there is enough work to justify full-time appointment andthe Universities should have full time paid Vice-Chancellors.While discussing the duties of Vice-Chancellor, theCommission stated that Vice-Chancellor must be the chiefliaison between the University and the public and must be akeeper of the university’s conscience, both setting the higheststandard by example and dealing firmly and promptly withindiscipline and malpractice of any kind. He/she must have

Athe strength of character to resist unflinchingly the manyforms of pressure. Being full-time task, it needs anexceptional man (or woman) to undertake it. TheCommission rejected the proposal of selecting the Vice-Chancellor by an external body and recommended that theChancellor should appoint the Vice-Chancellor upon theBrecommendation of the Executive.

b)The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governance ofUniversities and Collegesby the University GrantsCommission chaired by Dr. P.B. Gajendragadkar,former Chief Justice of India while reiterating therecommendations and observations made by the aforesaidcommissions alsostated that the selection of Vice-Chancellor is the single most important decision that thegoverning body of the university may be called upon tomake. While the Chancellor of University may be highdignitary of the State of Union of India or an eminent scholaror eminent person in public life of the State, the appointmentof Vice-Chancellor, being the important functionary of theUniversity is most strategic. The powers of propermaintenance of discipline and healthy environment forboth teachers and students in the university is vested withthe Vice-Chancellor along with all the other powers vestedin him/her by various Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations.The Commission also stated that appointment of Vice-Chancellor is made in most of the Universities out of panelof at least three names by the Chancellor in case of StateUniversities and by the Visitor in case of CentralUniversities. The panel of names is prepared by SearchCommittee constituted in accordance with the provision ofAct/Statute. Since it was difficult to have uniform systemof forming committee in all the States, the alternatives toconstitute the Search Committee were also provided in thereport.

c)The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards NewEducational Management by Professor A. Gnanam(also called as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990)accentuated the role of Vice-Chancellor, stating that the

Vice-Chancellor should be person with vision and qualitiesof academic leadership and with flair for administrationbecause what the universities need is sensitive, efficient,fair and bold administrator. The Vice-Chancellor should bea distinguished educationist from the higher education systemhaving highest level of competence, integrity, morals andself-respect.

d)The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented that theuniversities need distinguished and dignified persons as Vice-Chancellors and it is necessary to ensure that they aretreated with dignity and regard, which the office merits.

e)The University Grants Commission in its hand booktitled Governance in Higher Education: Hand Bookfor Vice-Chancellors published in 2019 has penned downthe role of Vice-Chancellor of Indian Universities havinggained paramount importance in the recent times. In thewords of the Prof. D.P. Singh, the then Chairman ofUniversity Grants Commission and Former Director ofNational Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC):-

“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads of Universities,the Vice Chancellors are expected to be efficient andeffective in terms of: -

a.Implementation of National Higher Education Policyand programmes,

b.Institutional change in tune with the national reformspackage,

c.Quality and innovation enhancement and theirsustainability,

d.Productive engagement with ‘communities ofscholars’ from within their universities and fromnational and international domains,

e.Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation Ecosystem’and translation of deliverables to society and economy

f.Adoption of international best practices of ‘GoodGovernance.”

A‘The Vice Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of asymphony of orchestra with the attributes of: -

a.Developing teams and teamwork, buildingpartnerships and collaborations delicately interwovenby collegiality, friendship and intellectual engagement;

b.devising strategy and action plan with definedmilestones and deliverables;

c.ensuring primary accountabilities of self and theabove-mentioned university governing bodies; and

d.steering an institutional monitoring and evaluationmechanism on university performance built onprinciples of transparency.’

Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle of governanceas quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra- ‘Yatha Raja Tatha Praja’, theDsense of morality must begin from the door of the leader who preachesit.

Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-Chancellor is theleader of higher education institution. As per the norm, he/she shouldbe an eminent academician, excellent administrator and also someonewho has high moral stature. The aforesaid reports of the RadhakrishnanECommission, Kothari Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal ParikhCommittee have highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellorin maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in addition to itsgrowth and development, keeping in view, the much-needed changesfrom time to time. Further, these committees have also made suggestionsFand recommendations for identifying the right person for the said position.At this stage, it is correct to say that Vice-Chancellor is the king-pin ofa University’s system and keeper of the University’s conscience.

Further, in our view, the Search / Selection Committee plays avital and significant role in the selection of the Vice Chancellor; yet theGselected Vice Chancellor’s performance in the universities vary fromuniversity to university. Therefore, the members of the Search Committee,who are given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting namesfor the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or indirectlyresponsible for the achievement of the University. Commitment to thequality and the objectives of the universities in particular and higherH

education system in general, are of course the deciding factors in selectingthe right person.

We are sure and we hope and trust that while making afreshappointment of Vice Chancellor in the State and the universitiesthereunder, the aforesaid aspects shall be kept in mind by the State andthe concerned universities. With this hope and trust we leave the matterthere.

Devika Gujral(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)

Writ Petition allowed.