Bombay High Court Quashes Appointment of Vice Chancellor in Agricultural University for Violation of Statutory Selection Procedure. Writ of Quo Warranto Issued as Appointment Made Without Constituting Search Committee Under Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 14
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Dr. Suresh Govindrao Borkar, a Head of Department at Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No.4, Dr. K.P. Viswanatha, as Vice Chancellor of the university. The petitioner was one of the candidates shortlisted for the post. The appointment was made by the Chancellor (Governor of Maharashtra) without constituting a Search Committee as required under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015. The petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment and a writ of mandamus directing his own appointment. The court examined the statutory provisions, particularly Sections 12 and 14 of the Act, which prescribe the procedure for appointment of Vice Chancellor. Section 12 mandates that the Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of a Search Committee consisting of a nominee of the Chancellor, a nominee of the State Government, and a nominee of the University. The court found that no such Search Committee was constituted, and the appointment was made directly by the Chancellor without any recommendation. The court held that the provision is mandatory and the appointment was illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the court issued a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment of Respondent No.4. However, the court declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appointment of the petitioner, as the entire selection process was vitiated. Instead, the court directed the respondents to initiate a fresh selection process in accordance with the Act. The judgment was pronounced on 20th December 2017 by a division bench of Justices R.M. Borde and A.M. Dhavale.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Quo Warranto - Appointment of Vice Chancellor - The court examined the legality of the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor, which was challenged on the ground that it was made without constituting a Search Committee as required under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015. The court held that the appointment was illegal and void ab initio, and issued a writ of quo warranto. (Paras 1-20)

B) Service Law - Appointment - Statutory Compliance - Section 12 of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015 - The court interpreted Section 12, which mandates that the Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of a Search Committee. The court held that the provision is mandatory and not directory, and any appointment made without following this procedure is invalid. (Paras 10-15)

C) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Appointment of Petitioner - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing his appointment as Vice Chancellor. The court held that since the selection process was vitiated, the petitioner cannot claim a right to be appointed, and the remedy is to direct the respondents to initiate a fresh selection process. (Paras 16-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, is valid in law, having been made without constituting a Search Committee as mandated under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015, and whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of quo warranto and mandamus.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition in part. It issued a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor. The court directed the respondents to initiate a fresh selection process for the post of Vice Chancellor in accordance with the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015. The prayer for writ of mandamus directing appointment of the petitioner was rejected.

Law Points

  • Writ of Quo Warranto
  • Appointment of Vice Chancellor
  • Search Committee
  • Statutory Interpretation
  • Section 12 of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act
  • 2015
  • Section 14 of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (12) 18

WRIT PETITION NO.6198 OF 2016

2017-12-20

R.M. Borde, A.M. Dhavale

Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Vijay V. Deshmukh for petitioner; Mr. V.S. Badakh, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1; Mr. M.N. Navandar for Respondent No.3; Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. P.S. Dighe & Mr. V.R. Dhorde for Respondent No.4

Dr. Suresh Govindrao Borkar

The State of Maharashtra, The Governor, The Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dr. K.P. Viswanatha

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging appointment of Vice Chancellor and seeking appointment of petitioner.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought writ of quo warranto to quash appointment of Respondent No.4 and writ of mandamus directing his own appointment as Vice Chancellor.

Filing Reason

Appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor was made without constituting a Search Committee as required under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015.

Issues

Whether the appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor is valid without constituting a Search Committee under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015? Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing his appointment as Vice Chancellor?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the appointment of Respondent No.4 was illegal as no Search Committee was constituted as mandated by Section 12 of the Act. Respondents argued that the Chancellor has power to appoint Vice Chancellor directly under Section 14 of the Act, and the Search Committee requirement is directory.

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of Vice Chancellor under the Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015 must be made on the recommendation of a Search Committee as per Section 12, which is mandatory. Any appointment made without following this procedure is void ab initio. However, the petitioner cannot claim a right to be appointed as the entire selection process is vitiated.

Judgment Excerpts

The appointment of Respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor is illegal and void ab initio. Section 12 of the Act mandates that the Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of a Search Committee. The provision is mandatory and not directory.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 2016. The court reserved judgment on 4th August 2017 and pronounced on 20th December 2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Agricultural Universities (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 2015: Section 12, Section 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Appointment of Vice Chancellor in Agricultural University for Violation of Statutory Selection Procedure. Writ of Quo Warranto Issued as Appointment Made Without Constituting Search Committee Under Maharashtra Agricultural U...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Derequisition of Premises Under Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 — Petitioner Failed to Establish Entitlement as Requisition Was for Public Purpose and No Unauthorized Use Proven.