9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1289 - SC - Indian LawsPermissibility of reappointment in respect of a Tenure Post - applicability of outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 in the case of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor - reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10 of the Act 1996 or not - Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor or not. Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a Tenure Post? - HELD THAT - The statute itself has provided for reappointment with some object in mind. The ordinary meaning that can be ascribed to the term reappointment is the act or process of deciding essentially that someone should continue in a particular job. Ordinarily, the object behind providing for reappointment is twofold. First is retention i.e., where the incumbent to the office/post during his term is found to be extraordinary and has established himself or herself to be an asset to the institution, then in such circumstance, such person is retained with a view to allow him to continue on the same post for one more term. Secondly, having regard to the nature of the post the organization or institution may not be in a position to fill up the post in a time bound manner and in such circumstances, the provision for reappointment may enable the organization or institution to relieve itself of the tedium of going through the entire selection process afresh every time the post becomes vacant - the reappointment is permissible even in case of a tenure post. Whether the outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is applicable in the case of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor? - HELD THAT - The doctrine of purposive construction may be taken recourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to the statutory provisions, and the courts must state what meaning the statute should bear, rather than rendering the statute a nullity, as statutes are meant to be operative and not inept. The courts must refrain from declaring a statute to be unworkable. The rules of interpretation require that construction which carries forward the objectives of the statute, protects interest of the parties and keeps the remedy alive, should be preferred looking into the text and context of the statute. Construction given by the court must promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and not efface its very purpose. The courts strongly lean against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to futility - The court must adopt a construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico. The court must give effect to the purpose and object of the Act for the reason that legislature is presumed to have enacted a reasonable statute. The outer age limit of sixty years provided in sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 will not apply, when it comes to reappointment under sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996. Whether the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10 of the Act 1996? - HELD THAT - In STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS AND ORS. 2022 (10) TMI 1260 - SUPREME COURT , it was held that by virtue of such amendment the reappointment was no longer subject to the provision / section detailing the ordinary procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, and thus, this Court had no hesitation in holding that the legislature s intent was to allow reappointment by the Chancellor itself without following the ordinary process of appointment. In the case at hand, sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act, 1996, provides for reappointment and does not even contain the words subject to provisions of this section . This is as good as to reflect the legislature s intention of permitting reappointment without following the ordinary process of appointment of Vice-Chancellor - it is not necessary to follow the procedure of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of the Act 1996 for the purpose of reappointment. Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor? - HELD THAT - he UGC Regulations provide for the procedure to be adopted for appointment of Vice-Chancellor. The UGC Regulations are silent in so far as reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor is concerned. There is no specific procedure prescribed by the UGC under its regulations for the purpose of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor. The entire focus of the Chancellor is on the aforesaid. However, nothing has been said in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Chancellor as regards Chancellor s own independent satisfaction or judgment for the purpose of reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as ViceChancellor. It is now well settled that a writ of quo warranto lies if any appointment to a public office is made in breach of the statute or the rules. In the case on hand, we are not concerned with the suitability of the respondent No. 4. The suitability of a candidate for appointment to a post is to be judged by the appointing authority and not by the court unless the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules/provisions. We have reached to the conclusion that although the notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 to the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations or to put it in other words by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 23.02.2022 is hereby set aside. As a consequence, the Notification dated 23.11.2021, reappointing the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University is hereby quashed. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post. 2. Whether the outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is applicable in the case of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor. 3. Whether the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10 of the Act 1996. 4. Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post: The court addressed the definition of a "tenure post," referring to it as a position where the appointee is entitled to continue until the term ends unless curtailed for justifiable reasons. It was concluded that reappointment is permissible even for a tenure post. The ordinary meaning of "reappointment" implies the act of deciding that someone should continue in a particular job, primarily for "retention" of an extraordinary incumbent or to avoid the tedium of a fresh selection process. 2. Whether the outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is applicable in the case of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor: The court observed that sub-section (9) of Section 10, which provides an outer age limit for appointment, applies only at the initial appointment stage and not for reappointment. Sub-section (10) of Section 10, which allows for reappointment, does not mention the age limit. The court emphasized that interpreting sub-section (9) to apply to reappointment would render sub-section (10) meaningless, as it would severely limit the pool of candidates eligible for reappointment. 3. Whether the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10 of the Act 1996: The court held that for reappointment, the same process as a fresh appointment need not be followed. Sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 does not prescribe any particular procedure for reappointment, and the UGC Regulations are silent on this matter. The court referenced the case of Anindya Sundar Das, where it was held that reappointment does not require the same procedural formalities as a fresh appointment. 4. Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor: The court found that the Chancellor had abdicated his statutory power by reappointing the Vice-Chancellor at the behest of the State Government. The Chancellor had already initiated steps for appointing a new Vice-Chancellor, but the process was halted following the State Government's recommendation and the opinion of the Advocate General. The court emphasized that the Chancellor must exercise his statutory duties independently and not under the influence of extraneous considerations. Final Conclusion: The court concluded that the reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor was vitiated by extraneous considerations and the unwarranted intervention of the State Government. The decision-making process was found to be flawed, leading to the quashing of the reappointment notification. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.
|
