Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5946-5947 OF 2014

KALYANI MATHIVANAN … APPELLANT

VERSUS

K.V. JEYARAJ AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6455-6456 OF 2014 AND

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8602-8603 OF 2014.

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J

These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against a

common judgment and order dated 26

th

June, 2014 passed by the

Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Writ

Petition (MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of

2013.

The aforesaid writ petitions were preferred by K.V. Jeyaraj

and I. Ismail respondents/writ petitioners praying for issuance of

a writ of quo warranto directing the appellant – Dr. Kalyani

Mathivanan to show cause under what authority she continues to

hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj

University.

Page 2 2

2.By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan did not satisfy the eligibility

criteria stipulated by the UGC Regulations of 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’) for appointment as

Vice-Chancellor and non-fulfilment of such eligibility criteria

cannot be completely white washed on the specious plea that the

University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 are not mandatory.

The High Court set aside the order of appointment of the

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan and allowed the writ petitions.

3.The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

The post of Vice-Chancellor in Madurai Kamaraj University

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) fell vacant in the

year 2011-2012 and the Government constituted a search Committee

to appoint a suitable candidate. All together names of 104 persons

were considered by the search Committee and finally three persons

namely (1) Dr. R. Jayaraman, Professor of Management Studies

(Retd.), Member Secretary, Centre for Entrepreneurship

Development, Madurai, (2)Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, Head of the

Department of English, Ethiraj College for Women, Chennai and

(3)Dr. T. Ramasamy, Professor of History (on lien) Registrar,

Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli were short listed. On the

basis of the recommendation of the search Committee, the

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan was selected and appointed as

Page 3 3

Vice-Chancellor by G.O.(1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2)Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9

th

April, 2012 for a period of

three years with effect from the date of assumption of office.

4.Challenging the selection of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani

Mathivanan, two separate writ petitions were preferred by Dr. K.V.

Jeyaraj, and Dr. I. Ismail, who were aspirants to the said post-

respondents herein. The said challenge was mainly on the ground

that as per UGC Regulations, 2010, the person to be appointed as

Vice-Chancellor, should be a distinguished academician, with a

minimum of 10 years experience as Professor in a University system

or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed

research/academic organization and Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan does not

satisfy the said criteria. The High Court took up both the writ

petitions together for disposal and by the judgment and order

allowed the writ petitions and set aside the appointment order of

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor.

5.The appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan on notice appeared before

the High Court and brought to the notice of the Court the

following facts:

She was appointed as Assistant Professor in Ethiraj College

on 16

th

January, 1981. The Government of Tamil Nadu on 5

th

December,

1983 redesignated the post of Assistant Professor as Lecturer and

Professor as Lecturer [Senior Scale/Selection Grade]. She was

promoted as Lecturer (Senior Scale) in Ethiraj College on 22

nd

August, 1991. Since, 1995, the appellant has been a recognized

Guide for M.Phil. candidates in the University of Madras. The

Page 4 4

appellant was promoted as Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader on 7

th

May, 1998 and since then she has been a Recognized Guide for Ph.D

candidate in the University of Madras. In 2008, She was promoted

as Head of the English Department, Ethiraj College. On 9

th

September, 2009, the Department of Higher Education, Government of

Tamil Nadu based on the report of the Official Committee

constituted to examine the recommendations of the G.K. Chadha

Committee, passed an order that there shall be only three

designations in respect of Teachers in Universities and Colleges,

namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors.

It was further ordered that the posts of Professors shall be

created for under-Graduate and Post-Graduate Colleges on the basis

of guidelines prescribed therein. However, this direction has not

been implemented till date in the State of Tamil Nadu.

6.On behalf of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, it was

further contended that she is qualified for appointment as Vice-

Chancellor of the University as per the Madurai Kamaraj University

Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University Act, 1965’).

It was further contended that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are not

mandatory but directory and cannot override the provisions of the

University Act, 1965.

7.The High Court by the impugned order framed the following

questions for consideration, namely:

(i) whether the post of Associate Professor held by

the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan in a private

aided College can be considered as an equivalent

Page 5 5

post, satisfying requirement of paragraph 7.3.0 of

the UGC Regulations, 2010;

(ii) whether the prescriptions contained in paragraph

7.3.0 of the Annexure to the UGC Regulations, 2010 is

mandatory or directory; and whether the U.G.C.

Regulation, 2010 would override the provisions of the

University Act, 1965 and the Statute framed

thereunder.

8.The High Court after taking into consideration the

qualification laid down in the Annexure to the UGC Regulations,

2010 answered the first question in negative, against the

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan.

The High Court also rejected the submission that the Vice-

Chancellor need not be a Professor or teacher and observed as

follows:

“44.Therefore, it is not possible to accept

contention that drawing inspiration from the

past, one need not be a Professor or even a

teacher to become a Vice-Chancellor. As a

matter of fact, several committees were

constituted in the past about 70 years by the

Government of India, to improve the standards

of Universities. Recently, a study was

conducted by two persons by name K. Sudha Rao,

Vice-Chancellor, Karnataka State Open

University, Mysore and Advisor ASERF and

Mithilesh Kr. Singh, Senior Fellow, (ASERF),

New Delhi analysing the different methods

adopted for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor

in Indian Universities in comparison to those

adopted by some foreign Universities.

45.This paper indicates that as per the

reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission

(1948:422-23), Kothari Commission (1964-1966:

333-35), Gnanam Committee (1990: 27-30) and

Ramlal Parujg Committee (1993:15-17), the Vice-

Page 6 6

Chancellors have an important role in

maintaining the quality and relevance of

universities. The highlights of some of the

committees were extracted in the said paper by

the learned authors as follows:-

Generally the Vice-Chancellor should be a

distinguished educationist or eminent scholar

in any of the disciplines or professions, with

a high standing in his/her field and adequate

administrative experience. We are not generally

in favour of appointment of persons who have

retired from other fields. An exception to this

general recommendation should be made only in

the case of very outstanding persons whose

association with the universities would be

desirable from every point of view and should

not be made an excuse for accommodating’ or

‘rewarding individuals who do not fulfill the

conditions laid down. A Vice-Chancellor is one

who stands for the commitment of the University

to scholarship and pursuit of truth.(Kothari

Commission 1964-66:334)

A Vice-Chancellor should be a person with

vision and (have) qualities of academic

leadership with ability for administration. He

should command high respect among all sections

of the society. The Vice-Chancellor should be a

distinguished academic…(who) has commitment to

the values for which the Universities stand….He

must have the ability to provide leadership to

the University by his academic worth,

administrative competence and moral stature,.

(Kothari Commission 1964-66:334)

Parikh Committee was not in favour of

appointing Government officials as VCs. Quoting

the Kothari Commission Report, the Parikh

Committee mentions that the Vice-Chancellor is

the most important functionary in a University

not only on the administrative side but is also

charged with the responsibility of creating the

right atmosphere for teachers and students.

The Universities need distinguished and

dignified persons as VCs and it is necessary to

ensure that they are treated with dignity and

regard, which the office merits.(Ramlal Parikh

Committee 1993:15).

The Vice-Chancellor is the most important

functionary in a University, not only on the

administrative side but also for securing the

right atmosphere for the teachers and the

students to do their work effectively and in

Page 7 7

the right spirit. (Report of the Committee on

Model Act for Universities 1964:11)

The Vice-Chancellor being the principal

executive and academic officer of the

University, should exercise general supervision

and control over the affairs of the University

and give effect to the decision of all its

authorities. He shall be the ex-officio

Chairman of the Court, Executive Council,

Academic Council, Finance Committee and

Selection Committees and shall, in the absence

of the Chancellor preside at any convocation of

the University for conferring degrees. It shall

be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that

the provisions of the Act, Statutes and

Ordinances and Regulations are fully observed

and he should have the power necessary for the

discharge of this duty. (Gajendragadkar

Committee on the Governance of the Unviersity,

1971:60).

In accordance with Regulation 1 for the

office of VC (Statutes and Ordinances of

Cambridge University, June 2002:655)…VC is of a

stature and his/her presence commensurate to

lead a distinguished academic institution. The

stated mission of the University is to

contribute to society through the pursuit of

education, learning, and research at the

highest international levels of excellence. The

VC must be of exceptional caliber with academic

credibility, clear strategic vision, and

outstanding leadership qualities. He/she should

have strong management skills and senior level

experience gained in a complex institution and

the ability to bring them to bear in a

democratic, self governing University. The

ability to promote the University in a

regional, national and international context,

and to increase the financial resources

available to the University, should be key,

particularly in order to realise the full

potential of the University.”

9.By the impugned judgment, the Madras High Court differed with

the finding of the Bombay High Court in a similar case, “Suresh

Patilkhede of Thane vs. Chancellor, University of Maharashtra,

in PIL (L) No.80/2011, 2012 (6) ALLMR 336. The Bombay High Court

Page 8 8

by the said judgment held that Vice-Chancellor in his said

capacity cannot be considered as a member of the academic or

teaching staff of the University and also held that the UGC

Regulations, 2010 is directory in nature. In the impugned judgment

Madras High Court observed as follows:

“46.Therefore, with great respect, we are

unable to subscribe to the view expressed by

the Bombay High Court in paragraph 13 of the

decision in Suresh Patikhede that the Vice-

Chancellor need not be considered as a member

of the academic teaching staff.

10.The High Court further observed:

“48. If University Grants Commission

Regulations, 2010 will have to be given effect

to (subject to our finding on the next two

facets of question No.2), the Vice-Chancellor

should actually be a distinguished academician.

Today, Albert Einstein cannot be appointed as

the Vice-Chancellor of any University (at least

in India) unless he fulfills the qualifications

prescribed by University Grants Commission, the

reason being that after a legislative enactment

lays down the objective criteria, there is no

place for subjective satisfaction.

49. We do not mean to say that the fourth

respondent is not an academician. She has

always been a teacher and Mr. A.L. Somayaji,

learned Advocate General took great pains to

highlight the academic and other achievements

of the fourth respondent. But we are solely on

the question as to whether we could concur with

the opinion of the Bombay High Court that a

Vice-Chancellor is not part of the teaching

staff. There may be a hair splitting difference

between being part of an academic stream and

being part of the teaching faculty. But it is

not possible for us to accept the

interpretation that one can be the academic

head but cannot be considered as part of the

teaching staff.”

11.For determination of the second question, the High Court

formulated three issues as follows:

Page 9 9

“33. In our considered view, the second

question before us, actually has three facets

namely:-

a)Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor

is not to be considered as part of

the teaching staff;

b)Whether the Madurai Kamaraj

University Act and the Statutes

issued thereunder prescribe a

different set of qualifications for

the post of Vice-Chancellor than

those prescribed by the University

Grants Commission Regulations, 2010

leading to a conflict; and

c)Whether in the event of a conflict

between the State enactment and the

University Grants Commission

Regulations, 2010, the provisions

of the State enactment would

prevail.”

12.The High Court held that the post of Vice-Chancellor is a part

of academia i.e. teaching staff and the UGC Regulations, 2010 will

prevail over the State enactment i.e. University Act and the

Statutes framed thereunder in the event of a conflict.

13.The High Court in the impugned judgment discussed the

background history of appointment of Vice-Chancellor in India and

observed as follows:

“43. It is true that when the seeds of

Western education were shown in this country

about 150 years ago, men of eminence from

various walks of life were appointed as Vice-

Chancellors. Several Judges of this Court have

adorned the post of Vice-Chancellor of various

Universities including the Madras University

itself. But apart from being great (and rare)

Judges, those men were also distinguished

academicians who excelled in various fields.

Students of Indian History would know that

Sir John George Woodraff who was a Judge of the

Calcutta High Court and who retired as the

Officiating Chief Justice of the same Court,

collaborated with Ameer Ali in publishing the

Civil Procedure Code. He was a great Sanskrit

Page 10 10

scholar who authored books on Mantra Sastra and

Tantra Sastra, After retiring as the

Officiating Chief Justice, he served a Reader

in law in the Oxford University for seven

years. Great Jurists, both (Lawyers and Judges)

such as Sir Subramanya Ayyar, Sir P.S.Sivaswamy

Ayyar, Justice F.D. Oldfield were among a few

who became the Vice-Chancellors of Madras

University, ever since its inception about 150

years. But today, it is not possible to

continue with the same legacy or two reasons,

namely:-

(a)that we do not have such tall men of

great eminence and

(b)that today the field is regulated by

law.”

14.The High Court also relied on an Article titled ‘ Why Socrates

should be in the Boardroom in Research Universities’, published in

2010 by Amanda H. Goodall, for determining the case and observed

as follows:

“47. In an interesting Article, titled Why

Socrates should be in the Boardroom in Research

Universities, published in 2010 by Amanda H.

Goodall, Leverhulme Fellow, Warwick Business

School, the author points out two contrasting

events that happened in 2003 and 2004. It is

common knowledge that Cambridge University came

into existence in 1209 and almost about 800

years later, a distinguished Anthropologist, by

name Alison Richard, was appointed as the 344

th

President or Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge. She

was an acclaimed academician. In contrast to

what happened at Cambridge in 2003, Oxford

University appointed in 2004, a person by name

John Hood, who was not an academic but was only

a businessman. He became the first head of

Oxford University, ever since the year 1230, to

be elected to the Vice-Chancellorship from

outside the University’s current academic body.

The paper authored by Amanda Goodall considered

the question as to why Cambridge and Oxford

chose such different individuals to lead their

ancient and reputed institutions. The central

theme of the paper was as to whether there was

a relationship between University performance

and leadership by an accomplished researcher.

Page 11 11

Eventually, after analysing the statistics from

about 100 Universities throughout the world,

the author came to the conclusion, supported by

evidence that Research Universities should be

led by top scholars. The conclusions reached by

the author could be summarized as follows:

(i)That the best Universities in the world

are led by more established scholars;

(ii) That scholar-leaders are considered to

be more credible leaders in Universities,

commanding greater respect from their academic

peers.

(iii) That setting an organisation’s

academic standards is a significant part of the

function of the Vice-Chancellor and hence one

should expect the standard bearer to first year

that standard.

(iv) That a leader, who is an established

scholar, signals the institution’s priorities,

internally to its faculties and externally to

potential new academic recruits, students,

alumni, donors and the media.

(v) That since scholarship cannot be viewed

as a proxy for either management experience or

leadership skills, an expert leader must also

have expertise in areas other than

scholarship.”

15.Learned counsel for parties relied on the aforesaid

observation made by the High Court but we are of the view that it

is not necessary to notice the background history of appointment

of Vice-Chancellors or the great personalities who held such posts

or the interesting Article, titled ‘Why Socrates should be in the

Boardroom in Research Universities’, published in 2010 by Amanda

H. Goodall as they are not relevant for determining the issue

involved in the present case.

16.Learned counsel for the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, has

taken similar pleas as were taken before the High Court.

17.The contesting respondent No.1-Dr. K.Y. Jeyaraj has taken the

following pleas:

Page 12 12

(i)The words “Teaching Staff of the University”

occurring in Clause (e) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act,

1956 are words of wide import. Section 2(n) of the

Madurai Kamaraj University Act defines Teachers of the

University, as persons appointed by the University to

give instruction on its behalf. Any person appointed

to the University including the Vice-Chancellor, other

than mere administrative staff can be required by the

University to give instructions on its behalf. Thus,

teaching staff should include those who are appointed

to contribute and who can be called upon to contribute

to or assigned to contribute to educational activities

of the University in its functional sense.

(ii)The UGC regulations having been perceived to be

for the advancement and promotion of University

education, will qualify as a high principle of

persuasive public policy which would commend itself

for acceptance by the University. It is a matter of

fact that no University Act has provided for, or

enacted in respect of qualifications for appointment

of Vice-Chancellors. To the extent that such a matter

is not occupied by State University legislation

falling under Entry 25 of the concurrent list, it

would be subject to all provisions enacted including

regulations, traceable to Entry 66, List – I. This

Hon’ble Court has declared that regulations made under

statutes traceable to Entry 66 would also fall within

the scope of Entry 66 and would override legislation

under Entry 25.

(iii) The UGC Regulations are persuasive

principles of public policy relevant for the promotion

and advancement of University and higher education.

Consequently in the absence of any higher standards

and in the absence of any other relevant guidelines,

Page 13 13

the appointing authority cannot act in disregard of

the UGC guidelines. The selection process will be a

process void for lack of any standard. Acting in this

regard would thus be in frustration of the object and

purposes of UGC Act as well as the University

legislation itself.

(iv)A person appointed to a public office without

reference to any standards or norms or criteria, has

no right to hold such an office. Since all

appointments to all public offices created by statutes

have to be made on the basis of a norm, standard or a

criterion, the onus is on the person appointed to show

that a relevant norm, standard or criterion has been

adopted. This has not been done by the appellant.

(v)No case has been canvassed that the appointment

in question is otherwise based on a relevant standard

or criterion, higher in quality than the UGC

Regulations. No case has also been made out that on

the application of such a higher criterion that the

appointing authority did not find any other person

considered for appointment, as suitable and fit enough

to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.

18.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the

issues that arise for our consideration are:

(i)Whether UGC Regulations, 2010 is mandatory in nature; and

(ii)Whether in the event of conflict between the University

Act, Regulations framed thereunder and the UGC Regulations,

2010, the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 would

prevail or not; and

(iii) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor of a University is

to be considered as part of teaching staff.

Page 14 14

19.For determination of these issues, it is necessary to

notice the relevant provisions of University Commission

Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘UGC Act,

1956’), UGC Regulations, 2010, the University Act, 1965 and

the statutes framed thereunder.

University Grants Commission Act, 1956:

UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisions for the co-

ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for

that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission.

Section 12 deals with the ‘function of the Commission’,

relevant of which is quoted hereunder:

“12. It shall be the general duty of the

Commission to take, in consultation with the

Universities or other bodies concerned, all

such steps as it may think fit for the

promotion and co-ordination of University

education and for the determination and

maintenance of standards of teaching,

examination and research in Universities, and

for the purpose of performing its functions

under this Act, the Commission may-

(a)inquire into the financial needs of

Universities;

(b)…………………………

(c)…………………………

(d)recommend to any University the measures

necessary for the improvement of

University education and advise the

University upon the action to be taken for

the purpose of implementing such

recommendation;

(e)to (i)………………………

(j)perform such other functions as may be

prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by

the Commission for advancing the cause of

Page 15 15

higher education in India or as may be

incidental or conducive to the discharge of

the above functions.”

Section 14 deals with ‘consequences of failure of Universities

to comply with recommendations of the Commission’ which is as

follows:

14. If any University 1[grants affiliation in

respect of any course of study to any college

referred to in subsection (5) of section 12A in

contravention of the provisions of that sub-

section or] fails within a reasonable time to

comply with any recommendation made by the

Commission under section 12 or section 13, 2[or

contravenes the provision of any rule made

under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section

(2) of section 25, or of any regulation made

under clause(e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of

section 26,] the Commission, after taking into

consideration the cause, if any, shown by the

University 3[for Such failure or contraventions

may withhold from the University the grants

proposed to be made out of the Fund of the

Commission.”

20.Another relevant provision with which we are concerned is

Section 26 – ‘power to make regulations’. The relevant portion of

the said section is quoted below:

“Section 26. (1) The Commission [may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, make

regulations] consistent with this Act and the

rules made thereunder–

(a)to (d) x x x x x

“(e) defining the qualifications that should

ordinarily be required of any person to be

appointed to the teaching staff of the

University, having regard to the branch of

education in which he is expected to give

instruction;”

(f)x x x x

Page 16 16

“(g) regulating the maintenance of standards

and the co-ordination of work or facilities in

Universities.”

21.As per Section 28 the Rules and Regulations framed under the

U.G.C. Act are required to be laid before each House of Parliament

and when both the Houses agree then the Rules and Regulations can

be given effect with such modification as may be made by the

Parliament. Section 28 reads as below:

“Section 28. Every rule and every regulation

made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as

may be after it is made, before each House of

Parliament while it is in session, for a total

period of thirty days which may be comprised in

one session or in two or more successive

sessions, and if, before the expiry of the

session immediately following the session, or

the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses

agree in making any modification in the rule or

regulation or both Houses agree that the rule

or regulation should not be made, the rule or

regulation shall thereafter have effect only in

such modified form or be of no effect, as the

case may, be; so, however, that any such

modification or annulment shall be without

prejudice to the validity of anything

previously done under that rule or

regulation.”]

[No rule made or purporting to have been made,

with retrospective effect, under section 25 of

the principal Act before the commencement of

this Act shall be deemed to have been invalid

or ever to have been invalid merely on the

round that such rule was made with

retrospective effect and accordingly every such

rule and every action taken or thing done

thereunder shall be as valid and effective as

if the provisions of section 25 of the

principal Act, as amended by this Act, were in

force at all material times when such rule was

made or action or thing was taken or done.]”

Page 17 17

22.From the aforesaid provisions, we find that the University

Grants Commission has been established for the determination of

standard of Universities, promotion and co-ordination of

University education, for the determination and maintenance of

standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities,

for defining the qualifications regarding the teaching staff of

the University, maintenance of standards etc. For the purpose of

performing its functions under the UGC Act (see Section 12) like

defining the qualifications and standard that should ordinarily be

required of any person to be appointed in the Universities [see

Section 26(1)(e)(g)] UGC is empowered to frame regulations.

It is only when both the Houses of the Parliament approve the

regulation, the same can be given effect. Thus, we hold that the

U.G.C. Regulations though a subordinate legislation has binding

effect on the Universities to which it applies; and consequence of

failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of

the Commission, the UGC may withhold the grants to the university

made out of the Fund of the Commission. (See Section 14)

23.UGC Regulations, 2010 and Annexure enclosed therein

For the appointment and career advancement of teachers in the

Universities and Institutions affiliated to it UGC by Regulation

No.F.3-1/2000(PS) dated 4

th

April, 2000, enacted the University

Grants Commission(Minimum qualifications required for the

appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and

Page 18 18

Institutions affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter

referred to as the “UGC Regulations, 2000”). In the said

Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were prescribed for the post

of ‘Pro-Chancellor’ or ‘Vice-Chancellor’.

The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource

Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by letter

No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated 31

st

December, 2008 communicated 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 Central

Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central

Pay Commission. By the said letter, the Government of India

directed that there shall be only three designations in respect of

teachers in Universities and Colleges, namely, Assistant

Professors, Associate Professors and Professors.

In the said letter revised Pay Scales, Service Conditions and

Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions

including the post of Assistant Professors/Associate

Professors/Professors in Universities and Colleges were intimated.

Pay scales of Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor 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 State

legislature, provided State Governments wish to adopt and

implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions mentioned

Page 19 19

therein.

24.In view of the aforesaid letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i),

dated 31

st

December, 2008 issued by the Government of India and in

exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-

section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted

Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It

was published in the Gazette of India on 28

th

June, 2010 and came

into force with immediate effect. Relevant portion of the said

Regulations is as follows:

“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

To be published in the gazette of India

Part III Sector 4

University Grants Commission

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi-110002.

No.F.3-1/2009 28 June, 2010

In exercise of the powers conferred under

clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of

Section 26 of University Grants Commission Act,

1956 (3 of 1956), and in pursuance of the MHRD

O.M.No.F.23-7/2008-IFD dated 23rd October,

2008, read with Ministry of Finance (Department

of Expenditure) O.M.No.F.1-1/2008-IC dated 30th

August, 2008, and in terms of the MHRD

Notification No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1) issued on

31st December, 2008 and in supersession of the

University Grants Commission (minimum

qualifications required for the appointment and

career advancement of teachers in Universities

and Institutions affiliated to it)Regulations,

2000, issued by University Grants Commission

vide Regulation No. F.3-1/2000 (PS) dated 4th

April, 2000, together with all amendments made

Page 20 20

therein from time to time, the University

Grants Commission hereby frames the following

Regulations, namely:-

1. Short title, application and commencement:

1.1.These Regulations may be called the

University Grants Commission (Minimum

Qualifications for Appointment of

Teachers and other Academic Staff in

Universities and Colleges and other

Measures for the Maintenance of

Standards in Higher Education)

Regulations, 2010.

1.2.They shall apply to every university

established or incorporated by or

under a Central Act, Provincial Act or

a State Act, every institution

including a constituent or an

affiliated college recognized by the

Commission, in consultation with the

university concerned under Clause (f)

of Section 2 of the University Grants

Commission Act, 1956 and every

institution deemed to be a university

under Section 3 of the said Act.

1.3 They shall come into force with

immediate effect.

Provided that in the event, any candidate

becomes eligible for promotion under Career

Advancement Scheme in terms of these

Regulations on or after 31st December, 2008,

the promotion of such a candidate shall be

governed by the provisions of these

Regulations.

Provided further that notwithstanding

anything contained in these Regulations, in the

event any candidate became eligible for

promotion under Career Advancement Scheme prior

to 31

st

December, 2008, the promotion of such a

candidate under Career Advancement Scheme shall

be governed by the University Grants Commission

(Minimum Qualifications Required for the

Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers

in Universities and institutions affiliated to

it) Regulations, 2000 notified vide

Notification No. F.3-1/2000(PS) dated 4

th

April,

2000, as amended from time to time, read with

Page 21 21

notifications and guidelines issued by the

University Grants Commission (UGC) from time

to time, in this regard.

2. The Minimum Qualifications for

appointment and other service

conditions of University and

College teachers, Librarians

and Directors of Physical

Education and Sports as a

measure for the maintenance of

standards in higher education,

shall be as provided in the

Annexure to these Regulations.

3.Consequences of failure of the Universities

to comply with the recommendations of the

Commission, as provision of Section 14 of the

University Grants Commission Act, 1956:

If any University grants affiliation in

respect of any course of study to any college

referred to in sub-section(5) of Section 12-A

in contravention of the provisions of the sub-

section, or fails within a reasonable time to

comply with any recommendations made by the

Commission under Section 12 or Section 13, or

contravenes the provisions of any rule made

under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section

25 or of any regulations made under clause (e)

or clause (f) or clause (g) of Sub-section (1)

of Section 26, the Commission after taking

into consideration the cause, if any, shown

by the University for such failure or

contravention, may withhold from the

university the grants proposed to be made out

of the fund of the Commission.

Secretary.”

25.Annexure to UGC Regulations, 2010 prescribes the minimum

qualifications for appointment and other service conditions of

University and College Teachers, Librarians, Directors of Physical

Education and Sports.

Regulation 2.0.0 relates to pay scales, pay fixation and age

of superannuation, etc. Regulation 7.0.0. relates to selection of

Page 22 22

Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities. In Regulation

7.3.0. standards to be followed and qualifications necessary for

selection to the post of Vice-Chancellor have been mentioned.

Regulation 7.4.0 relates to adoption of Regulations by the

universities and State Governments.

The relevant provisions of the Annexure to the UGC

Regulations, 2010 are quoted hereunder:

“ANNEXURE

UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR

APPOINTMENT OF THE TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN

UNIVESITEIS AND COLLEGES AND MEAUSRES FOR THE

MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATOIN, 2010

-----------------------------------------------

These Regulations are issued for minimum qualifications

for appointment and other service conditions of

University and College Teachers, Librarians, Directors

of Physical Education and Sports for the maintenance of

standards in higher education and revision of pay

scales.

2.0.0 PAY SCALES, PAYFIXATION FORMULA AND

AGE OF SUPERANNUATION, ETC.

2.1.0 The revised scales of pay and other

service conditions including age of

superannuation in central universities and

other institutions maintained and/or funded

by the University Grants Commission (UGC),

shall be strictly in accordance with the

decision of the Central Government,

Ministry of Human Resource Development

(Department of Education), as contained in

Appendix-I.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

2.3.1.The revised scales of pay and age

of superannuation as provided in Clause

2.1.0 above, may also be extended to

Universities, institutions coming under the

purview of the State Legislature and

maintained by the State Governments,

Page 23 23

subject to the implementation of the scheme

as a composite one in adherence of the

terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD

notifications provided as Appendix I and in

the MHRD letter No.F.1-7/2010-U II dated 11

May, 2010 with all conditions specified by

the UGC in the Regulations and other

Guidelines.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

7.0.0.SELECTION OF PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR/VICE

- CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES:

7.1.0. PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR:

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole

time Professor of the University and

shall be appointed by the Executive

Council on the recommendation of Vice-

Chancellor.

7.2.0.The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold

office for a period which is co-terminus

with that of Vice-Chancellor. However,

it shall be the prerogative of the Vice-

Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice-

Chancellor to the Executive Council,

during his tenure. These Regulations,

for selection of Pro- Vice- Chancellor

shall be adopted by the concerned

University through amendment of their

Act/Statute.

7.3.0. VICE-CHANCELLOR:

i. Persons of the highest level of

competence, integrity, morals and

institutional commitment are to be

appointed as Vice-Chancellors. 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.

ii. The selection of Vice-Chancellor

should be through proper identification

of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search

Committee through a public Notification

Page 24 24

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.

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 Vice-

Chancellor shall be prescribed in the

Statutes of the Universities concerned in

conformity with these Regulations.

v. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor

shall form part of the service period of

the incumbent concerned making him/her

eligible for all service related

benefits.

7.4.0 The Universities/State Governments shall

modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes

of the Universities concerned within 6

months of adoption of these Regulations.

Page 25 25

8.0. DUTY LEAVE, STUDY LEAVE, SABBATICAL LEAVE”

26.Letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1)(i) dated 31

st

December, 2008

issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource

Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi has been

appended as Appendix I and is part of the UGC Regulations, 2010.

The relevant portion of the said letter is quoted below:

“APPENDIX I

No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i)

Government of India

Ministry of Human Resource Development

Department of Higher Education

New Delhi, dated the 31St December, 2008

To

The Secretary,

University Grants Commission,

Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

Subject: Scheme of revision of pay of teachers

and equivalent cadres in universities and

colleges following the revision of pay scales

of Central Government employees on the

recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay

Commission.

Sir,

I am directed to say that the Government of

India have decided, after taking into

consideration the recommendations made by the

University Grants Commission (UGC) based on

the decisions taken at the meeting of the

Commission held on 7-8 October 2008, to revise

the pay scales of teachers in the Central

Universities. The revision of pay scales of

teachers shall be subject to various

provisions of the Scheme of revision of pay

scales as contained in this letter, and

Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this

behalf in accordance with the Scheme given

below. The revised pay scales and other

provisions of the Scheme are as under:-

Page 26 26

1. General

(i) There shall be only three designations in

respect of teachers in universities and

colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,

Associate Professors and Professors. However,

there shall be no change in the present

designation in respect of Library and Physical

Education Personnel at various levels.

(ii) No one shall be eligible to be appointed,

promoted or designated as Professor, unless he

or she possesses a Ph.D. and satisfies other

academic conditions, as laid downy the

University Grants Commission (UGC) from time

to time. This shall, however, not affect those

who are already designated as 'Professor'.

(iii) The pay of teachers and equivalent

positions in Universities and Colleges shall

be fixed according to their designations in

two pay bands of Rs. 15,600 – Rs. 39,100 and

Rs. 37,400 – Rs. 67,000 with appropriate

"Academic Grade Pay" (AGP in short). Each Pay

Band shall have different stages of Academic

Grade Pay which shall ensure that teachers and

other equivalent cadres covered under this

Scheme, subject to other conditions of

eligibility being satisfied, have multiple

opportunities for upward movement during their

career.

(iv) Posts of Professors shall be created in

under-graduate (UG) colleges as well as in

postgraduate (PG) colleges. The number of

posts of Professors in a UG College shall be

equivalent to 10 percent of the number of

posts-of Associate Professors in that College.

There shall be as many posts of Professors in

each PG College as the number of Departments

in that College. No new Departments shall be

created in UG or PG Colleges without prior

approval of the UGC.

(v) Up to 10% of the posts of Professors in

universities shall be in the higher Academic

Grade Pay of Rs. 12,000 with eligibility

conditions to be prescribed by the UGC.

(vi) National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be

Page 27 27

compulsory for appointment at the entry level

of Assistant Professor, subject to the

exemptions to the degree of Ph.D. in respect

of those

persons obtaining the award through a process

of registration, course-work and external

evaluation, as have been/ or may be laid down

by the UGC through its regulations, and so

adopted by the University. NET shall not be

required for such Masters' programmes in

disciplines for which there is no NET.

2. Revised Pay Scales , Service conditions and

Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and

equivalent positions:

The pay structure for different categories of

teachers and equivalent positions shall be as

indicated below:-

(a)Assistant Professor/Associate Professors/

Professors in Colleges and Universities.

3. Pay Scales of Pro Vice-Chancellor / Vice-

Chancellor of Universities:

(i) Pro-Vice-Chancellor

The posts of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be in

the Pay Band of Rs.37,400 – Rs. 67,000 with AGP

of Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 12,000, as the case may

be, along with a Special Allowance of Rs.4,000

per month, subject to the condition that the

sum total of pay in the Pay Band, the Academic

Grade Pay and the Special Allowance shall not

exceed Rs. 80,000.

(ii) Vice-Chancellor

The posts of Vice-Chancellor shall carry a

fixed pay of Rs. 75,000 along with a Special

Allowance of Rs. 5,000 per month.

8. Other terms and conditions:

(a) Increments:

xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx

(p) Applicability of the Scheme:

(i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers

Page 28 28

and other equivalent cadres of Library and

Physical Education in all the Central

Universities and Colleges there-under and the

Institutions Deemed to be Universities whose

maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. The

implementation of the revised scales shall be

subject to the acceptance of all the conditions

mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations

to be framed by the UGC in this behalf.

Universities implementing this Scheme shall be

advised by the UGC to amend their relevant

statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC

Regulations within three months from the date

of issue of this letter.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

From paragraph 8(p)(i) and (v) of Appendix-I dated 31

st

December, 2008 read with Regulation 7.4.0 we find that the Scheme

of regulation is applicable to teaching staffs of all Central

Universities and Colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed

to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the

UGC. However, the Scheme under UGC Regulations, 2010 is not

applicable to the teaching staffs of the Universities, Colleges

and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview

of State Legislature, unless State Government wish to adopt and

implement the Scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned

therein.

27.The Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965 (University Act)

[(Tamil Nadu) ACT No.33 of 1965]

Theabove said Act was enacted by the State Legislature to

provide for the establishment and incorporation of a University at

Madurai enacted by the State Legislature . Section 2(m) of the

Page 29 29

University Act defines ‘teachers’ as under:

“2(m).”teachers” means such lecturers,

readers, assistant professors, professors and

other persons giving instruction in University

colleges or laboratories, in affiliated or

approved colleges, or in hostels, and

librarians as may be declared by the statutes

to be teachers;

Section 2(n) defines ‘teachers of the University’ as follows:

“2(n)”teachers of the University” means

persons appointed by the University to give

instruction on its behalf;

‘University Lecturer’, ‘University Reader’ or ‘University

Professor’ are defined under Section 2(t) as follows:

“2(t)”University Lecturer”, “University

Reader” or “University Professor” means

Lecturer, Reader or Professor respectively

appointed as such by the University;”

Section 8 stipulates the Officers of the University. The said

Section is as follows:

“Section 8.Officers of the University.- The

University shall consist of the following

officers, namely:-

(1)The Chancellor;

(2)The Pro-Chancellor;

(3)The Vice-Chancellor;

(4)The Registrar; and

(5)Such other persons as may be

declared by the statutes to be

officers of the University.”

Section 9 relates to Chancellor, Section 10 relates to Pro-

Chancellor and Section 11 relates to the Vice-Chancellor. The said

Sections are as follows:

Page 30 30

“Section 9.The Chancellor .-(1) The Governor of

Tamil Nadu shall be the Chancellor of the

University. He shall, by virtue of his office,

be the head of the University and the President

of the Senate and shall, when present, preside

at meetings of the Senate and at any

convocation of the University.

(2) The Chancellor shall exercise such

powers as may be conferred on him by or under

this Act.

(3) Where power is conferred upon the

Chancellor to nominate persons to authorities,

the Chancellor shall, to the extent necessary,

nominate persons to represent interests not

otherwise adequately represented.

Section 10. The Pro-Chancellor - (1)The

Minister in-charge of the portfolio of

education in the State of Tamil Nadu shall be

the Pro-Chancellor of the University.

(2) In the absence of the Chancellor, or

during the Chancellor’s inability to act, the

Pro-Chancellor shall exercise all the powers of

the Chancellor.

Section 11.The Vice-Chancellor – (1) Every

appointment of the Vice-Chancellor shall be

made by the Chancellor from out of a panel of

three names recommended by the Committee

referred to in sub-section (2).Such panel shall

not contain the name of any member of the said

Committee.

Provided that if the Chancellor does not

approve any of the persons in the panel so

recommended by the Committee, he may take steps

to constitute another Committee, in accordance

with sub-section (2), to give a fresh panel of

three different names and shall appoint one of

the persons named in the fresh panel as the

Vice-Chancellor.

(2)For the purpose of sub-section (1), the

Committee shall consist of three persons of

whom one shall be nominated by the Chancellor.

Provided that the person so nominated shall

not be a member of any of the authorities of

Page 31 31

the University.

(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office

for a period of three years and shall be

eligible for re-appointment for not more than

two successive terms.

(4)When any termporary vacancy occurs in the

office of the Vice-Chancellor or if the Vice-

Chancellor is, by reason of absence or for any

other reason, unable to exercise the powers and

perform the duties of his office, the Syndiate

shall, as soon as possible, make the requisite

arrangements for exercising the powers and

performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-

time officer of the University and shall be

entitled to such emoluments, allowances and

privileges as may be prescribed by the

statutes.”

The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are mentioned in

Section 12 which is as follows:

“Section 12. Powers and duties of the Vice-

Chancellor. – (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be

academic head and the principal executive

officer of the University and shall, in the

absence of the Chancellor and Pro-Chancellor,

preside at meetings of the Senate and at any

convocation of the University. He shall be a

member ex-officio and Chairman of the

Syndicate, the Academic Council and the Finance

Committee and shall be entitled to be present

at and to address any meeting of any authority

of the University but shall not be entitled to

vote there at unless he is a member of the

authority concerned.

(2)It shall be the duty of the Vice-

Chancellor to ensure that the provisions of

this Act, the statutes, ordinances and

regulations are observed and carried out and he

may exercise all powers necessary for this

purpose.

Page 32 32

(3)The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to

convene meetings of the Senate, the Syndicate,

the Academic Council and the Finance Commtitee.

(4) (a) In any emergency which in the

opinion of the Vice-Chancellor requires that

immediate action should be taken, he may take

such action with the sanction of the Chancellor

or the Pro-Chancellor, as the case may be, and

shall as soon as may be thereafter report his

action to the officer or authority who or which

would have ordinarily dealt with the matter.

(b)When action taken by the Vice-Chancellor

under this sub-section affects any person in

the service of the University, such person

shall be entitled to prefer an appeal to the

Syndicate within thirty days from the date on

which he has notice of such action.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to

the orders of the Syndicate regarding the

appointment, suspension and dismissal of the

teachers and servants of the University and

shall exercise general control over the affairs

of the University.

(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such

other powers as may be prescribed.”

The above provisions indicate that the Vice-Chancellor is the

academic head [Section 12(1)], heads the Academic Council, and has

general control over teaching and examination within the

University and is responsible for the maintenance of the standards

thereof.

28.Chapter V of the University Act deals with the ‘Academic

Council’, the Faculties, the Boards and Studies, the Finance

Committee and other Authorities. Section 23 relates to the

Academic Council and Section 24 deals with the Constitution of the

Page 33 33

Academic Council. The relevant portion of the said provisions

reads as under:

“ CHAPTER V

THE ACADEMIC COUCIL, THE FACULTIES, THE BOARDS

OF STUDIES, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND OTHER

AUTHORITIES.

Section 23.The Academic Council.- The Academic

Council shall be the academic authority of the

University and shall, subject to the provisions

of this Act and the statutes, have the control

and general regulation of teaching and

examination within the University and be

responsible for the maintenance of the

standards thereof and shall exercise such other

powers and perform other duties as may be

prescribed.

Section 24.Constitution of the Academic

Council.- (a) The Academic Council shall, in

addition to the Vice-Chancellor, consist of the

following persons, namely;-

Class I – Ex-officio members-

(1)The Director of Higher Education,

Madras;

(2)The Director of Secondary Education,

Madras;

(3)The Director of Technical Education,

Madras;

(3-A) The Director of Medical Educatoin;

(4)The heads of University Departments of

Study and Research;

(5)Members of the Syndicate who are not

otherwise members of the Academic

Counci;

xxxxxxxxxxxx

29.Chapter VI of the University Act deals with Statutes,

Ordinances and Regulations. Section 30 stipulates the matters

which can be provided under Statutes. This includes the

Page 34 34

constitution or reconstitution, powers and duties of the

authorities of the University. Section 32 deals with Ordinances

which may provide for all or any of the matters mentioned therein

including the qualifications and emoluments of teachers of the

University [Section 32(d)].

30.The word statutes with respect to University means law of the

University. In the present context it means the provisions of the

University Act and the statutes, ordinances and regulations framed

therein. Chapter V of the Statutes of Madurai Kamaraja University

relates to Vice-Chancellor. Clause 2(1) of Chapter V stipulates

that Vice-Chancellor should be a whole-time Officer of the

University who would be the academic head and principal executive

officer of the University with powers and duties mentioned

therein. Relevant portion of the provision reads as follows:

“CHAPTER V

THE VICE-CHANCELLOR

1.The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by

the Chancellor from out of a panel of 3 names

recommended by the Committee referred to in

Statute 5 hereunder. Such panel shall not

contain the name of any member of the said

Committee.

(Act S.11 The Vice-Chancellor)

Provided that if the Chancellor does not

approve any of the persons in the panel so

recommended by the Committee, he may take steps

to constitute another Committee, in accordance

with Statue 5, to give a fresh panel of three

different names and shall appoint one of the

persons named in the fresh panel as the Vice-

Chancellor.

2.(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time

Page 35 35

Officer of the University. He shall be the

academic head and Principal executive officer

of the University.

(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall in the

absence of the Chancellor and the Pro-

Chancellor preside at the meetings of the

Senate, and at any Convocation of the

University.

(Act S.12 Powers and duties

of the Vice-Chancellor)

(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a member ex-

officio and Chairman of the Syndicate, the

Academic Council and the Finance Committee of

the University and shall be entitled to be

present at and address any meeting of any

authority of the University but shall not be

entitled to vote there at unless he is a member

of the authorities concerned.

(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to

convene the meetings of the Senate, the

Syndicate, the Academic Council and the Finance

Committee of the University.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise a

general control over all the affairs of the

University.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.”

31. From UGC Regulations, 2010, it is clear that the Vice-

Chancellor 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.

Whereas the post of Vice-Chancellor under University Act, 1965

and statute made thereunder is not a teaching post but an

officer of the University.

Page 36 36

Constitutional Provisions:

32. Article 246 demarcates the matters in respect of which

Parliament and State Legislature may make laws. The legislative

powers of the Central and State Governments are governed by the

relevant entries in the three lists given in 7

th

Schedule.

Entry 66 in List I provides for Co-ordination and

determination of standards in institutions for higher education

or research and scientific and technical institutions. Prior to

42

nd

Amendment, education including Universities subject to the

provisions of the Entries 63, 64, 65, 66 of List-I and Entry 25

of List III was shown in Entry 11 of the List II – State List.

By 42

nd

Amendment of Constitution w.e.f. 3

rd

January, 1977 Entry

11 of List II-State List was omitted and was added as Entry 25

of List-III.

At present the aforesaid provisions read as follows:

“Seventh Schedule

List I – Union List

Entry 66. Co-ordination and determination of

standards in institutions for higher education

or research and scientific and technical

institutions.

List III – Concurrent List

Entry 25.- Education, including technical

education, medical education and universities,

subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65

and 66 of List I; vocational and technical

training of labour.”

Article 254 relates to repugnancy of Law made by the

Page 37 37

State with the law made by the Parliament. Article 254 reads as

follows:-

“254. Inconsistency between laws made by

Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of

States.-(1) If any provision of a law made by

the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any

provision of a law made by Parliament which

Parliament is competent to enact, or to any

provision of an existing law with respect to

one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent

List, then, subject to the provisions of clause

( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether

passed before or after the law made by the

Legislature of such State, or, as the case may

be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law

made by the Legislature of the State shall, to

the extent of the repugnancy, be void

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a

State with respect to one of the matters

enumerated in the concurrent List contains any

provision repugnant to the provisions of an

earlier law made by Parliament or an existing

law with respect to that matter, then, the law

so made by the Legislature of such State shall,

if it has been reserved for the consideration

of the President and has received his assent,

prevail in that State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall

prevent Parliament from enacting at any time

any law with respect to the same matter

including a law adding to, amending, varying or

repealing the law so made by the Legislature of

the State.”

33. The effect in case of inconsistency between the

Legislation made by the Parliament and the State Legislature on

the subject covered by List III has been decided by this Court

in numerous cases.

34. In State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. Adhiyhaman

Page 38 38

Education & Research Institute and others, (1995) 4 SCC 104,

this Court noticed that Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh

Schedule has remained unchanged from the inception and that

Entry 11 was taken out from List II and was amalgamated with

Entry 25 of List III . In the said case the Court held as

follows:

“12.The subject “coordination and

determination of standards in institutions for

higher education or research and scientific and

technical institutions” has always remained the

special preserve of Parliament. This was so

even before the Forty-second Amendment, since

Entry 11 of List II even then was subject,

among others, to Entry 66 of List I. After the

said Amendment, the constitutional position on

that score has not undergone any change. All

that has happened is that Entry 11 was taken

out from List II and amalgamated with Entry 25

of List III. However, even the new Entry 25 of

List III is also subject to the provisions,

among others, of Entry 66 of List I. It cannot,

therefore, be doubted nor is it contended

before us, that the legislation with regard to

coordination and determination of standards in

institutions for higher education or research

and scientific and technical institutions has

always been the preserve of Parliament. What

was contended before us on behalf of the State

was that Entry 66 enables Parliament to lay

down the minimum standards but does not deprive

the State legislature from laying down

standards above the said minimum standards. We

will deal with this argument at its proper

place.

xxx xxx xxxx

41. What emerges from the above discussion

is as follows:

(i) The expression ‘coordination’ used in

Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh

Schedule to the Constitution does not merely

mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a

view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted

action according to a certain design, scheme or

Page 39 39

plan of development. It, therefore, includes

action not only for removal of disparities in

standards but also for preventing the

occurrence of such disparities. It would,

therefore, also include power to do all things

which are necessary to prevent what would make

‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult.

This power is absolute and unconditional and in

the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it

must be given its full effect according to its

plain and express intention.

(ii) To the extent that the State

legislation is in conflict with the Central

legislation though the former is purported to

have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent

List but in effect encroaches upon legislation

including subordinate legislation made by the

Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or

to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List,

it would be void and inoperative.

(iii) If there is a conflict between the two

legislations, unless the State legislation is

saved by the provisions of the main part of

clause (2) of Article 254, the State

legislation being repugnant to the Central

legislation, the same would be inoperative.

(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon

Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to

the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of

the Concurrent List, will have to be determined

by the examination of the two laws and will

depend upon the facts of each case.

(v) When there are more applicants than the

available situations/seats, the State authority

is not prevented from laying down higher

standards or qualifications than those laid

down by the Centre or the Central authority to

short-list the applicants. When the State

authority does so, it does not encroach upon

Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which

is repugnant to the Central law.

Page 40 40

(vi) However, when the situations/seats are

available and the State authorities deny an

applicant the same on the ground that the

applicant is not qualified according to its

standards or qualifications, as the case may

be, although the applicant satisfies the

standards or qualifications laid down by the

Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So

also when the State authorities de-recognise or

disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying

the standards or requirement laid down by them,

although it satisfied the norms and

requirements laid down by the Central

authority, the State authorities act

illegally.”

35. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P.

and others, (1999) 7 SCC 120, a Constitution Bench of five

Judges dealt with the State competence under List III Entry 25

to control or regulate higher education which is subject to

standards laid down by the Union of India. The Court noticed

that the standards of higher education can be laid down under

List I Entry 66 by the Central Legislation and held as follows:

“35. The legislative competence of Parliament

and the legislatures of the States to make laws

under Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth

Schedule to the Constitution. In the VIIth

Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of

List II gave to the State an exclusive power to

legislate on

“education including universities, subject to

the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66

of List I and Entry 25 of List III”.

Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of

List III was amended with effect from 3-1-1976

as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment

Act of 1976. The present Entry 25 in the

Concurrent List is as follows:

Page 41 41

“25.Education, including technical education,

medical education and universities, subject

to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and

66 of List I; vocational and technical

training of labour.”

Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of

List I. Entry 66 of List I is as follows:

“66. Coordination and determination of

standards in institutions for higher

education or research and scientific and

technical institutions.”

Both the Union as well as the States have the

power to legislate on education including

medical education, subject, inter alia, to

Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down

standards in institutions for higher education

or research and scientific and technical

institutions as also coordination of such

standards. A State has, therefore, the right to

control education including medical education

so long as the field is not occupied by any

Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot,

while controlling education in the State,

impinge on standards in institutions for higher

education. Because this is exclusively within

the purview of the Union Government. Therefore,

while prescribing the criteria for admission to

the institutions for higher education including

higher medical education, the State cannot

adversely affect the standards laid down by the

Union of India under Entry 66 of List I.

Secondly, while considering the cases on the

subject it is also necessary to remember that

from 1977, education, including, inter alia,

medical and university education, is now in the

Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate

on admission criteria also. If it does so, the

State will not be able to legislate in this

field, except as provided in Article 254.

36. It would not be correct to say that the

norms for admission have no connection with the

standard of education, or that the rules for

admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List

III. Norms of admission can have a direct

impact on the standards of education. Of

course, there can be rules for admission which

are consistent with or do not affect adversely

Page 42 42

the standards of education prescribed by the

Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of

List I. For example, a State may, for admission

to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down

qualifications in addition to those prescribed

under Entry 66 of List I. This would be

consistent with promoting higher standards for

admission to the higher educational courses.

But any lowering of the norms laid down can and

does have an adverse effect on the standards of

education in the institutes of higher

education. Standards of education in an

institution or college depend on various

factors. Some of these are:

(1) the calibre of the teaching staff;

(2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a

high level of education in the given

span of time;

(3) the student-teacher ratio;

(4) the ratio between the students and the

hospital beds available to each

student;

(5) the calibre of the students admitted to

the institution;

(6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or

hospital facilities for training in the

case of medical colleges;

(7) adequate accommodation for the college

and the attached hospital; and

(8) the standard of examinations held

including the manner in which the papers are

set and examined and the clinical performance

is judged.

37. While considering the standards of

education in any college or institution, the

calibre of students who are admitted to that

institution or college cannot be ignored. If

the students are of a high calibre, training

programmes can be suitably moulded so that they

can receive the maximum benefit out of a high

level of teaching. If the calibre of the

students is poor or they are unable to follow

the instructions being imparted, the standard

of teaching necessarily has to be lowered to

make them understand the course which they have

undertaken; and it may not be possible to reach

the levels of education and training which can

Page 43 43

be attained with a bright group. Education

involves a continuous interaction between the

teachers and the students. The pace of

teaching, the level to which teaching can rise

and the benefit which the students ultimately

receive, depend as much on the calibre of the

students as on the calibre of the teachers and

the availability of adequate infrastructural

facilities. That is why a lower student-teacher

ratio has been considered essential at the

levels of higher university education,

particularly when the training to be imparted

is a highly professional training requiring

individual attention and on-hand training to

the pupils who are already doctors and who are

expected to treat patients in the course of

doing their postgraduate courses.”

36. In Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government,

Information and Tourism Department and others, (2009) 4 SCC 590,

this Court observed that UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in

exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh

Schedule to the Constitution of India whereas the Open

University Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its

power under Entry 25 of List III. It was held that in such

circumstances the question of repugnancy between the provisions

of the said two Acts, does not arise. The Court while holding

that the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all the

Universities held as follows:

“40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in

exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I

of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of

India whereas the Open University Act was

enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power

under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The

question of repugnancy of the provisions of the

said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is

true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons

of the Open University Act shows that the

Page 44 44

formal system of education had not been able to

provide an effective means to equalise

educational opportunities. The system is rigid

inter alia in respect of attendance in

classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also

inflexible.

42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding

on all universities whether conventional or

open. Its powers are very broad. The

Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses

(e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of

Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply

equally to open universities as also to formal

conventional universities. In the matter of

higher education, it is necessary to maintain

minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum

standards of instructions are required to be

defined by UGC. The standards and the

coordination of work or facilities in

universities must be maintained and for that

purpose required to be regulated. The powers of

UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are

very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation

as is well known when validly made becomes part

of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that

the functions of UGC are all-pervasive in

respect of the matters specified in clause (d)

of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses

(a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof.”

37. The aforesaid judgment makes it clear that to the extent

the State Legislation is in conflict with Central Legislation

including sub-ordinate legislation made by the Central

Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be

repugnant to the Central Legislation and would be inoperative.

38. The question that now arises is whether any of the

provisions of the State Legislation (University Act, 1965) and

statutes framed thereunder is in conflict with the Central

Legislation i.e. UGC Act, 1956 including UGC Regulations, 2010.

Page 45 45

39. We find that post of Vice-Chancellor under the University

Act, 1965 is a post of an Officer. The UGC Act 1956 is silent

about this aspect. The UGC Regulations, 2000 are also silent in

regard to post of Vice-Chancellor. Provisions regarding Vice-

Chancellor have been made for the first time under UGC

Regulations, 2010.

We have noticed and held that UGC Regulations, 2010 is

not applicable to the Universities, Colleges and other higher

educational institutions coming under the purview of the State

Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt and implement

the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein. In this

connection, one may refer paragraph 8(p)(v) of Appendix-I dated

31

st

December, 2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of UGC Regulations,

2010.

40. It is also not the case of the respondents that the

Scheme as contained in Appendix-I to the Annexure of UGC

Regulations, 2010 has been adopted and implemented by the State

Government. It is also apparent from the facts that University

Act has not been amended in terms of UGC Regulations, 2010 nor

was any action taken by the UGC under Section 14 of UGC Act,

1956 as a consequence of failure of University to comply with

the recommendations of the Commission under Section 14 of the

UGC Act, 1956.

41. Almost similar Public Interest Litigation was filed

Page 46 46

before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Public

Interest Litigation (Lodging) NO.80 of 2011 Suresh Patilkhede

vs. The Chancellor, Universities of Maharashtra (supra). In the

said case the writ petitioner challenged the appointment of

Search Committee for recommending the panel of suitable person

for selection of Vice-Chancellor of Pune University on the

ground that the appointment of the Search Committee by the

Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of

the Maharasthra University Act is not in conformity with the

provisions of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 made

under the UGC Act.

42. In the said case also, State of Maharashtra and the

Chancellor of Pune University while opposing the writ petition

had taken a plea that UGC Regulations, 2010 being in the nature

of subordinate Legislation cannot override the provisions of

Section 12 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994, which is a

preliminary Legislation made by the State Legislature. In the

said case the Bombay High Court held:

“16………Applying the aforesaid test of “direct

impact on the standard of Education” and the

principles laid down in the aforesaid

decisions, we are of the view that the

qualifications and the method of appointment

for the post of Pro-Chancellor and Vice-

Chancellor of a University cannot be considered

as having “direct impact on the standards of

education.

17. We are, accordingly, of the considered

view that Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0 of UGC

Regulations for appointment of Pro-Chancellor

and Vice-Chancellor of the University governed

Page 47 47

by UGC Act cannot be treated as falling under

Clauses (e) and (g) of Section 26(1) of the UGC

Act, 1956.”

The Bombay High Court further held:

“46. As already held by us, Regulations 7.2.0

and 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010 are

traceable to Section 12(d) of UGC Act, 1956.

The same are not without any authority of law

but at the same time, they are merely

recommendatory in nature and, therefore,

neither the State Legislature nor the State

Government is bound to accept the same.

Accordingly, when the State Government issued

order dated 15

th

February, 2011 at Exhibit ‘F’

enumerated those regulations which are adopted

by the State Government out of UGC Regulations,

2010, the State Government decided not to adopt

Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0. We, therefore,

find considerable substance in the argument of

learned Advocate General that non-adoption of

directory Regulation 7.3.0 would not render the

State legislation or the Government order dated

15

th

February, 2011 invalid or unconstitutional.

47. To sum up-

(i) Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations,

2010 is not traceable to clause (e)

or clause (g) of Section 26(1) of

the University Grants Commission

Act, 1956.

(ii) The source of making Regulation

7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010 is

Section 12(d) and (j) of UGC Act,

1956. However, since Section 12(d)

and (j) of UGC Act merely enables

UGC to make recommendations to

Universities, Regulation 7.3.0 has

to be treated as recommendatory in

nature.

(iii) Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations,

2010 being a subordinate legislation

under an Act of Parliament cannot

override plenary legislation enacted

by the State Legislature and,

therefore, also Regulation 7.3.0

Page 48 48

does not override, Section 12 of the

Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.”

43. We do not agree with the finding of the Bombay High Court

that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 is not

traceable to clause (e) or (g) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act,

1956. We also refuse to agree that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC

Regulations, 2010 being a sub-ordinate legislation under the Act

of Parliament cannot override the preliminary legislation

enacted by the State Legislature. However, the finding of the

Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as

recommendatory in nature is upheld in so far as it relates to

Universities and Colleges under the State Legislation.

44. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold:

(i)To the extent the State Legislation is in conflict

with Central Legislation including sub-ordinate

legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry

25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the

Central Legislation and would be inoperative.

(ii)The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses

of Parliament, though a sub-ordinate legislation has

binding effect on the Universities to which it applies.

(iii)UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and

other academic staff in all the Central Universities and

Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be

Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the

Page 49 49

UGC.

(iv) UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the

Universities, Colleges and other higher educational

institutions under the purview of the State Legislation

as the matter has been left to the State Government to

adopt and implement the Scheme.

Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and

is partly directory.

(v)UGC Regulations, 2010 having not adopted by the

State Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between State

Legislation and Statutes framed under Central

Legislation does not arise. Once it is adopted by the

State Government, the State Legislation to be amended

appropriately. In such case also there shall be no

conflict between the State Legislation and the Central

Legislation.

45. In view of the reasons and finding as recorded above, we

uphold the appointment of Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-

Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University as made by the G.O.

(1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2)Department, Government of Tamil

Nadu dated 9

th

April, 2012 and set aside the impugned common

judgment and order dated 26

th

June, 2014 passed by the Division

Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Writ Petition

(MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of 2013.

Page 50 50

The appeals are allowed but in the facts and circumstances of

the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

……………………………………………………………………… J.

(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

……………………………………………………………………… J.

(N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI,

MARCH 11, 2015.