Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University, which was challenged in the High Court on grounds of non-compliance with the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018, and the University Act, 2019. The appellant had served as a Professor from May 23, 2009, to October 7, 2017, before being appointed as a member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. He was appointed Vice-Chancellor on August 11, 2020, but his appointment was contested on the basis that he lacked the requisite 10 years of experience as mandated by the UGC Regulations. The High Court ruled in favor of the writ petitioner, leading to the present appeal. The appellant contended that the UGC Regulations were adopted with modifications by the State Government and that his prior experience should be considered, including his supervisory role over PhD scholars while serving on the Commission. The opposing counsel argued that the appellant did not meet the experience requirement and that the appointment process was flawed, lacking a Search Committee recommendation and proper advertisement. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the University Act and UGC Regulations, concluding that the appointment was not valid as it did not follow the required procedures. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for such a significant position as Vice-Chancellor. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to quash the appointment and stating that the appellant's readiness to resign did not alter the illegality of the appointment.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Appointment of Vice-Chancellor - Legal Validity - University Act, 2019, Section 10; UGC Regulations, 2018, Regulation 7.3.0 - The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor was quashed as it did not comply with the eligibility criteria of having a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a Professor and was not made through a Search-cum-Selection Committee. The court held that the appointment was contrary to statutory requirements and thus illegal (Paras 10-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University was legal and valid and whether it was after following the due procedure, as required?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to quash the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University, holding it illegal and contrary to statutory requirements under the University Act, 2019 and UGC Regulations, 2018.
Law Points
- Eligibility criteria
- appointment procedures
- UGC Regulations
- University Act
- judicial review
- writ of quo warranto
