REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) No.1525 OF 2019

Gambhirdan K Gadhvi            ..Petitioner (S)

VERSUS

The State of Gujarat & Ors.                    ..Respondent (S)

J U D G M E N T 

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/   KH­2   passed   by

respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat, appointing respondent

1

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 Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for

Appointment   of   Teachers   and   Other   Academic   Staff   in

Universities   and   Colleges   and   Measures   for   the

Maintenance   of   Standards   in   Higher   Education,   2010

(hereinafter referred to as the “UGC Regulations, 2010”)

which, inter alia, prescribes 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 for

constitution   of   a   Search   Committee   consisting   of   a

nominee   of   the   Visitor/Chancellor,   a   nominee   of   the

2

Chairman   of   UGC,   a   nominee   of   Syndicate/Executive

Council of the University. That the Search Committee has

to   recommend   the   names   of   suitable   candidates   for

appointment as Vice Chancellor of a University.

2.1That  the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been substituted

subsequently   vide   UGC   Regulations,   2018   with   slight

modifications which shall be referred to hereinbelow.

2.2It is the further case on behalf of the petitioner that 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   6

th

Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as the

“Scheme”).   The   Scheme   provides   a   fixed   pay   of

Rs.75,000/­ along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/­

per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said

Scheme   provides   that   it   is   extended   to   Universities,

Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming

under the purview of the State Legislature, provided the

State   Governments   wish   to   adopt   and   implement   the

scheme   with   certain   conditions,   inter   alia,   financial

3

assistance from the Central Government to the extent of

80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20%

shall be met by the State Government. Payment of Central

assistance for implementing the scheme was subject to the

condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales

together with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC

by   way   of   regulations   and   other   guidelines   shall   be

implemented   by   the   State   Governments   and   the

Universities   thereunder   without   any   modification.

According to the petitioner, the State of Gujarat passed a

Resolution dated 11.11.2009 adopting the Scheme. Since

the Scheme has been adopted, all regulations framed by

the UGC are binding upon the State of Gujarat including

the respondent ­ SP University.  That on adoption of the

Scheme   by   the   State   Government   as   well   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

4

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

ex­officio 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, 1955 (hereinafter referred to

as the “SPU Act”) on 29.07.2016 with no nominee of the

Chairman of the UGC. According to the petitioner, even as

5

per Section 10(2)(b), the Search Committee has only the

authority to recommend a panel of suitable candidates.

The Search Committee, in the present case, exceeded its

jurisdiction and prescribed its own eligibility criteria for

the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor   by   diluting   the   eligibility

criteria laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010. That

respondent   No.2   issued   an   advertisement,   inviting

applications   for   the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor,   while

mentioning the aforesaid eligibility criteria prescribed by

the   Search   Committee.   Thereafter   the   State   issued   a

notification   appointing   respondent   No.4   as   the   Vice

Chancellor of the SP University for his first term of three

years. According to the petitioner respondent No.4 was

not having teaching work experience as a professor for a

period of ten years, which is mandatory as per the UGC

Regulations,   2010.   That   respondent   No.4   herein   was

promoted   to   the   post   of   Professor   with   effect   from

08.03.2008.   According   to   the   petitioner   though

respondent No.4 lacked the eligibility, he was appointed

as the Vice Chancellor at the fixed pay of Rs.75,000/­

6

which is as per the revised Scheme – Appendix I dated

31.08.2008. 

2.5 That the petitioner challenged the said appointment of

respondent No.4 before the High Court by way of filing

Special   Civil   Application   (SCA)   No.18922   of   2017.   By

judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 the Division Bench

of the High Court dismissed the said SCA by observing

and   holding   that   the   UGC   Regulations   had   not   been

adopted by the State of Gujarat and thus were not binding

upon respondent University. While dismissing the SCA

and upholding the appointment of respondent No.4 to the

post of Vice Chancellor of the University, the Division

Bench of the High Court referred to Section 10 of the SPU

Act,   which   does   not   provide   for   any   qualification

whatsoever for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor.

The Division Bench of the High Court observed that such

a position would leave room for a lot of arbitrariness in

the matter of selection of persons for appointment as Vice

Chancellor.   The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court

observed that though it is true that UGC Regulations

7

provides for certain qualifications, however, the same are

not binding unless the State legislation is appropriately

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,

8

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 further steps have

been taken by the State Government to adopt the UGC

Regulations   and   amend   the   State   legislation

appropriately. 

2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dismissing   SCA

No.18922/2017,   upholding   the   appointment   of

respondent  No.4  to  the post  of  Vice  Chancellor of  SP

University, petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition

(SLP) before this Court by filing SLP (C) No.21792/2018.

The said SLP came up before this Court for final hearing

on 30.07.2019. However, by the time the said SLP could

be heard, only one month remained in the first term of

respondent No.4, therefore, this Court did not interfere

with the appointment of respondent No.4 and vide order

dated 30.07.2019 disposed of the same; however, this

Court specifically observed that all questions of law are

left open. 

9

2.7 That thereafter an advertisement dated 12.06.2019 was

published,   inviting   applications   to   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor of respondent No.2 – SP University. According

to the petitioner again the Search Committee was not

constituted as per the UGC Regulations. According to the

petitioner in the said advertisement the Search Committee

has   further   diluted   the   eligibility   criteria   to   suit

respondent No.4, in so far as it states that persons who

have remained Vice Chancellor for one term are eligible.

That thereafter respondent No.4 has been again appointed

as   the   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   SP   University   vide

notification dated 29.08.2019 for a further term of three

years.   It   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   that

impugned notification appointing respondent No.4 as the

Vice Chancellor of the SP University is absolutely illegal

and in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the

UGC   Regulations,   2018.   Therefore,   the   present   writ

petition has been preferred for a writ of quo warranto

challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as the

Vice Chancellor of the SP University.

10

2.8 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the earlier

decision of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in

Special Civil Application No.18922/2017 may come in the

way   of   the   petitioner   and   if   again   the   petitioner

approaches the High Court by filing a writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is because

the petitioner will have to face the decision of the Division

Bench of the High Court passed in SCA No.18922/2017

which though 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

11

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. 

3.1It is contented that appointment of respondent No.4 as

Vice   Chancellor   is   by   a   Search   Committee   not   legally

constituted as per the UGC guidelines.

3.2It   is   submitted   by   Shri   Syed   learned   Senior   Advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant

time   when   his   first   appointment   was   made   as   Vice

Chancellor,   he   was   not   fulfilling   the   eligibility   criteria

required as per the UGC guidelines as well as even the

eligibility criteria fixed by even the Search Committee. It is

further   submitted   that   at   the   relevant   time   when

respondent No.4 was appointed, he was not having ten

years of experience as a professor which was mandatorily

12

required as per the UGC guidelines as well as the eligibility

criteria fixed by the Search Committee.

3.3It   is   further   contended   by   Shri   Syed,   learned   Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the

present case the Search Committee constituted was not

legal and valid. It is urged that as per the UGC guidelines

which the State and universities were bound, one of the

members   of   the   Search   Committee   should   be   the

Chairman of the UGC and/or his nominee. It is submitted

that in the present case the Search Committee constituted

did   not   include   the   Chairman   of   the   UGC  and/or   his

nominee. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.4 by

such an illegal Search Committee is absolutely illegal and

contrary to the statutory provisions and, therefore, the

same is required to be quashed and set aside by issuing a

writ of quo warranto.

3.4It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Syed   learned   Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the

present case even the Search Committee prescribed the

13

eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor. That the

SPU Act as such does not provide and/or prescribe any

eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor which as

such is a very important and prestigious post so far as the

University is concerned. That even the Division Bench of

the   High   Court   in   the   earlier   round   of   litigation   in

paragraph 24 of the judgment specifically criticised the

State   for   not   prescribing/providing   the   minimum

qualifications for appointment of Vice Chancellor at par

with   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010.   It   is   submitted   that

Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   even   noted   the

communication   dated   11.08.2014   addressed   to   H.E.   –

Governor of Gujarat 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/guidelines   which   provide   for   minimum

qualifications for the appointment of Vice Chancellor as

per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and

also noted that even H.E. – Governor of Gujarat addressed

a   communication   dated   30.08.2014   to   the   State

Government   to   take   note   of   the   communication   dated

14

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. 

3.5It   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 for constituting of the

15

search   committee,   consisting   of   a   nominee   of   the

Visitor/Chancellor,   a   nominee   of   the   Chairman   of   the

UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executing Council of the

University.   That   such   a   search   committee   has   to

recommend the names of the successful candidates. It is

submitted that in the present case respondent No.4 was

appointed as Vice Chancellor for the second term even

though he did not fulfil the said criteria.

3.6It is submitted that even respondent No.4 was being paid a

fixed pay of Rs.75,000/­ along with a special allowance of

Rs.5,000/­   per   month   as   per   the   Scheme   dated

31.12.2008. It is submitted that once the Scheme dated

31.12.2008 had been adopted by the State government

and   the   SP   University   and   the   said   University   started

receiving   central   financial   assistance   and   even   it   is

included in the list of State universities receiving financial

assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956,

thereafter  it   will  not  be  open  to  the   State   and/or   the

University   not   to   follow   the   UGC   Regulations   and   to

continue   to   appoint   the   Vice   Chancellor   illegally   and

16

contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010

(now UGC Regulations, 2018). 

3.7It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Syed,   learned   Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the

UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 are Central legislation and

therefore,   the   State   and/or   the   State   universities   are

bound by the Central legislation and UGC Regulations,

2010/2018,   the   subject   ‘education’   being   in   the

Concurrent   List   of   the   Seventh   Schedule   of   the

Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this

Court in the cases of Annamalai University represented

by Registrar Vs. Secretary to Government, Information

and Tourism Department and Ors,  (2009) 4 SCC 590 and

Kalyani Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors,   (2015) 6

SCC 363.

3.8Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the   petitioner   has   submitted   that   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor   in   a   University   is   a   very   important   and

prestigious post. Post of Vice Chancellor can be said to be

17

holding of a public office. It is submitted that the future of

the students – next generation can be said to be in the

hands   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   who   has   to   run   the

administration and management and lead the University

and guide the students. It is urged that therefore greater

care   and   caution   should   be   taken   while   making   the

appointment of the 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. 

3.9Making 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.                  

18

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, the members of the Search

cum Selection Committee, can be persons of eminence in

the sphere of higher education. It further provides that one

member of the search committee shall be nominated by

the Chairman of the UGC for selection of Vice Chancellors

of the State, Private and Deemed to be universities. That

as   per   the   UGC   Regulations,   Visitor/Chancellor   shall

appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of the names

recommended by the Search cum Selection committee. It is

contended that being a Central legislation all the States,

Private and Deemed to be Universities are bound by the

19

UGC Regulations and the guidelines issued from time to

time.

5. The present petition is opposed by Shri Vinay Navare,

learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2 ­ SP University. 

5.1Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of respondent No.2 ­ SP University has vehemently

submitted   that   in   the   earlier   round   of   litigation,   the

Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   writ

petition  and   did   not   interfere  with  the   appointment   of

respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University

and   the   SLP   against   the   same   was   dismissed   by   this

Court. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to again

challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice

Chancellor for the second term. It is submitted that as

such   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   and   the   subsequent

Regulations, 2018 have not been adopted by the State

government and therefore, the UGC Regulations are not

binding to the State and/or universities and in the present

case SP University.

20

5.2It is submitted that appointment of respondent No.4 is

governed   under   the   SPU   Act,   1955   and   the   Search

Committee was constituted by the State government under

the SPU Act. That as such Section 10 of the said Act, does

not provide for any specific eligibility criteria/minimum

eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor, therefore,

the   Search   Committee   itself   prescribed   the   eligibility

criteria. That after selecting respondent No.4 and on the

recommendations   made   by   the   Search   Committee,

respondent No.4 has been appointed. 

5.3It is submitted that in the absence of any statutory breach,

appointment of respondent No.4 has been made as per the

SPU Act, 1955 and hence no writ of quo warranto be

issued.   It   is   submitted   that   while   challenging   the

appointment   of   respondent   No.4   in   the   first   term,   the

Division 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

21

the second term also, no writ of quo warranto can be

issued. 

5.4It  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   ex­

employee 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. 

22

7. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent  No.1  –  State  has  opposed  the   present  writ

petition. 

7.1When a pointed question was asked to Ms. Kohli, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State,

whether the State legislation is amended providing for the

minimum   eligibility   criteria   at   par   with   the   UGC

Regulations, as observed by the High Court in the earlier

round of litigation in para 24, she is not in a position to

satisfy and/or point out any such amendment in the State

legislation. 

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length. 

9. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ

of   quo   warranto   by   challenging   the   appointment   of

respondent   No.4   herein   as   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   SP

University – respondent No.2 herein. When a writ of quo

warranto will lie has been dealt with by this Court in the

23

case of Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.,

(2013) 1 SCC 501. In para 19, it has been observed and

held as under: ­

“19. A   writ   of   quo   warranto   will   lie   when   the

appointment   is   made   contrary   to   the   statutory

provisions. This Court in Mor Modern Coop. Transport

Society   Ltd. v. Govt.   of   Haryana [(2002)   6   SCC   269]

held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when

appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions.

In B. Srinivasa Reddy [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : (2007)

1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] , this Court has reiterated the

legal position that the jurisdiction of the High Court to

issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one which

can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to

the   statutory   rules.   The   said   position   has   been

reiterated by this Court in Hari Bansh Lal [(2010) 9

SCC 655 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] wherein this Court

has held that for the issuance of writ of quo warranto,

the   High   Court   has   to   satisfy   itself   that   the

appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.”

9.1In the case of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association

and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731, it

has been observed by this Court that strict rules of locus

standi   are   relaxed   to   some   extent   in   a   quo   warranto

proceedings. It is further observed in the said decision that

broadly   stated,   the quo   warranto proceeding   affords   a

judicial   remedy   by   which   any   person,   who   holds   an

independent   substantive   public   office   or   franchise   or

liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the

24

said office, franchise or liberty, so that his 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

25

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. 

10.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. 

11.Now the next question which is posed for consideration of

this   Court   is,   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 Chancellor

26

11.1While   examining   the   aforesaid   issues   the   relevant

provisions   of   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   enacted   in

exercise of powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of

Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   26   of   the   University   Grants

Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions of the

SPU Act, 1955, are required to be referred to.

11.2The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for the

co­ordination   and   determination   of   standards   in

Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University

Grants Commission. Section 12 deals with “Functions of

the   Commission”,   while   Section   14   speaks   of

“Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with

recommendations of the Commission”. Section 26 deals

with “Power to make regulations”. As per Section 28 the

rules   and   regulations   framed   under   the   UGC   Act   are

required to be laid before each House of the Parliament

and   when   both   the   Houses   agree   then   rules   and

regulations can be given effect with such modification as

may be made by the Parliament.  Therefore, any regulation

27

enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said

to be subordinate legislation.  

11.3For the appointment and career advancement of teachers

in the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC by

Regulation   dated   04.04.2000,   enacted   the   University

Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for

the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in

Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations,

2000.   However,   in   the   said   Regulation   of   2000,   no

qualifications   were   prescribed   for   the   post   of   “Pro­

Chancellor” or “Vice Chancellor”. 

Thereafter,   the   Government   of   India,   Ministry   of

Human   Resource   Development   Department   of   Higher

Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 1­32/2006­U.II/U.I(i)

dated   31­12­2008   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

28

recommendations of the 6

th

  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   Pro­Vice­

Chancellor/Vice­Chancellor were also mentioned therein.

It was intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to

the   universities,   colleges   and   other   higher   educational

institutions   coming   under   the   purview   of   the   State

Legislature, provided the State Governments wish to adopt

and   implement   the   Scheme   subject   to   the   terms   and

conditions   mentioned   therein.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid

Letter No. 1­32/2006­U.II/U.I(i), dated 31­12­2008 issued

by the Government of India and in exercise of the powers

conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub­section (1) of

Section   26   of   the   UGC   Act,   1956,   UGC   enacted   the

29

Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations,

2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on 28­6­

2010 and came into force with immediate effect.

11.3.1Regulation 7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellor

which reads as under: ­

“7.3.0. Vice­Chancellor.—(i)   Persons   of   the   highest

level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional

commitment are to be appointed as Vice­Chancellors.

The   Vice­Chancellor   to   be   appointed   should   be   a

distinguished   academician,   with   a   minimum   of   ten

years of experience as Professor in a university system

or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in

a   reputed   research   and/or   academic   administrative

organization.

(ii) The selection of Vice­Chancellor should be through

proper   identification   of   a   panel   of   3­5   names   by   a

Search   Committee   through   a   public   notification   or

nomination   or   a   talent   search   process   or   in

combination.   The   members   of   the   above   Search

Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere

of higher education and shall not be connected in any

manner with the university concerned or its colleges.

While   preparing   the   panel,   the   Search   Committee

must   give   proper   weightage   to   academic   excellence,

exposure   to   the   higher   education   system   in   the

country   and   abroad,   and   adequate   experience   in

academic and administrative governance to be given in

writing along with the panel to be submitted to the

Visitor/Chancellor.   In   respect   of   State   and   Central

universities, the following shall be the constitution of

the Search Committee:

(a) a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who

should be the Chairperson of the Committee.

(b)   a   nominee   of   the   Chairman,   University

Grants Commission.

30

(c)   a   nominee   of   the   Syndicate/Executive

Council/Board   of   Management   of   the

university.

(iii)   The   Visitor/Chancellor   shall   appoint   the   Vice­

Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by

the Search Committee.

(iv)  The  conditions of  service of  the Vice­Chancellor

shall be prescribed in the statutes of the universities

concerned in conformity with these Regulations.

(v) The term of office of the Vice­Chancellor shall form

part of the service period of the incumbent concerned

making   him/her   eligible   for   all   service   related

benefits.”

11.3.2Regulation 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. 

11.3.3Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter­alia, 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. 

31

11.4Prior 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   6

th

  Central   Pay

Commission.   The   Scheme   provides   a   fixed   pay   of

Rs.75,000/­ along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/­

per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said

scheme   provides   that   it   is   extended   to   Universities,

Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming

under the purview of the State Legislature provided the

State   Governments   wish   to   adopt   and   implement   the

scheme   with   certain   conditions,   inter   alia,   financial

assistance from the Central Government to the extent of

80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20%

shall be met by the State Government. It further provides

that payment of Central assistance for implementing the

scheme is subject to the condition that the entire scheme

of revision of pay scales together with all the conditions to

be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations and other

guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governments

and the Universities thereunder without any modification.

32

In the present case, State of Gujarat has adopted the said

Scheme   dated   31.12.2008   by   a   Resolution   dated

11.11.2009   with   effect   from   01.01.2006   subject   to   the

conditions mentioned in the said resolution. Even in the

said resolution, condition No.13 provides that the State

Government will publish the educational qualifications as

per the UGC instructions published from time to time and

quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms, instructions,

resolutions   will   have   to   be   implemented.   It   is   not   in

dispute that the SP University is receiving Central financial

assistance under the Scheme and it is included in the

State universities receiving Central financial assistance as

per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having

adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and

getting Central financial assistance to the extent of 80% of

the maintenance expenditure, the State Government and

the   SP   University   are   bound   by   the   UGC   Regulations,

2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the

UGC Regulations, 2018.  However, the eligibility criteria for

the post of Vice Chancellor and the constitution of the

search committee for appointment of a Vice Chancellor

33

remains the same. Therefore, the State of Gujarat and the

universities thereunder including  the SP  University  are

bound   to   follow   UGC   Regulations,   2010   and   UGC

Regulations, 2018.

12.Respondent No.4 herein has been appointed as a Vice

Chancellor of the SP University under the SPU Act, 1955.

Section 10  of  the  said  Act  relates  to the   post  of  Vice

Chancellor which reads as under: ­

“[10. (1) The Vice­Chancellor shall be appointed by the

State Government from amongst three persons

recommended   under   sub­section   (3)   by   a

committee appointed for the purpose under sub­

section (2). 

(2)   (a)   for   the   purpose   of   sub­section   (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

Vice­Chancellor   of   all   the   Universities

established by law in the State of Gujarat;

  (ii) one member to be nominated by the

Chancellor.

34

(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 Vice­

Chancellor   and  shall  recommend  to  the  State

Government   the   names   of   the   persons   so

selected together with such other particulars as

may be prescribed by the Statutes. 

(4)  The  Vice­Chancellor  shall hold  office for   a

term of three years and he shall be eligible for

being appointed to that office for a further term

of three years only. 

(5)   The   emoluments   to   be   paid   to   the   Vice­

Chancellor,   and   the   terms   and   conditions

subject to which he shall hold office, 1 [shall be

determined by the State Government]: 

Provided that such emoluments or such terms

and conditions shall not, during the currency of

the term of the holder of that office, be varied to

his disadvantage without his consent. 

(6) (a) During the leave or absence of the Vice­

Chancellor, or 

(b) in the event of a permanent vacancy in the

office   of   the   Vice­Chancellor,   until   an

appointment is made under sub­section (1) to

that office, 

the Pro­Vice­Chancellor, and in the absence of

the Pro­Chancellor, one of the Deans nominated

by  

3

  [the State Government], for that purpose

shall carry on the current duties of the office of

the Vice­Chancellor.”

12.1As per Section 10 of the Act, 1955 the search committee

shall consist of two members (not being persons connected

with the  respondent  ­  University  or  with  any  affiliated

35

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 Vice­Chancellor of all the

Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat and

the third member to be nominated by the Chancellor. 

Section   10   of   the   SPU   Act   does   not   provide   any

qualification whatsoever for appointment to the post of

Vice   Chancellor.   Even   the   eligibility   criteria   to   be

prescribed is left to the Search Committee. There are no

guidelines   whatsoever   on   the   eligibility   criteria   to   be

prescribed by the Search Committee. On the other hand,

the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 specifically prescribes

the qualification / eligibility criteria for the post of Vice

Chancellor.   It   also  provides   for   the   constitution   of   the

Search   Committee.   As   observed   hereinabove   as   per

Regulation 7.3.0 a person shall have ten years of teaching

work experience as a professor in the university system

and it also provides for constitution of a search committee

36

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.     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.   

12.2Thus,   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

37

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   communication   dated   11.08.2014

addressed to the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also

the Chancellor of the University has drawn the attention of

H.E.   –   Governor   of   Gujarat   to   ensure   that   all   the

appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in

accordance   with   the   provisions   laid   down   in   the

Regulations   of   UGC.   The   letter/communication   dated

11.08.2014 reads as under: ­

“University Grants Commission

Prof. Dr. Jaspal S. Sandhu

Secretary

D.O.No.F.1­1/2014(Secy) 11

th

 August, 2014

At   the   outset   kindly   allow   me   to   apologise   for

encroaching upon your precious time. But it is the

criticality of the subject which has compelled me to

draw your kind attention to it. 

The appointment of Vice­Chancellors in our University

system has become a subject of widespread criticism.

We need visionary leadership to give proper direction

to higher education in today’s competitive world. It is

possible only  when we have persons of the highest

competence & integrity, in the position of the Vice­

Chancellor. In this connection, the University Grants

Commission   had   brought   out   a   Regulations   titled

"Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers

and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges

38

and  Measures  for  the  Maintenance  of  Standards  in

Higher Education, 2010. The UGC has prescribed the

minimum   qualifications   for   the   appointment   of   the

Vice­Chancellor   in   this   Regulation,   which   reads   as

under:

"Persons   of   the   highest   level   of   competence,

integrity, morals and institutional commitment are

to   be   appointed   as   Vice­Chancellors.   The   Vice­

Chancellor   to   be   appointed   should   be   a

distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten

years   of   experience   as   Professor   in   a   University

system or ten years of experience in an equivalent

position   in   a   reputed   research   and/or   academic

administrative organization."

It   hardly   needs   any   mention   that   the   notifications

published in The Gazette of India are mandatory. May

I, therefore, request your Excellency to use your good

offices to ensure that all the appointments of Vice­

Chancellors in your State are made in accordance with

the   provisions   laid   down   in   the   aforementioned

Regulations of the UGC. 

I am certain that your guidance and support in this

regard will make a huge difference in the governance

of higher education in the country.

Yours faithfully

Jaspal S.Sandhu

Shri O.P. Kohli

Hon’ble Governor of Gujarat, Raj Bhawan

Gandhinagar 382 020 Gujarat”

13.1That thereafter 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

39

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 Ghandhinagar­382020. 

Date: 30 AUG 2014 

Important:

To, 

The Principal Secretary to the

Government of Gujarat

Education Department,

Block No.5, 7

th

 Floor,

New Sachivalay, Gandhinagar

Sub: Appointment of Vice Chancellors

Ref:A   Communication   from   the   Secretary,

University   Grant   Commission,   Government   of

India, New Delhi dated 11

th

 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   prescribed

certain   minimum   qualifications   for   the

appointment   of   the   Vice   Chancellors.   Hon.

Governor has been requested to ensure the all

the   appointment   of   the   Vice   Chancellors   in

Gujarat   are   made   in   accordance   with   the

provisions   laid   down   in   the   UGC   Regulation.

(Copy   of   the   communication   is   enclosed

herewith for ready reference)

40

You   are   requested   to   note   the   above

pertinent   communication   and   take   necessary

steps at the Government level.   

Regards,

Yours faithfully,

sd/­

(Arvind Joshi)

Principal Secretary to Hon. Governor  

13.2Despite the above clear instructions from the office of H.E.

– Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of all the

universities,   it   is   unfortunate   that   till   date   the   State

legislation has not been amended by the State Government

and the appointments to the post of Vice Chancellor in the

Universities in the said State are being made just contrary

to the UGC guidelines and Regulations. At this stage, it is

required to be noted that even in the earlier round of

litigation being SCA No.18922 of 2017 in which this very

petitioner   challenged   the   appointment   of   this   very

respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of SPU made in the

year 2016, the Division Bench of the High Court made

certain   observations   against   the   State   Government   not

adopting the UGC Regulations and not amending the State

legislation appropriately. The relevant observations made

by the High Court in para 24 are as under: ­ 

41

“24. Even   while   upholding   the   appointment   of   the

sixth respondent to the post of Vice Chancellor of the

respondent University, this court cannot shut its eyes

to the fact that section 10 of the SPU Act does not

provide   for   any   qualification   whatsoever   for

appointment   to   the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor   which

would   leave   room   for   a   lot   of   arbitrariness   in   the

matter of selection of persons for appointment as Vice

Chancellor. The UGC Regulations provide for certain

qualifications.   However,   the   same   are   not   binding

unless the State legislation is appropriately amended.

The   UGC,   by   a   communication   dated   11

th

  August

2014,   addressed   to   His   Excellency   the   Governor   of

Gujarat, has requested him to use his good offices 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, which

provide   for   minimum   qualifications   for   the

appointment   of   Vice   Chancellor   with   reference   to

regulation   7.3.0   of   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010.

Pursuant   thereto,   the   Principal   Secretary   to   His

Excellency   the   Governor   of   Gujarat   addressed   a

communication   dated   30

th

  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.    

42

13.3Thus,   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 as on today, no further

steps have been taken by the State Government, to amend

the State legislation and to put the same at par with the

UGC   Regulations,   and   the   State   and   the   universities

thereunder have continued to make the appointments of

Vice Chancellors just contrary to the UGC Regulations,

which as observed hereinabove are binding. 

13.4At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section

9 of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat is the

Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue of his

office, be the head of the University and the President of

the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University,

his   advice   was/is   binding   upon   the   University   and

therefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary

43

steps   at   the   Government   level   as   requested   in   the

communication dated 30.08.2014. Even the request made

by   the   H.E.   –   Governor   of   Gujarat,   who   is   also   the

Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very

lightly.   The   State   ought   to   have   taken   the   corrective

measures by suitably amending the State legislation on

par with the UGC Regulations. 

14.The   submissions   made   by  Shri  Navare,  learned  Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – SP

University that as the earlier writ petition filed by the

petitioner herein, in which the appointment of respondent

No.4 herein as the Vice Chancellor, was under challenge

came to be dismissed and the High Court refused to issue

a writ of quo warranto and the judgment and order passed

by the High Court in SCA No.18922 of 2017 was not

disturbed   by  this   Court  and   therefore,   the   controversy

stands concluded and it is not open for the petitioner to

raise the same issue again is concerned, the aforesaid

submissions is noted only to be rejected. This Court did

not opine anything on the merits of the judgment and

44

order passed by the High Court. This Court refused to

entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the ground

that by the time the same was taken up for hearing the

tenure of respondent No.4 herein as a Vice Chancellor was

coming to an end. Even while dismissing the same on the

aforesaid ground alone, this Court specifically observed

that all the questions of law are left open. 

15.Thus, we find that the appointment of respondent No.4 is

contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent

No.4   has   been   appointed   by   a   search   committee,   not

constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 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

45

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   /

institution   /   Research   Organization

with   15   years   of   teaching   /

research / administration.” 

In fact, in the instant case, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat

who is  also  the Chancellor of all the Universities in the

said State had through his Principal Secretary directed

that   the   communication   from   the   Secretary,   University

Grants   Commission,   Government   of   India,   New   Delhi

dated 11

th

 August, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps

be taken in that regard. We have referred to the aforesaid

46

letter dated 30

th

 August, 2014. The letter of the Secretary

of the UGC dated 11

th

 August, 2014 to H.E. – Governor of

Gujarat informing about the regulations titled “Minimum

qualifications   for   appointment   of   teachers   and   other

academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures

for   the   maintenance   of   standards   in   higher   education,

2010” has also been extracted above in the said letter. It

has   been   clearly   stated   that   the   UGC   has   prescribed

minimum qualifications for  the appointment  of a  Vice­

Chancellor and therefore, such an appointment must be in

accordance with the provisions laid down in the afore­

mentioned regulations of the UGC. It is clear that the

respondent­State of Gujarat has failed to take note of the

communication from the UGC and instead the respondent­

University   has   left   to   the   sweet   will   of   the   search

committee   to   prescribe   eligibility   criteria   for   the

appointment of the Vice­Chancellor of the University. The

eligibility criteria when once fixed by the UGC under its

regulations would in our view apply to all the universities

which are aided by the UGC to be bound by the said

regulations   even   in   the   absence   of   the   same   being

47

incorporated under the respective universities Act of the

respective   States.  Therefore,   when   the   appointment   of

respondent   No.4   is   found   to   be   contrary   to   the   UGC

Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the

statutory force, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case

to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside

the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor

of the SP University. 

16.It   cannot   be   disputed   that   the   UGC   Regulations   are

enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section

26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the

UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said

Act, shall be laid before each House of the Parliament.

Therefore,   being   a   subordinate   legislation,   UGC

Regulations becomes 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

48

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. 

17.1Before 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 H.E.

– Governor of Gujarat as far as back in the year 2014 and

even thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court had

made observations in para 24 of its judgment and order

dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, in which, the

49

High Court observed that 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

any   manipulation,   arbitrariness,   nepotism   and

favouritism,   before   any   fresh   appointment   as   a   Vice

Chancellor in the State and the universities thereunder are

made.  As observed hereinabove, prescribing the eligibility

criteria shall not be left to the sweet will of the search

committee.   It   may   lead   to   arbitrariness   and   different

search committees in absence of any statutory guidelines

and/or   prescription,   may   prescribe   different   eligibility

criteria. 

17.2It is to be noted that the post of Vice Chancellor of the

University is a very important post so far as the University

is concerned. Being a leader and head of the institution,

the  Vice Chancellor of the  University has to play very

important   role.   While   academic   qualifications,

administrative experience, research credentials and track

record   could   be   considered   as   basic   eligibility

requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice Chancellor

50

would   be   one   who   is   a   true   leader   and   a   passionate

visionary.   A   Vice   Chancellor   needs   to   be   one   who

understands and handles the affairs of the University as

ethical business and maintains a pellucidity in his conduct

towards the betterment of the University as well as the

students therein. A Vice Chancellor should be one who can

inspire   students   and   guarantee   entry   of   high­quality

teachers  into  the  University  system.  A   Vice   Chancellor

functions as a bridge between the executive and academic

wings of a university as he is the head of both a ‘teacher’

and an ‘administrator’. 

We may refer to some of the significant commission

reports   concerning   the   personality   and   role   of   a   Vice­

Chancellor of a university as under: 

a)The  1949 Radhakrishnan Commission   stated that

originally,   the   Vice­Chancellorship   of   an   Indian

University was regarded as an honorary post to be

filled by a prominent man in his leisure time. But

now the position has changed, there is enough work

to justify a full­time appointment and the Universities

51

should have full time paid Vice­Chancellors. While

discussing   the   duties   of   a   Vice­Chancellor,   the

Commission stated that a Vice­Chancellor 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

full­time   task,   it   needs   an   exceptional   man   (or

woman) to undertake it. The Commission rejected the

proposal   of   selecting   the   Vice­Chancellor   by   an

external body and recommended that the Chancellor

should   appoint   the   Vice­Chancellor   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

52

while   reiterating   the   recommendations   and

observations made by the aforesaid commissions also

stated that the selection of a Vice­Chancellor 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 India or an eminent

scholar or eminent person in public life of the State,

the   appointment   of   Vice­Chancellor,   being   the

important   functionary   of   the   University   is   most

strategic.   The   powers   of   proper   maintenance   of

discipline   and   a   healthy   environment   for   both

teachers and students in the university is vested with

the Vice­Chancellor along with all the other powers

vested in him/her by various Statutes, Ordinances or

Regulations.   The   Commission   also   stated   that

appointment of a Vice­Chancellor is made in most of

the Universities out of a panel of at least three names

by the Chancellor in case of State Universities and by

the Visitor in case of Central Universities. The panel

of   names   is   prepared   by   a   Search   Committee

53

constituted   in   accordance   with   the   provision   of

Act/Statute. Since it was difficult to have a uniform

system of forming a committee in all the States, the

alternatives to constitute the Search Committee were

also provided in the report.

c)The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards

New   Educational   Management   by   Professor   A.

Gnanam (also called as the Gnanam Committee

Report,   1990)  accentuated   the   role   of   a   Vice­

Chancellor, stating that the Vice­Chancellor should

be a person with vision and qualities of academic

leadership and with a flair for administration because

what the universities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair

and bold administrator. The Vice­Chancellor should

be   a   distinguished   educationist   from   the   higher

education system having highest level of competence,

integrity, morals and self­respect.

d)The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993  accented that

the   universities   need   distinguished   and   dignified

persons as Vice­Chancellors and it is necessary to

54

ensure that they are treated with dignity and regard,

which the office merits.

e)The   University  Grants  Commission  in   its   hand

book   titled   Governance   in   Higher   Education:

Hand Book for Vice­Chancellors published in 2019

has   penned   down   the   role   of   Vice­Chancellor   of

Indian   Universities   having   gained   a   paramount

importance in the recent times. In the words of the

Prof. D.P. Singh, the then Chairman of University

Grants Commission and Former Director of National

Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC): ­

“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads

of   Universities,   the   Vice   Chancellors   are

expected   to   be   efficient   and   effective   in

terms of: ­

a.Implementation   of   National   Higher

Education Policy and programmes,

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.”

55

‘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   above­mentioned

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 who preaches it.

Thus,   universities   are   autonomous   and   the   Vice­

Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As

per the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician,

excellent administrator and also someone who has a high

moral stature. The aforesaid reports of the Radhakrishnan

Commission, Kothari Commission, Gnanam Committee and

Ramlal Parikh Committee have highlighted the importance

of the role of Vice­Chancellor in maintaining the quality and

56

relevance   of   universities,   in   addition   to   its   growth   and

development, keeping in view, the much­needed changes

from time to time. Further, these committees have also

made suggestions and recommendations for identifying the

right person for the said position. At this stage, it is correct

to   say   that   a   Vice­Chancellor   is   the   king­pin   of   a

University’s   system   and   a   keeper   of   the   University’s

conscience. 

Further, in our view, the Search / Selection Committee

plays a vital and significant role in the selection of the Vice

Chancellor; yet the selected Vice Chancellor’s performance

in   the   universities   vary   from   university   to   university.

Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are

given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting

names for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or

indirectly responsible for the achievement of the University.

Commitment   to   the   quality   and   the   objectives   of   the

universities in particular and higher education system in

general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting the

right person.

57

We are sure and we hope and trust that while making

afresh appointment of Vice Chancellor in the State and the

universities thereunder, the aforesaid aspects shall be kept

in mind by the State and the concerned universities. With

this hope and trust we leave the matter there. 

…………………………………J.

                 (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi                                         …………………………………J.

March, 03 2022.                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

58