2022 (10) TMI 1260 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-Chancellor VC of Calcutta University - authority of State government to appoint or re-appoint the VC Under Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act 1979 the Act or by taking recourse to the residuary provisions of Section 60 of the Act - HELD THAT - The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact on the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The conditions of eligibility for holding the post of VC are stipulated in Section 8(1)(a) namely (i) a distinguished academic with proven competency and integrity; (ii) (a) minimum of ten years of experience in a University system of which at least five years shall be as a professor; or (b) ten years of experience in a reputed research or academic administrative organization of which at least five years shall be in a position equivalent to a professor. The effect of the words subject to the provisions of this section in Section 8(2)(a) in its unamended form was that the reappointment would have to be in a manner provided in Section 8, which obviously included Section 8(1). Deletion of those words in Section 8(2)(a), as amended, would mean that the procedure which has been prescribed for making the appointment of a VC, namely the appointment of a search committee and the preparation of a panel, would not be attracted in the case of a reappointment. In the case of a reappointment, a VC who has completed a term of four years would be eligible subject to the satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of their past academic excellence and administrative record during the term of office held as a VC. The State government chose the incorrect path Under Section 60 by misusing the removal of difficulty clause to usurp the power of the Chancellor to make the appointment. A government cannot misuse the removal of difficulty clause to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be antithetical to the Rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation. The High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that in the guise of removing the difficulties, the State cannot change the scheme and essential provisions of the Act . The judgment of the High Court is correct in law and on fact and does not warrant interference in appeal. The State government could not have issued the order re-appointing the VC - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to appoint or re-appoint the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University.
2. Validity of the State Government's re-appointment of the VC.
3. Application of Section 8 and Section 60 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979.
4. Compliance with University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations 2018.
5. Legal grounds for issuing a writ of quo warranto.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority to Appoint or Re-appoint the VC
The High Court held that the State government had no authority to appoint or re-appoint the VC under Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979, or by invoking the residuary provisions of Section 60. The power to appoint, re-appoint, temporarily appoint, or remove the VC is vested solely in the Chancellor as per Section 8 of the Act. The Chancellor's power includes:
- Appointment of a VC from a panel recommended by a Search Committee (Section 8(1)(b)).
- Re-appointment of a VC based on past academic excellence and administrative success (Section 8(2)(a)).
- Continuation of the VC's term for up to two years in consultation with the Minister (Section 8(2)(b)).
- Temporary appointment of a VC in case of vacancy or inability (Section 8(5)).

2. Validity of the State Government's Re-appointment
The State government issued a notification on 27 August 2021, re-appointing the VC, which was challenged in a public interest petition. The High Court found that the State government's re-appointment was invalid because:
- The Chancellor did not accept the State government's proposal for re-appointment.
- The State government invoked Section 60 improperly to bypass the statutory provisions.
- The re-appointment did not follow the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) and was contrary to the UGC Regulations.

3. Application of Section 8 and Section 60
The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act:
- Section 8(1) outlines the eligibility and procedure for appointing a VC.
- Section 8(2)(a) allows re-appointment based on the State government's satisfaction of the VC's past academic and administrative performance.
- Section 60 is a "removal of difficulty clause" intended to address lacunae or omissions in the Act. The State government misused this clause to re-appoint the VC, which was beyond its scope.

4. Compliance with UGC Regulations 2018
The UGC Regulations 2018 stipulate that the appointment of a VC must be made by the Chancellor. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, which held that UGC Regulations have statutory force and any appointment contrary to these regulations warrants a writ of quo warranto. The High Court concluded that the State government's re-appointment of the VC violated the UGC Regulations.

5. Legal Grounds for Issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto
The High Court issued a writ of quo warranto, which can be invoked when:
- A person holding public office lacks the eligibility criteria prescribed for such appointment.
- The appointment is made contrary to statutory provisions or rules.
The High Court determined that the VC's re-appointment by the State government was contrary to the statutory provisions of the Calcutta University Act and UGC Regulations, thus justifying the issuance of the writ of quo warranto.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the State government had no authority to re-appoint the VC and that the re-appointment was contrary to the statutory provisions and UGC Regulations. The appeals were dismissed, and the re-appointment of the VC was set aside.