9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingale, AOR, Mr. M. R. Sinha, Adv., Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv., Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv., Ms. Deepanwitapriyanka, AOR. JUDGMENT M. R. SHAH, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of respondent No.2 Sardar Patel University (hereinafter referred to as SP University ) and to quash and set aside the notification dated 29.08.2019, bearing No.GH/SH/76/SPY/122010/2626/ KH 2 passed by respondent No.1 State of Gujarat, appointing respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the respondent SP University. The petitioner has also prayed for any other appropriate writ, direction and order directing respondent authorities to recover from respondent No.4 all consequential benefits not limited to pay, with retrospective effect, that have been extended to him by virtue of his illegal appointment as Vice Chancellor of the SP University. 2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the UGC ) framed UGC Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the SP University, the said University is receiving Central financial assistance under the Scheme and is included in the list of State universities receiving Central 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 been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon the State of Gujarat including the SP University. 2.3 The UGC addressed a communication dated 11.08.2014 to H.E. the Governor of Gujarat seeking compliance with the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to appointment of Vice Chancellors in the State of Gujarat. That H.E. the Governor of Gujarat communicated to the Government of Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 to comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to the appointment of 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 in the State including the SP University. 2.4 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that ignoring Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, a Search Committee was constituted under Section 10(2)(b) of the Sardar Patel University Act, 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y amended. That the Division Bench of the High Court also noted the communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed by the UGC to H.E. Governor of Gujarat. By the said communication it was requested to ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations. The said Regulations, inter alia, provide for minimum qualifications for the appointment of Vice Chancellor in Regulation 7.3.0. The High Court noted that the Principal Secretary to H.E. the Chancellor had addressed a communication dated 30.08.2014 to the Principal Secretary, Government of Gujarat, requesting him to take note of the said important communication and take necessary steps at the Government level but the same had been ignored by the State and no steps had been taken pursuant thereto. Therefore, the High Court observed that it is high time the State of Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room is left for any manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. At this stage, it is required to be noted that despite the above observations made in para 24 by the High Court, no furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh challenged before this Court, the same was disposed of without considering the legality and/or correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in SCA No.18922/2017. This was because by the time the matter was heard, only one month of service of respondent No.4 was left and while disposing of the SLP, it was observed by this Court that all questions of law are left open. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to entertain the present writ petition and consider the same on merits in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Shri I.H. Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP University is absolutely illegal and contrary to the statutory guidelines issued by the UGC. 3.1 It is contented that appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor is by a Search Committee not legally constituted as per the UGC guidelines. 3.2 It is submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernor of Gujarat addressed a communication dated 30.08.2014 to the State Government to take note of the communication dated 11.08.2014 and to take necessary steps at the Government level. That thereafter the Division Bench of the High Court has noted that said communications have been ignored by the State government and no steps have been taken pursuant thereto and therefore, it is high time that the State government adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room is left for manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. That despite the above and even thereafter also no further steps have been 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 dated 31.12.2008 vide Resolution dated 11.11.2009, all regulations framed by the UGC shall be binding on the State Government including the SP University. That UGC Regulations, 2010 which, inter alia, prescribe in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in the University system. It also provides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Vice Chancellor of a University and the best talent shall have to be appointed as Vice Chancellor. It is submitted that any appointment as a Vice Chancellor contrary to the statutory rules and regulations warrants issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is submitted that the Vice Chancellor, not having the requisite qualifications and who does not fulfil the eligibility criteria and/or who is appointed by a search committee which is not legally constituted, cannot hold such an important public office. 3.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition and to issue a writ of quo warranto as prayed in the petition. 4. Shri Manoj Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the UGC respondent No.3 herein has as such supported the petitioner. It is submitted that in a search committee for appointment as Vice Chancellor, one of the members of the search committee shall be a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. It is submitted that UGC Regulations, 2010 and 2018 were/are binding to all the States and the Universities. 4.1 It is further submitted that even as per clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision Bench of the High Court rightly refused to issue a writ of quo warranto. Therefore, with regard to the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for the second term also, no writ of quo warranto 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 even otherwise the petitioner has no locus standi. It is submitted that the petitioner is an exemployee of the respondent University and has a grudge against the University and therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred challenging the appointment of Vice Chancellor. It is prayed not to entertain the writ petition at the instance of such a person. 6. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, while adopting the submissions made by Shri Navare, has further submitted that so far as the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for the second term is concerned, UGC Regulations, 2010 are not applicable as UGC Regulations, 2010 have been substituted by the UGC Regulations, 2018. 7. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 State has opposed the present wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. It is further observed that in other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making appointments to public office against law and to protect citizens from being deprived of public office to which they have a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office. It is further observed that it will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry, as to, whether, the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. Thus, 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 offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, 2000. However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were prescribed for the post of ProChancellor or Vice Chancellor . Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 1 32/2006 U.II/U.I(i) dated 31 12 2008 communicated to the Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi the scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales of the Central Government employees on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. By the said letter, the Government of India directed that there shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in the universities and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors. In the said letter revised pay scales, service conditions and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions including the post of Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/Professors in universities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of Pro ViceChancellor/Vice Chancellor were also mentioned therein. It was intimated that the said Scheme may be extende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service of the Vice Chancellor shall be prescribed in the statutes of the universities concerned in conformity with these Regulations. (v) The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her eligible for all service related benefits. 11.3.2 Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes of the universities concerned within six months of adoption of these Regulations. 11.3.3 Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter alia, prescribes in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in a university system. It also provides for constitution of a search committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the University and the search committee has to recommend the names of the successful candidates. 11.4 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down a scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the Universities following the 6th Central Pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SPU Act, 1955. Section 10 of the said Act relates to the post of Vice Chancellor which reads as under: [10. (1) The Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the State Government from amongst three persons recommended under sub section (3) by a committee appointed for the purpose under subsection (2). (2) (a) for the purpose of sub section (1) the Chancellor shall appoint a Committee which shall consist of the following members, namely: (i) two members (not being persons connected with the University or with any affiliated college or recognised institution) out of whom one shall be a person nominated in the manner prescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic Council jointly and the other shall be a person nominated in the manner prescribed by Statutes by the Vice Chancellor of all the Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat; (ii) one member to be nominated by the Chancellor. (b) The Chancellor shall appoint one of three members of the Committee as its chairman. (3) The Committee so appointed shall, within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by Statutes, select three persons whom it considers fit for being appointed ViceChancellor and shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of the University. But respondent No.4 did not/ does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. He was/is not having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in the university system. Moreover, his name was not recommended by the legally constituted search committee, constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. Also, the search committee has prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. 12.2 Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act, 1955/provisions under the State legislation are just contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, which, as observed hereinabove, are binding on the State Government and the universities thereunder. Even the State Government has not bothered to amend the State legislation to put at par with the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 and has continued the appointment in the universities dehors the UGC Regulations. 13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case the UGC vide communica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter H.E. Governor of Gujarat Chancellor of the Universities communicated to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 and emphasized and requested him to take note of the UGC communication dated 11.08.2014 and take necessary steps at the Government level. The communication dated 30.08.2014 issued by the Principal Secretary to the H.E. Governor of Gujarat, reads as under: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNER OF GUJARAT Raj Bhavan Ghandhinagar 382020. Date: 30 AUG 2014 Important: To, The Principal Secretary to the Government of Gujarat Education Department, Block No.5, 7th Floor, New Sachivalay, Gandhinagar Sub: Appointment of Vice Chancellors Ref: A Communication from the Secretary, University Grant Commission, Government of India, New Delhi dated 11th August, 2014. Sir, With reference to the above subject, it is stated that recently we have received a communication from Prof. (Dr.) Jaspal S. Sandhu, Secretary, University Grant Commission, New Delhi reading the appointment of the vice chancellors in the universities. It has been emphasized that the order to ensure maintenance of standards in Higher Education, the UGC has prescri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he UGC Regulations, 2010. Pursuant thereto, the Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat addressed a communication dated 30th August 2014 to the Principal Secretary, Government of Gujarat, requesting him to note the said important communication and take necessary steps at the Government level. However, it appears that such communication has been ignored and no steps have been taken pursuant thereto. It is, therefore, high time that the State of Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room is left for any manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. Even the aforesaid observations made in para 24 were taken note of by this Court while disposing of the SLP (C) No.21792 of 2018 in which the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was under challenge. 13.3 Thus, despite the communication by the UGC dated 11.08.2014 and thereafter, the communication by the H.E. Governor of Gujarat dated 30.08.2014 and even the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 24 in its judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, reproduced hereinabove, it is unfortunate that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulations, 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. As observed hereinabove, by adopting the Scheme and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure from the Central government and when respondent No.4 is paid a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/ along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/ per month, which is prescribed as per the Scheme of 2008, the State and the universities thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018. The appointment of respondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Search Committee, which is as under: 1. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment. 2. Persons should be a distinguished academician with proven leadership qualities shall be satisfying anyone of the following: 10 years experience of teaching and research. As professor or Vice Chancellor / Pro Vice Chancellor of any University including former Vice Chancellor / Pro Vice Chancellor or Director / Principal of a college / inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... part of the Act. In case of any conflict between State legislation and Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject education is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto. 17. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, 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. We hence allow the present writ petition and issue a writ of quo warranto quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University. The present petition is accordingly, Allowed. 17.1 Before parting we may hope and trust that wiser counsel will now prevail and the State Government shall amend the State legislation accordingly on par with the UGC Regulations, which as such was recommended by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Vice Chancellor, the Commission stated that a Vice Chancellor must be the chief liaison between the University and the public and must be a keeper of the university s conscience, both setting the highest standard by example and dealing firmly and promptly with indiscipline and malpractice of any kind. He/she must have the strength of character to resist unflinchingly the many forms of pressure. Being a full time task, it needs an exceptional man (or woman) to undertake it. The Commission rejected the proposal of selecting the Vice Chancellor by an external body and recommended that the Chancellor should appoint the Vice Chancellor upon the recommendation of the Executive. b) The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governance of Universities and Colleges by the University Grants Commission chaired by Dr. P.B. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India while reiterating the recommendations and observations made by the aforesaid commissions also stated that the selection of a Vice Chancellor is the single most important decision that the governing body of the university may be called upon to make. While the Chancellor of a University may be a high dignitary of the State of Union of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rogrammes, b. Institutional change in tune with the national reforms package, c. Quality and innovation enhancement and their sustainability, d. Productive engagement with communities of scholars from within their universities and from national 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 Good Governance. The Vice Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of a symphony of orchestra with the attributes of: a. Developing teams and teamwork, building partnerships and collaborations delicately interwoven by collegiality, friendship and intellectual engagement; b. devising a strategy and action plan with defined milestones and deliverables; c. ensuring primary accountabilities of self and the above mentioned university governing bodies; and d. steering an institutional monitoring and evaluation mechanism on university performance built on principles of transparency. Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle of governance as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra Yatha Raja Tatha Praja , the sense of morality must begin from the door of the leader ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
