9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1525 - HC - Indian LawsConstitution of the Selection Committee for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidalaya (HPKV) - compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture Horticulture and Forestry Act 1986 - HELD THAT - The nomination can only be made by the Chancellor and the Chairman University Grants Commission whereas the Director General ICAR is mandatorily required to be one of the members of the Selection Committee to be constituted by the Chancellor. The constitution of the Selection Committee is clearly in contravention and breach of the provisions as contained in Section 24 of the Act and the same therefore cannot be said to be a legal constituted Committee as it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. Once this Court concludes that the constitution/ composition of the Selection Committee is against the law i.e. Section 24 of the Act any action taken by such committee in furtherance thereof is obviously a nullity or nonest. Conclusion - The constitution of the Selection Committee is clearly in contravention and breach of the provisions as contained in Section 24 of the Act and the same therefore cannot be said to be a legally constituted Committee. Petition allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court were: (a) Whether the constitution of the Selection Committee for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidalaya (HPKV) complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 (the Act); (b) Whether the Selection Committee, as constituted by the Chancellor, was legally valid and empowered to recommend a panel for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor; (c) Whether any action taken by the Selection Committee, constituted in contravention of the statutory provisions, is valid or liable to be quashed; (d) Whether the process initiated by the impugned notification and consequential steps taken pursuant thereto should be set aside. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) & (b): Constitution of the Selection Committee in accordance with Section 24 of the Act The relevant legal framework is Section 24 of the Act, which prescribes the composition and procedure for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. It mandates that the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendations of the Selection Committee consisting of three members:
Further, subsection (2) of Section 24 requires the Chancellor to nominate one of these members as the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The Court noted that the statute prescribes a precise composition of the Selection Committee and the manner in which it is to be constituted. The nomination of members is restricted to the Chancellor and the Chairman of UGC, while the Director General, ICAR, is to be a mandatory member. In the instant case, the Chancellor issued a Gazette Notification constituting the Selection Committee with the following members:
The Court observed that the Director General, ICAR, was not a member of the Committee; instead, his Deputy Director General was included based on a recommendation from the Director General after a delay of six months. This substitution was not authorized by the statute. The Court emphasized the principle that where a statute prescribes a particular mode of doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. This principle was supported by authoritative precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Zuari Cement Ltd. and others, which reiterated that the manner prescribed by the statute is mandatory and cannot be departed from. The Court found that the constitution of the Selection Committee by including the Deputy Director General, ICAR, instead of the Director General, ICAR, and appointing a Chairman who was not nominated as per the statutory scheme, was in clear violation of Section 24 of the Act. Issue (c): Validity of actions taken by the Selection Committee Given the illegal constitution of the Selection Committee, the Court held that any action taken by such a committee is a nullity. The Court relied on the settled principle that a committee or authority not properly constituted under the enabling statute has no jurisdiction to act, and its actions are void ab initio. The Court referred to the principle that statutory mandates regarding constitution and procedure are mandatory and non-compliance renders the entire process invalid. Issue (d): Quashing of the process initiated by the impugned notification On the basis of the above findings, the Court quashed the notification constituting the Selection Committee and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto, including the advertisement and selection process initiated by the committee. The Court declined to interfere with the substantive relief sought initially regarding the assent to the Bill, as the petitioner's counsel had restricted the prayer to quashing the selection process only. The Court left the parties to bear their own costs and disposed of pending applications. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other manner." "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all." "The constitution of the Selection Committee is clearly in contravention and breach of the provisions as contained in Section 24 of the Act and the same, therefore, cannot be said to be a legally constituted Committee." "Any action taken by such committee in furtherance thereof, is obviously a nullity or nonest." The Court established the core principle that statutory provisions prescribing the composition and constitution of a Selection Committee are mandatory and must be strictly followed. Deviation from the prescribed composition, including substitution of members not authorized by the statute, invalidates the committee and all actions taken by it. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned notification constituting the Selection Committee and all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto.
|
