2022 (3) TMI 1608 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of respondent No.2 Sardar Patel University - prayer for a writ of quo warranto by challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 herein as Vice Chancellor of the SP University respondent No.2 herein - HELD THAT - In the case of B. SRINIVASA REDDY VERSUS KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 2006 (8) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT , it has been observed by this Court that strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo warranto proceedings. It is further observed in the said decision that broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by a judicial order. As per the law laid down in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued when a person is holding the public office does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. Keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto, the factual and legal controversy in the present petition is required to be considered. Respondent No.4 is holding the post of Vice Chancellor. The post of Vice Chancellor in a University can be said to be a public office. There cannot be any dispute about the same. It is nobody s case that holding the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be holding a post of public office. Whether, the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of the SP University respondent No.2 herein can be said to be contrary to any statutory provisions and whether, can it be said that respondent No.4 fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor? - HELD THAT - As per Section 9 of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. Governor of Gujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University and therefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary steps at the Government level as requested in the communication dated 30.08.2014. Even the request made by the H.E. Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very lightly. The State ought to have taken the corrective measures by suitably amending the State legislation on par with the UGC Regulations. This Court did not opine anything on the merits of the judgment and order passed by the High Court. This Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the ground that by the time the same was taken up for hearing the tenure of respondent No.4 herein as a Vice Chancellor was coming to an end. Even while dismissing the same on the aforesaid ground alone, this Court specifically observed that all the questions of law are left open. The appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. Moreover, respondent No.4 does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018, namely, having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in the university system - when the appointment of respondent No.4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, it is opined that this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University. The appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of the SP University respondent No.2 herein, is contrary to the UGC provisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018 - A writ of quo warranto quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University issued - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP University.
2. Compliance with UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018.
3. Constitution of the Search Committee.
4. Eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor.
5. Binding nature of UGC Regulations on State Government and Universities.
6. Previous High Court judgment and its implications.
7. Locus standi of the petitioner.
8. Role and responsibilities of a Vice Chancellor.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP University:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP University under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of quo warranto. The petitioner argued that the appointment was illegal and contrary to the statutory guidelines issued by the UGC. The Supreme Court noted that a writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions, as established in previous cases such as Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.

2. Compliance with UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018:
The petitioner contended that respondent No.4 did not meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the UGC Regulations, 2010, which required a minimum of ten years of teaching work experience as a professor. The UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018, were binding on all states and universities, including SP University, as the university was receiving central financial assistance under the UGC Scheme.

3. Constitution of the Search Committee:
The petitioner argued that the Search Committee constituted for the appointment of respondent No.4 was not in compliance with UGC guidelines, as it did not include a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. The Supreme Court observed that the Search Committee prescribed its own eligibility criteria, which diluted the standards set by the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018.

4. Eligibility Criteria for the Post of Vice Chancellor:
The Supreme Court noted that respondent No.4 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor, as required by the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. The court emphasized that the eligibility criteria set by the UGC must be followed, and any deviation would render the appointment illegal.

5. Binding Nature of UGC Regulations on State Government and Universities:
The Supreme Court held that the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, being central legislation, were binding on the State Government and the universities under it. The court emphasized that the subject of education being in the Concurrent List, central legislation would prevail over state legislation in case of any conflict.

6. Previous High Court Judgment and Its Implications:
The petitioner had previously challenged the appointment of respondent No.4 before the High Court, which dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court clarified that it did not interfere with the High Court's decision due to the tenure of respondent No.4 coming to an end. However, the Supreme Court noted that all questions of law were left open, allowing the petitioner to challenge the appointment again.

7. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The respondents argued that the petitioner, being an ex-employee of the university, had no locus standi. The Supreme Court, however, relaxed the rules of locus standi in quo warranto proceedings, allowing the petitioner to challenge the appointment.

8. Role and Responsibilities of a Vice Chancellor:
The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the role of a Vice Chancellor, emphasizing that the position requires a person of high competence, integrity, and academic leadership. The court referred to various commission reports, stressing that the Vice Chancellor should be an eminent academician and an effective administrator.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor was contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. The court issued a writ of quo warranto, quashing and setting aside the appointment. The court also urged the State Government to amend the State legislation to align with UGC Regulations to prevent future arbitrary appointments.