1

A.F.R

Reserved on 11.03.2015

Delivered on 17.03.2015

Court No.29

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8189 of 2015

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Chauhan

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Narain Singh, Ashok Khare, Senior

Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anurag Khanna, Ravi Kant, Senior

Advocate

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, J.

The Registrar of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut

1

,

which is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State

Universities Act, 1973

2

, has filed this petition for quashing the orders

dated 21 October 2014, 28 October 2014, 14 November 2014, 1

December 2014, 4 December 2014 and 13 January 2015 passed by the

Vice-Chancellor of the University.

The petitioner, who was working as the Secretary of Muzaffarnagar

Development Authority, was posted as the Registrar of the University by

order dated 28 February 2014 passed by the State Government exercising

powers under Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh

State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules, 1975

3

. He joined as the

Registrar of the University on 2 March 2014. The Vice-Chancellor of the

University issued an order dated 21 October 2014 relieving the petitioner,

who had been working as the Registrar of the University, with immediate

1the University

2the Act

3the Rules

NeutralU'itationUNo7UpU4lqV6“B'6DJVzVp:”

2

effect. The senior-most Deputy Registrar was further directed to officiate

as the Registrar of the University. This order was followed by an order

dated 28 October 2014. The Vice-Chancellor directed that no files should

be placed before the petitioner without taking approval from the Vice-

Chancellor because even after the order dated 21 October 2014, the

petitioner was continuing to function as the Registrar of the University

and was asking for files from the Department. The Vice-Chancellor of

the University also passed an order dated 14 November 2014 directing all

the Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars/Section Officers not to place

any document or file before the petitioner who had already been relieved.

The Special Secretary in the Department of Higher Education,

however, issued an office order dated 29 November 2014 that the order

dated 21 October 2014 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University

relieving the petitioner has been withdrawn by the Sate Government and

that the petitioner would continue to function as the Registrar of the

University as he had been appointed by the State Government and could

be removed only by the State Government. The petitioner was directed to

ensure compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the State

Government. The petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid order, took charge

from the officiating Registrar on 30 November 2014 and informed the

State Government of this fact by the communication dated 1 December

2014.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University, however, sent a

communication dated 1 December 2014 to the Special Secretary,

3

Department of Higher Education in the State Government pointing out

that the State Government was not vested with any power to withdraw an

order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and, therefore, the

order dated 29 November 2014 was not acceptable to the University. The

State Government was asked to refer the matter to the Chancellor of the

University and it was stated that the University would implement the

order to be passed by the Chancellor of the University. This

communication was followed by an office order dated 1 December 2014

issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. It was stated that the

Vice-Chancellor had declined to accept the joining of the petitioner as the

Registrar of the University pursuant to the order dated 29 November 2014

of the State Government and, therefore, the files of the University should

not be submitted to the Registrar of the University. Thereafter, another

order dated 4 December 2014 was issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the

University. After making reference to the earlier orders dated 21 October

2014 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the order dated 29

November 2014 passed by the State Government and the communication

dated 1 December 2014 of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, it was

directed that since the convocation of the University was likely to be held

on 6 December 2014, Professor Navin Chandra Lohni shall discharge the

duties of the Registrar of the University till the senior-most Deputy

Registrar returned from leave or a regular Registrar was appointed in the

University. Such order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the

4

University exercising powers under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section

13(6) of the Act.

Thereafter, an order dated 13 January 2015 was passed by the

Vice-Chancellor of the University directing that in the absence of the

Acting-Registrar, the senior-most Deputy Registrar Dr. Dev Raj shall

perform the functions of the Registrar of the University.

In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the letter

dated 10 February 2015 sent by the Under-Secretary to the Vice-

Chancellor of the University, has been enclosed. The letter refers to the

earlier communication dated 21 October 2014 sent by the Vice-

Chancellor, the communication dated 29 November 2014 sent by the

State Government for withdrawal of the order relieving the petitioner and

for permitting him to function as the Registrar of the University as also

the communication dated 4 December 2014 sent by the Vice-Chancellor

of the University. It then states that under the provisions of the Act, the

power to appoint the Registrar vests with the State Government and,

therefore, the power to remove the Registrar is not vested with the Vice-

Chancellor of the University. Accordingly, it has been stated that the

action of the University in depriving the Registrar of the University from

functioning is void.

The main issue, therefore, that arises for consideration in this

petition is whether the Vice-Chancellor of the University can relieve a

duly appointed Registrar by the State Government under the provisions of

the Act.

5

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner assisted by Sri M.N. Singh, submitted that in view of the

provisions of section 16 and the Rules made under section 17 of the Act,

the power to appoint a Registrar of the University is vested with the State

Government. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted

that in terms of Rule 36(2) of the Rules the power to start disciplinary

proceedings and to impose the punishment of dismissal or removal from

service or reduction in rank shall vest in the State Government and the

Vice-Chancellor has the power to impose any other punishment.

However, such action has not been taken by the Vice-Chancellor and a

simple order relieving the petitioner from the post of Registrar has been

issued by the Vice-Chancellor despite repeated directions from the State

Government that he does not have the authority to do so. It is his

submission that the aid of section 13 (1)(a) of the Act cannot be taken by

the Vice-Chancellor for exercising a power which does not vest with him.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the aid of

section 13(6) of the Act, which deals with urgent matters requiring

immediate action, cannot also be taken as such a power can be exercised

by the Vice-Chancellor of a University in respect of a power which vests

with any officer or the authority or other body of the University

empowered by or under this Act to deal with it and it does not confer a

power on the Vice-Chancellor to deal with a matter which is required to

be dealt with by the State Government.

6

Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

respondent-University assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, however,

defended the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor. Elaborating his

submissions, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Vice-Chancellor

is the principal executive and academic officer of the University who

exercises general supervision and control over the affairs of the

University and it is while exercising such a power that the Vice-

Chancellor had passed the impugned orders. In support of his contention,

learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University

of Health Sciences & Ors.

4

. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out

that the word “supervision” used in section 13(1))(a) of the Act is akin to

'superintendence' which would include the power to forbear from doing a

thing or directing some one else to do that thing in view of the decision of

the Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha &

Ors.

5

. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that likewise the word

“control” used in section 13(1)(a) of the Act includes something in

addition to mere superintendence and would mean control over the

conduct and discipline of the Registrar in view of the decisions of the

Supreme Court in Bardakanta Mishra Vs. High Court of Orissa &

Anr.

6

and Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. L.V.A.

Dixitulu & Ors.

7

.

4(2009) 1 SCC5 99

5(1980) 1 SCC 554

6(1976) 3 SCC 327

7(1979) 2 SCC 34

7

We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by

learned counsel for the parties.

In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be useful to

reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.

The Officers of the University have been defined in section 9 of the

Act. They include, amongst others, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar

of the University. Section 12 of the Act provides that the Vice-Chancellor

of the University shall be appointed by the Chancellor. The powers and

duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the University are contained in section

13 of the Act and the relevant provisions are as follows :

"13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor.--(1)

The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive

and academic officer of the University and shall--

(a) exercise general supervision and control over the

affairs of the University including the constituent

Colleges and the Institutes maintained by the

University and its affiliated and associated colleges ;

…......................

(4) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to

ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this

Act, the Statutes and Ordinance and he shall, without

prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor under

Sections 10 and 68 possess all such powers as may be

necessary in that behalf.

…......................

(6) Where any matter other than the appointment of

teacher of the University is of urgent nature requiring

immediate action and the same could not be

immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority

or other body of the University empowered by or

under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor

may take such action as he may deem fit and shall

forthwith report the action taken by him to the

Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other

body who or which in the ordinary course would have

dealt with the matter :

Provided that no such action shall be taken by

the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of

8

the Chancellor, if it would involve a deviation from

the provisions of the Statutes or the Ordinances :

Provided further that if the officers, authority or

other body is of opinion that such action ought not to

have been taken, it may refer the matter to the

Chancellor who may either confirm the action taken

by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it

in such manner, as he thinks fit and thereupon, it shall

cease to have effect or, as the case may be, take effect

in the modified form, so however, that such annulment

or modification shall be without prejudice to the

validity of anything previously done by or under the

order of the Vice-Chancellor :

Provided also that any person in the service of

University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the

Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section, shall have the

right to appeal against such action to the Executive

Council within three months from the date on which

decision on such action is communicated to him and

thereupon, the Executive Council may confirm,

modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-

Chancellor.”

Section 16 of the Act deals with the Registrar of the University. It

provides that the Registrar shall be appointed in accordance with, and his

conditions of service shall be governed by, Rules made under section 17

of the Act. Section 16 of the Act is reproduced below :-

“16. The Registrar.--(1) The Registrar shall be a

wholetime Officer of the University.

(2) The Registrar shall be appointed in accordance

with, and his conditions of service shall be governed

by, rules made under Section 17.

(3) The Registrar shall have the power to authenticate

records on behalf of the University.

(4) The Registrar shall be responsible for the due

custody of the records and the common seal of the

University. He shall be ex officio Secretary of the

Executive Council, the Court, the Academic Council

and the Admissions Committee and of every Selection

Committee for appointment of teachers of the

University, and shall be bound to place before these

authorities all such information as may be necessary

for transaction of their business. He shall also perform

such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes

9

and Ordinances as required, from time to time, by the

Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor but he shall

not, by virtue of this sub-section be entitled to vote.

…...........

(6) The Registrar shall not be offered nor shall he

accept any remuneration for any work in the

University save such as my be provided for by rules

made under Section 17.”

Section 16(A) of the Act which deals with the Controller of

Examinations, provides that the Controller of Examinations shall be

appointed by the State Government and section 16(B) deals with the

duties of Registrar with respect to examinations in certain Universities. It

provides that in Universities to which the provisions of section 16(A) do

not apply, the duties of the Controller of Examinations shall be

discharged by the Registrar and with respect to such Universities, the

Registrar shall be deemed to be the Controller of Examinations for the

purposes of the Act.

The relevant provisions of sections 16(A) and 16(B) of the Act are

quoted below :-

“16-A. The Controller of Examination.--(1) This

section applies only to the Universities of Lucknow,

Allahabad, Gorakhpur and Kanpur and to any other

University specified in that behalf by the State

Government by notification in Official Gazette.

(2) The Controller of Examination shall be a whole

time officer of the University.

(3) The Controller of Examination shall be appointed

by the State Government by a notification published in

the Official Gazette and his remuneration and

allowances shall be paid by the University.

…........................

16-B. Duties of Registrar with respect to

examinations in certain Universities.--In the

Universities to which the provisions of Section 16-A

do not apply, the duties of the controller of

Examinations shall be discharged by the Registrar and

10

with respect to such Universities the Registrar shall be

deemed to be the Controller of Examinations for the

purposes of this Act.”

Section 17 of the Act deals with centralisation of services of

Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars. It provides that

the State Government shall by rules made by notification in the official

gazette, provide for creation of a separate service of Registrars, Deputy

Registrars and Assistant Registrars, common to all the Universities and

regulate the recruitment to and the conditions of service of persons

appointed to any such service. Section 17 of the Act is reproduced

below :

“17. Centralisation of services of Registrars,

Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars.--(1)

The State Government shall by rules made by

notification in the Official Gazette, provide for the

creation of a separate service of Registrars, Deputy

Registrars and Assistant Registrars, common to all the

Universities and regulate the recruitment to and

conditions of service of persons appointed to any such

service:

Provided that any rules made under this sub-

section may be made retrospectively to a date not

earlier than October 31, 1975.

(2) When any such service is created, the persons then

serving on the administrative posts of Registrars,

Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars if

confirmed before May 14, 1973 shall be absorbed in

the service finally, and other persons serving on the

said posts may, if found suitable, be absorbed in such

service either provisionally or finally, and if, in the

latter case, any person is not absorbed finally, then this

services shall be deemed to have been terminated on

payment of one month's salary as compensation.

(3) Where any person referred in sub-section (2) is

absorbed in the service, the conditions of service

applicable to him shall not be less advantageous than

those applicable to him before his absorption, except

11

that he shall be liable to transfer from one University

to another :

Provided that such absorption in the service

shall not operate as a bar against holding or continuing

to hold any disciplinary proceeding against a member

of the service in respect of any act committed before

the date of such absorption.

(4) All rules made under this section shall, as soon as

may be after they are made, be laid before each House

of the State Legislature, while it is in session for a

total period of not less than thirty days extending in its

one session or more than one successive sessions and

shall unless some later dated is appointed, take effect

from the date of their publication in the Gazette

subject to such modifications or annulments as the two

Houses of the Legislature may during the said period

agree to make, so, however, that any such

modification or annulment shall be without prejudice

to the validity of anything previously done

thereunder.”

In exercise of the powers vested under section 17(1) of the Act, the

State Government has framed the Rules. The Centralised service, as

provided for in Rule 3, consists of : (i) Registrars; (ii) Deputy Registrars;

and (iii) Assistant Registrars. Rule 6 provides for source of recruitment,

absorption and termination of service of existing officers and is as

follows :

“6. Source of recruitment, absorption and

termination of service of existing officers.--Subject

to the provisions of Rule 7 –

(a) thirty-three percent of the posts of Registrar, all

posts of Deputy Registrar and thirty-three percentage

of the posts of Assistant Registrar shall be filled in by

promotion in the manner laid down in Rule 20 : and

(b) the remaining posts of Registrar and Assistant

Registrar shall be filled in by direct recruitment in the

manner laid down in Part V :

Provided that any fractions, obtained up to calculation

of percentage in accordance with clause (a) shall be

ignored :

Provided further that notwithstanding anything

contained in this rule, the State Government may

12

appoint any Government Servant on deputation to any

of the posts of the Centralised Service of a period not

exceeding three years.”

Rule 7 provides for absorption of existing officers. The

qualification for recruitment to any post in the centralised service is

contained in Part-IV of the Rules. The procedure for direct recruitment is

contained in Part-V of the Rules, while the procedure for promotion is

contained in Part-VI. Rule 21 deals with appointment and is as follows :

“21. Appointment.--(1) On the occurrence of

substantive vacancies, the Government shall make

appointment to the various posts in the Centralised

Service from the list prepared under Rule 19 or Rule

20, as the case may be.

(2) The Government may also make appointment in

temporary vacancies for a period exceeding six weeks

from among the persons from the list prepared under

Rules 19 and 20.

(3) If no approved candidate is available for

appointment the Government may either make a

temporary appointment by deputation of an officer

serving under the State Government or may appoint a

candidate who is eligible under the rules for

permanent recruitment to the Centralised Service. No

such appointment shall extend beyond the period of

one year without consultation with the Commission.

(4) If a vacancy arise in any post for a period not

exceeding six weeks, temporary arrangement may be

made by the Vice-Chancellor concerned by

appointment of a person eligible under the rules.”

Rule 36 deals with disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (2) of Rule

36 provides that the power to start disciplinary proceedings and to impose

the punishment of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank

on the members of the centralised service shall vest in the State

Government and for other punishments shall vest in the Vice-Chancellor

of the University. Rule 36 is quoted below :

13

“36. Disciplinary proceedings.--(1) Subject to such

modifications as the State Government may make

from time to time and subject to the provisions of sub-

rules (2) to (9), the rules relating to disciplinary

proceedings, appeals and representations against

punishment, applicable to the employees of the State

Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the

members of the Centralised Service.

(2) The power to start disciplinary proceedings and to

impose--

(a) the punishment of dismissal or removal from

service or reduction in rank on the members of the

Centralised Service shall vest in the State

Government; and

(b) other punishments shall vest in the Vice-

Chancellor of the University in which the member of

such service is for the time being posted :

Provided that it shall be necessary to consult the

Commission before passing an order imposing any of

the punishments referred to in clause (a).

(3) Where disciplinary proceedings against a member

of the Centralised Service have been started in

accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2)--

(a) by the Vice-Chancellor and after the completion of

inquiry, he comes to a provisional conclusion that a

punishment referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) is

called for, he shall refer the case along with his

findings and recommendations to the State

Government for orders;

(b)) by the State Government and, during or after the

completion of inquiry, it comes to a provisional

conclusion that a punishment to which clause (b) of

sub-rule (2) applies is called for, it shall refer the case

to the Vice-Chancellor who shall pass such orders as

he deems fit, and shall send a report of the action

taken to the State Government.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules

(1) to (3), the State Government may direct the Vice-

Chancellor of a University in which any member of

the Centralised Service is for the time being posted to

start disciplinary proceedings against him and to

inform it of the result thereof or, as the case may be,

refer the case to the State Government for its final

orders under clause (a) of sub-rule (3).

(5) Where the Vice-Chancellor of any University

wants to start disciplinary proceeding against a

member of the Centralised Service, who has been

transferred to some other University, he shall submit a

14

report to the State Government to that effect, and

thereupon, the State Government may--

(i) itself proceed in accordance with clause (a) of sub-

rule (2); or

(ii) direct the Vice-Chancellor of the first-mentioned

University to start and conclude the inquiry in

accordance with clause (b) of the said sub-rule or, as

the case may be, refer the case to the State

Government for its final order under clause (a) of sub-

rule (3); or

(iii) direct the Vice-Chancellor of the University in

which such member is for the time being posted to

start and conclude the inquiry against such member

and inform the State Government of the result thereof

or, as the case may be, refer the case to the State

Government for its final order under clause (a) of sub-

rule (3).

(6) Where the Vice-Chancellor of a University is

competent to start disciplinary proceedings under this

rule, he may hold the inquiry himself or may appoint

any other officer of the University for the purpose.

(7) The State Government may, at any stage, transfer

any proceedings under this rule from one officer to

another officer in the same University, or from the

Vice-Chancellor of one University to the Vice-

Chancellor of any other University and, unless any

direction is issued to the contrary, the officer or the

Vice-Chancellor to whom such proceedings are

transferred shall continue the proceedings from the

stage at which it was so transferred.

(8) During the course of inquiry under this rule, the

Vice-Chancellor or the officer appointed by him as

inquiry officer under sub-rule (6) may exercise all the

powers of the inquiring authority under the Uttar

Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of

Attendance of Witnesses and Production of

Documents) Act, 1976.

(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,

it shall be lawful for the State Government to direct

that the disciplinary proceedings against any member

of the Centralised Service may be started in respect of

any act or omission relating to the period before the

date of his absorption in such service under Rule 7 and

thereupon the provisions of sub-rules (1) to (8) shall

mutatis mutandis apply.”

15

It is, therefore, clear that the Rules provide for a complete

procedure for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of

persons appointed to the centralised service consisting of the Registrar,

Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars. The Registrar has to be

appointed in accordance with, and his conditions of service shall be

governed by the Rules made under section 17 of the Act. Rule 6 of the

Rules framed by the State Government under section 17 of the Act

provides for the manner in which the appointments have to be made. The

number of vacancies which have to be filled-in by promotion or by direct

recruitment have been specified and the second proviso to Rule 6

stipulates that the State Government may appoint any Government

servant on deputation to any of the post to centralised service for a period

not exceeding three years. The petitioner, who is a P.C.S. Officer, was

sent on deputation by the State Government. The Vice-Chancellor is not

the appointing authority of the members of the centralised service which

includes the Registrar of a University. Under Rule 21, it is the State

Government which has to make the appointments.

The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that

once the petitioner had been sent by the State Government to the

University on deputation, the Vice-Chancellor of the University does not

have the power to relieve him and direct that the Deputy Registrar shall

function as the Registrar of the University, while the contention of

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University is that in

view of the provisions of section 13(1)(a) and section 13(6) of the Act,

16

the Vice-Chancellor while exercising general supervision and control

over the affairs of the University, has the power to relieve the Registrar of

the University and direct the Deputy Registrar of the University shall

discharge the duties of the Registrar.

The submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner deserves acceptance. It is not the contention of learned Senior

Counsel for the respondent-University that the State Government does

not have the power to appoint the Registrar of the University. His

contention is that the Vice-Chancellor of the University can relieve the

Registrar of the University in view of the provision of section 13(1)(a) of

the Act which provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall exercise general

supervision and control over the affairs of the University. Section 13(1)

(a) of the Act does not confer any power on the Vice-Chancellor to

exercise general supervision and control over such affairs of the

University over which the Vice-Chancellor does have not the jurisdiction.

As noted above, the State Government alone is the appointing authority

of the Registrar. Section 16 deals with the Registrar and specifically

provides that the Registrar shall be appointed in accordance with, and his

conditions of service shall be governed by, Rules made under section 17.

Under the second proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules, the State Government

may appoint any government servant on the post of Registrar of the

University. The petitioner had been appointed as the Registrar of the

University under the proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules. Under Rule 36, only

the State Government can start disciplinary proceedings and impose the

17

punishment of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank. It

is a settled principle that when the Act prescribes a particular body to

exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body and cannot be

exercised by others unless it is delegated. The Supreme Court in

Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan

8

examined

whether the Vice-Chancellor of the University, in view of the provisions

of section 11(6) of Marathwada University Act, 1974 which provides that

it shall be lawful for the Vice-Chancellor as the principal executive and

academic officer to regulate the work and conduct of the officers and of

the teaching, academic and other employees of the University, could take

disciplinary action against the officers of the University when such a

power was vested under section 24 in the Executive Council of the

University. The Supreme Court held that the Vice-Chancellor cannot take

disciplinary action for removal of the officers because such a power was

specifically vested with the Executive Council. The relevant observations

are as follows :

“Counsel for the appellant argued that the

express power of the Vice-Chancellor to regulate the

work and conduct of officers of the University implies

as well, the power to take disciplinary action against

officers. We are unable to agree with this contention.

Firstly, the power to regulate the work and conduct

of officers cannot include the power to take

disciplinary action for their removal. Secondly, the

Act confers power to appoint officers on the Executive

Council and it generally includes the power to remove.

This power is located under Section (xxix) of the Act.

It is, therefore, futile to contend that the Vice

Chancellor can exercise that power which is conferred

on the Executive Council. It is a settled principle

that when the Act prescribes a particular body to

8(1989) 3 SCC 132

18

exercise a power it must be exercised only by that

body. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is

delegated.

(emphasis supplied)

A Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management of R.K.

College, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar & Anr. Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Meerut

University, Meerut & Ors.

9

examined whether the Vice-Chancellor of

the University could, under sections 13(1) and 13(6) of the Act,

supersede the Committee of Management of an affiliated College and

appoint an Administrator. The Full Bench observed that it is the State

Government alone which has such a power under section 13 of the Act

and, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor cannot supersede the management of

an affiliated college and appoint an Administrator. The relevant

observations are :-

“With great respect, we are unable to share the

view expressed therein. We have seen that the

Universities Act does not confer power to supersede

the management of a college, on any officer, authority

or other body of the University. If an officer, authority

or other body of the University itself has no power to

supersede the management of a college and appoint an

Administrator, we fail to understand how the Vice-

Chancellor could exercise such powers by calling into

assistance the emergency power conferred upon him

under Section 13(6). The Vice-Chancellor is statutory

authority. His power must be located within the scope

of the Universities Act. He has no jurisdiction to

exercise any power which has not been expressly or

impliedly conferred upon him.”

The aforesaid decisions clearly hold that the Vice-Chancellor of a

University can only exercise that power which is conferred upon him by

91987 UPLBEC 172

19

the Act and he cannot exercise a power which is specifically conferred on

the State Government.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Sahiti (supra) does not help

the respondents. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the

Vice-Chancellor of the University had the jurisdiction under section 12(2)

and 12(3) of Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act to order re-

verification of the answer scripts. Sub-section (2) of section 12 provides

that the Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic

officer of the University and shall exercise general supervision and

control over the affairs of the University and give effect to the decisions

of all the authorities of the University. Though sub-sections (2) and (3) of

Section 12 of Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act are similar to

sub-sections (1) and (6) of section 13 of the Act but it was not the case

that the power of re-evaluation of the answer books was vested in any

other authority or the State Government. It is in this context that the Court

held that re-evaluation of the answer scripts, in the absence of any

specific provision, is perfectly legal and permissible and the Vice-

Chancellor could exercise such a power. As noticed above, the Vice-

Chancellor does not have the power to remove the Registrar of the

University or to order that he shall stand relieved. The provisions of

Section 13(1)(a) of the Act will, therefore, not come to the aid of the

Vice-Chancellor for exercising such a power.

The decisions of the Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra

(supra), Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh (supra) and J.A.C.

20

Saldanha (supra) would also, for the same reason, not help the

respondents.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University does have a limited

jurisdiction under rule 36(2)(b) to start disciplinary proceedings and to

impose punishment other than the punishments enumerated in rule 36(1)

(2)(a) but such a power to start disciplinary proceedings has not been

resorted to by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. In such

circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor of the University could not have

issued any direction for relieving the petitioner who had been duly

appointed as the Registrar of the University by the State Government.

The State Government was, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

justified in directing that the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the

University shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner should be permitted

to work as a Registrar of the University.

It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the impugned orders dated

21 October 2014, 28 October 2014, 14 November 2014, 1 December

2014, 4 December 2014 and 13 January 2015.

Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the orders dated 21 October

2014, 28 October 2014, 14 November 2014, 1 December 2014, 4

December 2014 and 13 January 2015 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of

the University are set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to work as

the Registrar of the University.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Date:17.03.2015

SK/GS

(Vinod Kumar Misra, J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.)