9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.11.2021 inviting applications for selection of Vice-Chancellor 6 iii) Letter of the Minister for Higher Education / Pro-Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment of the Respondent No. 4 7 iv) Notification dated 22.11.2021 withdrawing the Notification dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications from the elligible candidates 9 v) Letter of the Minister for Higher Education / Pro-Chancellor proposing reappointment of Vice-Chancellor 9 vi) Reappointment Notification dated 23.11.2021 10 B. Relevant observations made by the Ld. Single Judge 11 C. Relevant observations made by the Division Bench in Appeal 13 D. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant(s) 15 E. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 2 - State of Kerala 21 F. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 3 - Kannur University 26 G. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 4 - Vice-Chancellor 28 H. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 1 - Chancellor 29 I. Relevant Provisions of the Kannur University Act, 1996 and the UGC Regulations, 2018 35 J. Writ of Quo Warranto 39 K. Questions of Law Formulated 45 L. Analysis 46 i) Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was challenged before a Division Bench of the High Court by filing the Writ Appeal No. 1698 of 2021. The challenge in the appeal also failed. The Division bench dismissed the appeal vide the judgment and order dated 23.02.2022 thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to issue a writ of Quo Warranto. A. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The facts are jejune. The respondent No. 4 herein was appointed as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University vide the Notification dated 24.11.2017 duly issued by the Chancellor of the Kannur University. The tenure of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor was for a period of four years. As the tenure of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the University was coming to an end, the Chancellor initiated steps for selection and appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor in the said University. The first step in the said process was the issue of a Notification dated 27.10.2021 constituting a Selection Committee of three members. The Notification dated 27.10.2021 reads thus: "No.G53 1283/2021 Governors Secretariat Kerala Raj Bhavan Thiruvananthapuram 27th October 2021 NOTIFICATION In exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f of experience, qualifications etc., in the attached format should reach the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Annexe II. Fourth Floor, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001 and [email protected] on or before 5 PM on 30.11.2021. Sd/- Dr. Venu, IAS Additional Chief Secretary Higher Education, Environment Archaeology, Archives & Museum Departments." 5. It appears that in the meantime, the Minister for Higher Education and Social Justice in her capacity as the Pro-Chancellor addressed a letter to the Governor/Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment of the respondent No. 4 herein for a second term as the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The letter dated 22.11.2021 reads thus: "D.O. LETTER NO. 401/2021/M (H.Edn & SJ) DATED 22/11/2021 Honourable Governor, Kind attention of Honourable Governor is invited to the fact that the term of office of Ex. Vice Chancellor of Kannur University is ending on November 23,2021 Notification for the selection of new Vice Chancellor was issued on November 1.2021. Dr. Gopinath Raveendran is currently holding the post of Vice Chancellor. He is an emi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for Higher Education and Social Justice and Pro-Chancellor Sri Arif Mohammed Khan Excellency The Governor of Kerala Bhavan" 6. It is pertinent to note that on the very same day and date i.e., 22.11.2021, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, recalled the Notification dated 01.11.2021 referred to above. The Notification dated 22.11.2021 recalling the earlier Notification dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications from the eligible candidates reads thus: "NOTIFICATION DATED: 22.11.2021 The notification no. B2/88/2021/H.EDN dated 01/11/2021 inviting application for the selection of Vice-Chancellor to Kannur University is withdrawn. Dr. V. Venu, IAS Additional Chief Secretary to Government. Higher Education Department." 7. On 22.11.2021, the Pro-Chancellor/Minister for Higher Education addressed one another letter to the Chancellor which reads thus: v) Letter of Pro-Cha ncellor proposing re-appoint ment of Vice -Chancellor "D.O. LETTER NO. 406/2021/M (H.Edn & SJ) DATED 22/11/2021 Honourable Chancellor, The term of Dr. Gopinath Raveendran, Vice Chancellor of Kannur University will cease on 23 November 2021. As per D.O. No. GS3-1283/2021 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or for the first time should have been undertaken. In other words, the procedure prescribed in Section 10 of the Act 1996 ought to have been followed even at the time of reappointment. B. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. SINGLE JUDGE 10. As noted above, the challenge before the learned Single Judge failed. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding as under: "6. From the perusal of the provisions of Section 10, it is evident that Vice-Chancellor can be appointed by Chancellor on the recommendation of the committee appointed by him which consists of three members with one elected by Senate, another by Chairman of the University Grants Commission and third by the Chancellor. The chancellor shall appoint one of the members of the committee to his convenience and committee shall make its recommendation within a period of three months of appointment. University is not precluded to unanimously recommend the name of only one person and in that process, Chancellor shall appoint that person to be Vice- Chancellor, but, it may submit a panel of three names within the period and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed from among the persons in the pane ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed by him for the purpose. In the case on hand, the appointment of the 4th respondent in the year 2017 for a period of 4 years in contemplation of sub-Section 10 of Section 10, and in contemplation of law is admitted. It is also an *admitted fact that the eligibility and qualification of the 4th respondent at the initial stage of appointment is undoubted. It is also quite clear and evident from the provisions of Section 10 that a clear cut procedure and modalities are prescribed in the said provision to select the Vice Chancellor. 21. One of the important aspects that is to be noted is that as per sub-Section 9 of Section 10, it is clearly specified that no person who is more than sixty years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. But, when it comes to sub-Section 10 of Section 10, it is made explicit that the Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for re-appointment. However, interdiction is made as per the proviso thereto, by making it clear that, a person shall not be appointed as Vice Chancellor for more than 2 terms. It is significant to note that sub-Section 10 of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 32. Before we part with the judgment, it is only appropriate that the Press release issued by the office of the Chancellor (Honourable Governor) of the University is discussed. On a perusal of Annexure A2 Press Release dated 03.02.2022, it is clear that right from the publication of selection notification dated 01.11.2021 issued on behalf of the selection committee uptill the reappointment are narrated. 33. Be that as it may, it is clearly specified in the Press Release that on 23rd November, 2021, Kerala Raj Bhavan issued a notification re-appointing the 4th respondent as the Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University. Other aspects are also dealt with in the Press Release, which we do not propose to traverse through, being unnecessary. 34. Taking into account the factual and legal circumstances deliberated above, we are of the clear and considered opinion that the appellants have not made out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities susceptible to be interfered with in the judgment of the learned single Judge." (Emphasis supplied) 12. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellants (original writ petitioners) are here before this Court with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very specific and clear. The language of the provision unequivocally spells out the legislative intent that if a person is once given an appointment, it would only enable him an opportunity to be considered for fresh appointment for one more term. The express language of the provision does not grant a candidate, who is already appointed as the Vice-Chancellor, to evade the mandatory eligibility criteria and to be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor again. The distinction drawn by the High Court between the terms "appointment" and "reappointment" relying on Section 10(10) is totally perverse. f. The High Court erred in proceeding on the premise that since the respondent No. 4 was eligible for appointment on the first occasion, he was also entitled for reappointment and thus the entire process for appointment need not be undertaken afresh. This appears to be the logic behind the withdrawal of Notifications calling for fresh applications. g. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the constitution of the Select Committee and preparation by the panel is prerequisite for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor of University. If the contention that the UGC Regulations do not impose any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dar Das, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1382, (iii) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kailash Chand Mahajan, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 351, (iv) Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179, (v) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473, (vi) Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 526, (vii) Dept. of Commerce v. US House of Representatives, 1999 SCC OnLine US SC 10, 15. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Senior Counsel prayed that there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed and the Notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University be set aside. E. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2 - THE STATE OF KERALA 16. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Kerala made the following submissions: a. The seminal issue which arises in the present case is the conflict between the provisions of the UGC Regulations, which is a subordinate legislation made under Section 26(1)(e) and (g) respectively of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 ('UGC Act'), and the State laws made under Entry 25 of List III dealing with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Business) Rules, 1961 would allocate the particular subject of the Act to a particular minister, who would then have to decide on what the rule should be. It is possible, as in the case of the UGC Act, that many of the provisions made in the rules or regulations may not find a place in the body of the Act, and, the only provision, which could be possibly invoked would be the main provision of subsection (1) of the rule making section, in which it would be stated that the regulations or rules may be made for the purposes of the Act. In the case of the UGC Act, the regulation making power is conferred upon the UGC, a statutory body acting under the Government, and not on the Government itself. g. The result is that a vast unbridled arbitrary power is vested in the executive where no definite guidelines are provided for in any particular section of the Act, and where the Act is totally silent on the aspects that are covered by the legislations. Such an arbitrary unguided power by itself would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the regulation making power would have to be struck down. h. Additionally, the procedure and method of making regulations or rules whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being so, the judgments being sub silentio, would not have any binding precedent. n. The judgments of this Court relating to the UGC Act in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and Anindya Sundar Das (supra) are sub silentio and would not have any binding precedent, as great violence is being done to the Constitution, far beyond the intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution. The reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101, para 12 and State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139, para 41. F. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 - KANNUR UNIVERSITY 17. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, the learned counsel appearing for the Kannur University made the following submissions: a. The High Court has rightly observed that the age bar prescribed under Section 10(9) for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor would not be applicable at the time of reappointment as the Vice-Chancellor who was appointed before attaining the age of 60 years, is entitled to continue for a term of four years and shall be eligible for reappointment under Section 10(10) of the Act 1996. b. Section 10(9) of the Act 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stood fulfilled. Clause 7.3 does not talk of reappointment and thus would not be applicable to the respondent No. 4 since the reappointment was not a fresh appointment by any stretch of imagination. d. Section 10(9) and Section 10(10) respectively are two separate & distinct provisions and as such should be read conjunctively and not disjunctively. e. Neither Section 10(10) nor the UGC Regulation prescribe for any limitation on reappointment of a person as Vice-Chancellor. Section 10 (9) only specifies that no person shall be 'appointed' as Vice- Chancellor above the age of 60. The term reappointment has, in the wisdom of the legislature, not been used in the Statute for the express purpose that Section 10(10) existed and to facilitate the continuation of eligible, qualified and experienced person on such post. H. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1- CHANCELLOR 19. The learned Attorney General for India appearing for the Chancellor made the following submissions: a. The plain reading of regulation 7.3, indicates that the selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper scrutiny of merit by a panel of 3 to 5 persons (Search-cum-Selection Committee) through a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Kerala Raj Bhavan at 11.30 am. He conveyed to Hon'ble Governor, the Government's desire to reappoint Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as Vice Chancellor and informed that a formal request to this effect from the Minister for Higher Education was on the way to Raj Bhavan. Hon'ble Governor, who had a different view on the matter, informed him that the proposal appeared legally untenable since the due process of selection was already in motion. On this, the Legal Advisor informed that the Government has examined the matter in detail and that the request was legally sound to withstand any legal scrutiny. He informed that Government had the legal advice and produced some typed papers. Hon'ble Governor inquired about its source, as it was unsigned. The Legal Advisor to the Chief Minister said it was the opinion of the Advocate General of Kerala and repeated the plea to consider the request of the Government to reappoint Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as Vice Chancellor, Kannur University. At this juncture, Hon'ble Governor said the instant opinion said to be from Advocate General but without his signature and seal, was of no significance. To this, the Legal Advisor sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continuous term of four years". This opinion of the Advocate General was also forwarded separately to Kerala Raj Bhavan by the Minister for Higher Education on 22.11.2021 itself. In the light of the legal opinion thus received from the Advocate General, the file was processed and Hon'ble Governor agreed to accept the proposal of the Higher Education Minister. At 04.30 pm, Principal Secretary to Governor wrote to Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education, conveying the decision of the Hon'ble Chancellor "to withdraw the Notification dated 27.10.2021 and subsequent Corrigendum dated 03.11.2021" and "to permit the State Government to submit necessary proposal for the reappointment of the present incumbent in the post of Vice Chancellor Kannur University". At 10.10 pm on the same day Kerala Raj Bhavan received the next letter from the Minister for Higher Education, informing that "steps have been taken to withdraw notification inviting applications" and that as Pro Chancellor, she was proposing the name of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran, the present incumbent Vice Chancellor to be re-appointed as Vice Chancellor of Kannur University for a second continuous term beginnin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable to recommend a name unanimously, it may submit a panel of three names to the Chancellor within the period specified in or under sub-section (4) and the Chancellor shall appoint one of the persons in the panel to be the ViceChancellor. (7) In case the committee fails to make a unanimous recommendation as provided in sub-section (5) or to submit a panel as provided in subsection (6), each member of the committee may submit a panel of three names to the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed from among the persons mentioned in the panels. (8) Non-submission of a panel under sub-section (7) by any member of the committee shall not invalidate the appointment of the ViceChancellor. (9) No person who is more than sixty years of age shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. (10) The Vice-Chancellor shall, hold office for a term of four years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for re-appointment: Provided that a person shall not be appointed as Vice-Chancellor for more than two terms." 24. Section 10 of the Act 1996 referred to above, envisages distinct situations namely: (a) Appointment of a Vice-Chancellor by the Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 7.3 of the UGC Regulations referred to above are thus: (a) The selection of the Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by constituting a Search-cumSelection Committee through a public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination of all the four. (b) The members of the Search-cum-Selection Committee should be persons of eminence in the field of higher education and they shall not be connected in any manner with the university concerned or its colleges. (c) The Selection Committee for the purpose of preparing the panel shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance. The panel shall place its recommendation before the Chancellor. (d) One member of the Selection Committee would be nominated by the Chairman, UGC. J. WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO 27. Quo warranto is a judicial remedy against an intruder or usurper of an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty. The usurper is asked 'by what authority' (quo warranto) he is in such office, franchise, or liber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o hold a public office, if such person fails to do so, a writ of quo warranto shall be directed against him. It shall be no defence by the holder of the office that the appointment was made by the competent authority, who under the law is not answerable to any court for anything done in performance of duties of his office. The question of fulfilling legal requirements and qualifications necessary to hold a public office would be considered in the proceedings independent of the fact as to who made the appointment and the manner in which the appointment was made. 32. Any person may challenge the validity of an appointment of a public office, whether any fundamental or other legal right of his has been infringed or not. But the court must be satisfied that the person so applying is bona fide and there is a necessity in public interest to declare judicially that there is a usurpation of public office. If the application is not bona fide and the applicant is a mere pawn or a man of straw in the hands of others, he cannot claim the remedy. Though the applicant may not be an aspirant for the office nor has any interest in appointment, he can apply as a private relator, or an ordinary cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective impact on the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464], SCC para 74.) 23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana (2002) 6 SCC 269.)" 36. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731, the limitations of the writ of quo warranto were elaborated upon by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. The court observed: "49. ... The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. xxx xxx xxx 51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India [(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough the materials on record the following questions of law fall for our consideration: (i) Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post? (ii) Whether the outer age limit of sixty years for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor as stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is to be made applicable even in the case of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor for one more term of four years? (iii) Whether the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment by setting up a selection committee under Section 10(1) of the Act 1996? (iv) Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor? L. ANALYSIS i) Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a Tenure Post? 41. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that in the case of a tenure post such as the post of Vice-Chancellor, there can be no reappointment. In other words, at the end of the tenure the appointment automatically comes to an end and there can only be a fresh appointment and not reappointment. 42. In the aforesaid context, it is necessary to understand what is meant by a "tenure p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, 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. 47. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that reappointment is permissible even in case of a tenure post. ii) Whether the outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is applicable in case of reappointment of the ViceChancellor? 48. On a plain reading of sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996, it appears that the person sought to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor must not be more than sixty-years of age at the time of appointment i.e., it provides the outer age limit for appointment. While sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 provides that upon appointment, the term of the Vice-Chancellor would be for four years and that he shall be eligibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for re-appointment" would have been specifically qualified by or made subject to the words "sub-section (9)" or "provisions of this section". 53. If sub-section (9) is interpreted so as to be made applicable even to reappointment as provided in sub-section (10), then the result would be that any person who is appointed as Vice-Chancellor at the age of fifty-six or more would not be eligible for reappointment, thereby rendering sub-section (10) and its proviso completely otiose and meaningless in such cases. 54. This would also severely curtail the scope of the selection committee while considering candidates for the post of Vice-Chancellor, as the selection committee in such case would be inclined to consider younger candidates over older and possibly more qualified and experienced ones who may be more suitable considering the coveted nature of the post and the duties expected to be discharged. Moreover, it would inhibit a Vice-Chancellor who has already held office and proven himself to be a valuable asset during his tenure from being reappointed if he happens to be of more than sixty-years of age. This would frustrate the very purpose of 'reappointment' which given the natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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. (Vide M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa [AIR 1961 SC 1107], S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta [(1987) 1 SCC 191], RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. [(1987) 1 SCC 424], Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam [(1989) 3 SCC 709], SCC p. 754, para 118, UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2008) 5 SCC 257] and Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys [(2011) 11 SCC 334].) 57. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, we hold that 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. iii) Whether the reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor has to fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 (for short, "the Act 1979") or by taking recourse to the residuary provisions of Section 60 of the Act 1979. As a consequence, the order issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal reappointing the incumbent Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University was set aside. The High Court held that the Vice-Chancellor had no authority to hold that office on the basis of the order of appointment. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022. One of the issues that fell for consideration of this Court in the said case was, whether the same procedure which was provided for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor under Section 8(1) was required to be followed at the time of reappointment. 62. It was argued that there is a distinction in law between appointment and reappointment because in the case of the latter the zone of consideration is restructured to persons already holding posts and in such case the suitability of the incumbent which was assessed at the time of initial appointment need not be reassessed. 63. This Court in the aforesaid case took the view that reappointment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointment without following the ordinary process of appointment of Vice-Chancellor. 66. Thus, we hold that 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. iv) Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor? 67. Before we proceed to answer the question whether the Chancellor abdicated or surrendered his statutory power of reappointment, we must try to understand the stance of the Chancellor in the present litigation as discernible from the counter-affidavit filed by him. We are quite perplexed with the stance of the Chancellor. The Chancellor wants this Court to allow the appeal and declare that the reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor is not sustainable in law. The Chancellor says so because according to him the reappointment of the respondent No. 4 is in conflict with the UGC Regulations. 68. The UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act 1956. The Regulations framed under the said Act, are laid before each House of the Parliament. Therefore, being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts in applying this principle that they condemn some administrative arrangements which must seem quite natural and proper to those who make them.... Ministers and their departments have several times fallen foul of the same rule, no doubt equally to their surprise...." (Emphasis supplied) 71. It is a well settled (and indeed, bedrock) principle of administrative law that if a statute expressly confers a statutory power on a particular body or authority or imposes a statutory duty on the same, then such power must be exercised or duty performed (as the case may) by that very body or authority itself and none other. If the body or authority exercises the statutory power or performs the statutory duty acting at the behest, or on the dictate, of any other body or person, then this is regarded as an abdication of the statutory mandate and any decision taken on such basis is contrary to law and liable to be quashed. It is important to keep in mind that, in law, it matters not that the extraneous element is introduced (i.e., the advice, recommendation, approval, etc. of the person not empowered by the statute is obtained or given) in good faith or for the advancement of any goal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man, competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself (per Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Sharp v. Wakefield [(1891 AC 173: (1886-90) All ER Rep 651 (HL)]. (Also See S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 1427). 22. The word "discretion" standing single and unsupported by circumstances signifies exercise of judgment, skill or wisdom as distinguished from folly, unthinking or haste; evidently therefore a discretion cannot be arbitrary but must be a result of judicial thinking. The word in it implies vigilant circumspection and care; therefore, where the legislature concedes discretion it also imposes a heavy responsibility...." (Emphasis supplied) 73. Again, in Clariant International Ltd. and Another v. Securities & Exchange Board of India reported in (2004) 8 SCC 524, this Court reiterated these principles thus; "27. In Kruger v. Commonwealth of Australia [(1997) 146 Aus LR 126] it is stated: "Moreover, when a discretionary power is statutorily conferred on a repository, the power must be exercised reasonably, for the legislature is ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme. 28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order. Even a senior official cannot provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a particular manner." (Emphasis supplied) 75. In Hardwari Lal, Rohtak v. G.D. Tapase, Chandigarh and others reported in AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 439 (Full Bench) the powers of the Governor with respect to the appointment/removal of the Vice-Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak under the Maharshi Dayanand University (Amendment) Act, 1980 were considered wherein a direction was sought with regard to the renewal of the term of the Vice-Chancellor of the said University. Certain promises had been made in connection with the same while making such appointment. The Court held that as the Governor was the ex officio Chanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and Others v. State of J&K and Others reported in (1997) 2 SCC 745. In the said case, the question that arose was in relation to whether the Governor was bound to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, or whether he could exercise his own discretion, independent of his status and position as the Governor, by virtue of him being the ex officio Chairman of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board under the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The Shrine Board discharges functions and duties, as have been described under the Act in the manner prescribed therein, and thus, after examining the scheme of the Act, this Court held that, "In Hardwari Lal case [AIR 1982 P&H 439 : (1982) 1 SLR 39] , a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was to consider whether the Governor in his capacity as the Chancellor of Maharshi Dayanand University was to act under Maharshi Dayanand University Act, 1975 (Haryana Act No. 25 of 1975) in his official capacity as Chancellor or with aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Full Bench, after elaborate consideration of the provisions of the Act and the statutes, came to observe in para 121 at p. 476 that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification dated 01.11.2021 inviting applications from eligible candidates. All of a sudden, the Minister for Higher Education and Social Justice in his capacity as the Pro-Chancellor addressed a letter to the Chancellor dated 22.11.2021 recommending reappointment of the respondent No. 4 herein for a second term as Vice-Chancellor. It is also pertinent to note that on 22.11.2021 itself the notification inviting application from the eligible candidates was withdrawn. On the same date, the Minister addressed one another letter to the Chancellor stating that the respondent No. 4 be reappointed as Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. On the very same day i.e., on 23.11.2021, the notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor was issued. 80. It appears from the press release issued by the Kerala Raj Bhavan dated 03.02.2022 that the opinion of the Advocate General was also sought for in connection with reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor. The very first para of the press release states that "Kerala Raj Bhavan strongly refutes the claim in some news reports that it was on the direction of Hon'ble Governor that the name of Dr. Gopinath Ravind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No other person even the Pro-Chancellor or any superior authority can interfere with the functioning of the statutory authority and if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on a suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. 86. Thus, it is the decision-making process, which vitiated the entire process of reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor. The case on hand is not one of mere irregularity. 87. We emphasise on the decision-making process because in such a case the exercise of power is amenable to judicial review. 88. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans reported in (1982) 1 WLR 1155 : (1982) 3 All ER 141 (HL), Lord Brightman observed thus: (WLR p. 1174 G) "... Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made." 89. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this appeal. 90. 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 U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
