IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR , CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 along with

WRIT PETITION No.17740 of 2023

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023:

MunavathuDharu Naik,

S/o MunavathuSakriya, Aged 49 years,

Occ: Ex-Chairman, A.P. Scheduled Tribe

Cooperative Finance Corporation (APSTCFC),

R/o 5-42, Achmmakunta (Thanda),

Koppunur, Macherla Mandal,

Palnadu District, Andhra Pradesh & another.

... Petitioners

Versus

Office of the Honourable Chancellor,

Rep by its Principal Secretary,

Governor‟s Secretariat, Raj Bhavan,

Andhra Pradesh, and six others.

…Respondents

Mrs. Kavitha Gottipati, Counsel for the petitioners.

Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Mr. S. Harinath Reddy, Standing Counsel for respondent No.5.

Mr. P. Raja Sekhar, counsel for respondent No.6.

Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.7.

W.P. No.17740 of 2023:

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

2

Dr. G. Ravishankar Reddy,

S/o G. Bal Reddy, Aged 63 years,

Occ: Scientist (Rtd.), ICFRE,

R/o 1-71/26, Flat No. 502,

Satyam Enclave East, Near Harsha Hospital,

Pet Basheerbad, Qutubullapur,

Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500054

... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

rep by its Chief Commissioner, RBKs &

Special Chief Secretary to Government,

Agriculture and Cooperation (Horti & Seri) Department,

Secretariat Buildings,Velagapudi, Thullur Mandal,

Amaravathi, Guntur District, and two others.

…Respondents

Mrs. A.V.S. Laxmi, Counsel for the petitioner.

Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation, for respondent

No.1.

Mr. P. Raja Sekhar, counsel for respondent No.2.

Mr. S. Harinath Reddy, Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.

DATE : .06.2024

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ :

Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these

writ petitions, the same are taken up together for disposal by way of a

common judgment and order.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

3

2. The petitioners in this set of petitions challenge the G.O.Ms.No.29,

dated 28.06.2023, issued by the Government whereby private

respondent No.6- Dr. Janakiram Tholeti was reappointed as the Vice

Chancellor of Dr. YSR Horticulture University and seek issuance of a writ

of quo warranto challenging the Government Order primarily on two

grounds:

i. The reappointment of the said respondent No.6 was ordered

without subjecting him to a fresh selection process; and

ii. The reappointment was unsustainable inasmuch as even the initial

appointment of the said respondent was not in accordance with the

UGC regulations as the Search -cum-Selection-Committee

constituted by the Government for selecting respondent No.6 did

not have a nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants

Commission as was required under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC

Regulations, 2018.

3. At this stage, it would be necessary to give in brief the material

facts in the backdrop of which the present controversy has arisen:

G.O.Rt.No.183, dated 21.03.2018, came to be issued by the

Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26(1) of

the Dr. YSR Horticultural University Act, 2007, (for short, “the Act of

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

4

2007”) constituting a Search Committee consisting of the Chief

Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh; Sri A. Rajendra Prasad, Vice

Chancellor, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur (State nominee); and

Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New

Delhi, or his nominee to submit a panel of names for appointment as Vice

Chancellor of Dr. YSR Horticulture University.

4. Subsequently, another G.O.Rt.No.215, dated 03.04.2018, came to

be issued by the Government reconstituting the Search Committee,

which this time consisted of Prof. Vidyavathi, former Vice Chancellor,

Kakatiya University, instead of Sri A. Rajendra Prasad, apart from the

Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Director

General, ICAR.

Pursuant to the aforementioned Government Order, an

advertisement notice, dated 08.05.2018, came to be issued by the

Government of Andhra Pradesh inviting applications for the said post of

Vice Chancellor.

5. Subsequently, it appears from the record that the Government

issued another Government Order bearing G.O.Rt.No.714 dated

04.11.2019, reconstituting the Search Committee yet again consisting of:

i. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh;

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

5

ii. Sri P. Raghava Reddy, Ex-Vice Chancellor, Acharya N.G.

Ranga Agricultural University (State nominee); and

iii. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research

(ICAR), New Delhi or his nominee.

6. Another notification, dated 28.11.2019, subsequently came to be

issued, inviting applications yet again for the post of Vice Chancellor of

the said University with a rider that those persons who had earlier applied

pursuant to the notification, dated 08.05.2018 need not apply again.

Based upon the recommen dations of the Search Committee so

constituted, respondent No.6 came to be appointed vide G.O.Ms.No.63,

dated 08.06.2020, as Vice Chancellor of the Dr. YSR Horticultural

University for a period of three years from the date of assumption of

charge, which was to expire on 29.06.2023.

7. Respondent No.6 appears to have addressed a communication,

dated 16.05.2023, to the Special Chief Secretary to Government,

Agriculture & Cooperation (Horti & Seri) Department, requesting that his

tenure, which was to come to an end on 29.06.2023, be extended for

another three years with effect from 30.06.2023 as per the Statutes of the

University. The extension was sought by respondent No. 6 based upon

the contributions stated to have been made by him during his tenure as

such Vice Chancellor.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

6

Responding to the request of respondent No.6, the Government

issued G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 28.06.2023, ordering the reappointment of

respondent No.6 as Vice Chancellor of the said University for another

term of three years with effect from 01.07.2023.

8. At this stage, it is deemed appropriate to refer to certain provisions

of the Dr. YSR Horticultural University Act, 2007, and in particular Section

26 of the said Act, the Statutes framed thereunder, as also the relevant

UGC Regulations, which held the field from time to time.

Section 26(1) of the Act envisages as under:

“26. Vice-Chancellor - (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole

time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Chancellor

from the panel of eminent scientists in Horticulture / Agriculture drawn by

the Search Committee. The Search Committee shall consist of the

following persons:

(i) Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

(ii) One nominee of the State Government Who shall be of

eminence in the sphere of Horticulture Science and shall not be

connected in any manner with this University or its colleges and shall not

be below the rank of Vice-Chancellor.

(iii) Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research or his

nominee.

...”

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

7

9. Section 55 of the Act further envisages framing of the Statutes by

the Government with regard to matters set out in Section 54, and in

particular Section 54(c),which envisages as under:

“54. Statutes- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the statutes

may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-

...

(c) terms and conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor;

...”

10. In purported exercise of the powers vested in terms of Sections 54

and 55 of the said Act, the Government framed the Statutes. Statute 12

envisages as under:

“12. Term of Vice-Chancellor: The Vice-Chancellor appointed in

the manner laid down in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 26 of the Act,

will be eligible for reappointment for another term of three (3) years.”

The reappointment ordered by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.29,

dated 28.06.2023, in favour of respondent No.6 appears to be ordered in

terms of the aforementioned provisions of the Act and the Statutes.

11. In exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of

sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act,

1956, the University Grants Commission framed the Regulations, namely

„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‟.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

8

According to Regulation 7.3.0 of Regulations of 2010, a person of

the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional

commitment is envisaged to be appointed as Vice Chancellor, who

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 organisation.

Regulation 7.3.0(ii) further envisages as under:

“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 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.”

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

9

12. The aforementioned Regulations were amended on 13.06.2013 by

virtue of the UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers

and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for

the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) (2

nd

Amendment)

Regulations, 2013. Clause 7.3.0 in the 2

nd

Amendment Regulations of

2013 underwent some change to the extent that the constitution of the

Search Committee would be as per the Acts/Statutes of the concerned

University. For purposes of reference, Clause 7.3.0 of the 2

nd

Amendment Regulations of 2013 is reproduced hereunder:

“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 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 experien ce in

academic and administrative governance to be given in writing along

with the panel to be submitted to the Visitor/ Chancellor. The constitution

of the Search Committee could be as per the Act/ Statutes of the

concerned university.”

13. By virtue of notification, dated 18.07.2018, the UGC notified yet

again the Regulations (hereinafter called “the Regulations of 2018”)

which inter alia envisaged the method of appointment of Vice Chancellor

in the following terms:

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

10

“7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR:

i. A person possessing the highest level of competence,

integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as

Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor

should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years‟ of

experience as Professor in a University or ten years‟ of experience in a

reputed research and / or academic administrative organisation with

proof of having demonstrated academic leadership.

ii. The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be

through proper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-

cum-Selection-Committee, through a public notification or nomination

or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members of

such Search-cum-Selection 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 cum-Selection Committee shall give proper

weightage to the 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. One

member of the Search cum-Selection Committee shall be nominated

by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice

Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.

….”

14. Admittedly on the date when the Government constituted the

Search Committee afresh on 04.11.2019, and issued notification inviting

applications from eligible candidates, the UGC regulations which were

applicable were the regulations of 2018, which clearly envisaged the

presence of a nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

11

Commission in the Search Committee which ordinarily should consist of

persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education, besides not being

connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges.

For purposes of facility of reference, the provisions of Section 26 of the

State Act and the UGC Regulations of 2018 are reproduced in a

comparative chart hereinbelow:

Section 26 of Act No.30 of 2007

( State Legislation)

Clause 7.3 of UGC Regulations 2018

(Central legislation)

26. Vice-Chancellor - (1)

The Vice-Chancellor shall be a

whole time officer of the

University and shall be

appointed by the Chancellor

from the panel of eminent

scientists in Horticulture /

Agriculture drawn by the

Search Committee. The Search

Committee shall consist of the

following persons:

(i) Chief Secretary to the

Government of Andhra Pradesh.

(ii) One nominee of the

State Government Who shall be

of eminence in the sphere of

Horticulture Science and shall

not be connected in any manner

with this University or its colleges

7.3. Vice Chancellor:

i. A person possessing the highest

level of competence, integrity, morals

and institutional commitment is to be

appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The

person to be appointed as a Vice-

Chancellor should be a distinguished

academician, with a minimum of ten

years‟ of experience as Professor in a

University or ten years‟ of experience

in a reputed research and / or

academic administrative organisation

with proof of having demonstrated

academic leadership.

ii. The selection for the post of Vice-

Chancellor should be through proper

identification by a Panel of 3-5

persons by a Search-cum-Selection-

Committee, through a public

notification or nomination or a talent

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

12

and shall not be below the rank

of Vice-Chancellor.

(iii) Director General, Indian

Council of Agricultural Research

or his nominee.

search process or a combination

thereof. The members of such

Search-cum-Selection 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 cum-Selection Committee

shall give proper weightage to the

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. One member of

the Search cum-Selection Committee

shall be nominated by the Chairman,

University Grants Commission, for

selection of Vice Chancellors of

State, Private and Deemed to be

Universities.

15. In the backdrop of the aforementioned factual and legal position,

the petitioners base their challenge on two grounds. Firstly, that

respondent No.6 could not have been reappointed without going through

selection process yet again in terms of the UGC regulations, and

secondly that assuming for any reason that the reappointment could be

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

13

done without subjecting the existing Vice Chancellor to a fresh process of

selection, since the earlier selection of respondent No.6 was in gross

violation of the UGC regulations which envisaged the presence of a

nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission in the

Search Committee, such a selection being based upon recommendations

of a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted in violation of the UGC

Statutes, would be unsustainable in law.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the

judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in Gambhirdan K.

Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat

1

and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr.

Rajasree M.S.

2

to bring home the point that notwithstanding the fact that

the State Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State

Government, it would have to be as per the UGC regulations and any

appointment of the Vice Chancellor in violation of the UGC regulations

would be void ab initio.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent – State as also private

respondent No.6 would urge that insofar as the reappointment of the Vice

Chancellor in terms of the Statute 12 framed under the Act of 2007 is

concerned, there would be no need for an existing Vice Chancellor to go

through the rigmarole of the selection process yet again. Reliance in this

1

(2022) 5 SCC 179

2

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

14

regard was placed on Dr. Premachandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor,

Kannur University

3

. On the issue as to whether the reappointment

would be sustained in law in view of the fact that there was no nominee

of the Chairman of the UGC in the Search-cum-Selection Committee

based upon which respondent No.6 came to be initially appointed, it was

sought to be urged that the UGC regulations did not have any mandatory

force in the light of the fact that the process of selection as prescribed by

the Act of 2007 alone had to be followed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon

Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. (supra) to bring home the point that the

procedure prescribed under the UGC regulations was to be followed

mandatorily and that any appointment made on the recommendation of

the Search Committee constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC

Regulations, would be void ab initio.

18. Heard counsel for the parties.

Two issues arise for our consideration in the present case:

i. Whether the reappointment of respondent no. 6 as Vice Chancellor

is unsustainable inasmuch as it was made without subjecting the

said respondent to a regular selection process; and

3

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

15

ii. Assuming that the reappointment was possible without subjecting

respondent No. 6 to a fresh selection process, whether the

reappointment becomes unsustainable inasmuch as the initial

selection of respondent No.6 as Vice Chancellor was contrary to

the UGC Regulations, as the Search-cum-Selection Committee did

not include a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC.

19. On the first issue, it is no longer res integra that when it comes to

reappointing a Vice Chancellor in terms of the Act or the Statutes, it

would not be necessary to subject him to a fresh process of selection

unless it is so specifically provided. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr.

Premachandran Keezhoth (supra) was considering a similar issue

where the reappointment of the Vice Chancellor of the Kannur University

came to be challenged on the ground that the reappointment without

subjecting the Vice Chancellor to a fresh process of selection was invalid.

It was, in those circumstances, held:

“60. Reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has been provided

under sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act, 1996. The proviso to

sub-section (10) of the Act, 1996 further makes the intention of the

legislature to provide for reappointment more clear. The legislature has

not thought fit to prescribe any particular procedure or any particular

mode or manner of reappointment. The UGC Regulations are also

silent as regards the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

16

61. The language of sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act,

1996 is plain and simple. The provision does not confer right to seek

reappointment. There is only one way of reading the provision, which

is, that a Vice-Chancellor once appointed, subject to the proviso to

sub-section (10) of Section 10, is eligible to be considered for

reappointment. What this implies is that an incumbent Vice-Chancellor

may not have to reapply along with other candidates and compete for

the same position once again. Reappointment essentially means the

incumbent Vice-Chancellor would receive another term of four years if

the Chancellor deems fit without reopening the position for new

applications or without constituting a select committee. “Re” means

again, and is freely used as prefix. It gives colour of “again” to the verb

with which it is placed. “Reappointment” is an act or process of being

appointed again.

62. Where the appointment is to be made for the first time or

where the same person is being appointed as a Vice-Chancellor for the

second time, but not in continuation of the first term, the procedure

provided under Section 10 of the Act, 1996 must be gone through.

However, in the case of reappointment immediately upon the tenure of

the first term coming to an end, there is no requirement to initiate the

entire process of appointment as provided under Section 10 of the Act,

1996.

…

68. Thus, we hold that it is not necessary to follow the procedure

of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of the Act, 1996 for the

purpose of reappointment.”

Reliance was also placed upon the Apex Court judgment in the

case of State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das

4

whereby the

4

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1382

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

17

Apex Court was considering the challenge to the reappointment of the

Vice Chancellor of the Calcutta University. It was held:

“51. It would be appropriate to also analyse whether the re-

appointment of the VC has to follow the same process as a fresh

appointment, by setting up a selection committee under Section 8(1) of

the Act, as indicated by the Chancellor.

52. Section 8(6) stipulates the manner in which a vacancy in the

office of the VC which occurs by reason of death, resignation, expiration

of the term of office, removal or otherwise shall be filled up. The

provision indicates that such vacancy shall be filled up in accordance

with the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 8. Section 8(6) has to

be read in conjunction with Section 8(1) since the former expressly

refers to the latter. The reference to the provisions of sub-Section (1) for

filling up a vacancy on the expiration of the term of office will not

obviously apply to a case of reappointment because the procedure

contemplated by Section 8(1)(b) of a search committee would not attach

to a reappointment. On this aspect, the High Court has correctly

disagreed with the petitioner before it and noted that amended Section

8(2)(a) which provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term

does not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) has to be

followed for re-appointment.”

20. Following the ratio clearly spelt out in the aforementioned

judgments, we have no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any

specific provision in the statutes framed by the Government, prescribing

the need to subject the incumbent Vice Chancellor to a fresh process of

selection, it would not be necessary for the Government to follow that

procedure for purposes of reappointment. We may, however, point out

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

18

that in the present case, there is no specific provision envisaging

reappointment in the parent Act (the Act of 2007), in contradistinction to

the provisions for reappointment which were contained in the University

Acts, which were the subject matter of consideration before the Apex

Court discussed hereinabove. However, in the absence of a specific

challenge to the vires of the Statutes, we have no hesitation in holding

that the Vice Chancellor could have been reappointed without subjecting

him to a fresh process of selection.

21. The second issue that falls for our consideration is whether the

earlier appointment of respondent No.6, being not in consonance with the

UGC Regulations, renders his reappointment unsustainable. In this case,

it is not denied that there was no nominee of the Chairman of the

University Grants Commission in the Search-cum-Selection Committee,

which was otherwise a requirement as per Clause 7.3 of the UGC

Regulations of 2018.

The argument that the UGC Regulations were not mandatory and

that the selection process could have been carried forward by following

the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Horticultural University Act, 2007,

without the presence of a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC as

required under UGC Regulations of 2018, is clearly untenable.

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

19

It is settled that under the UGC Act, every rule and regulation made

under the Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and

therefore, being a subordinate legislation, the UGC Regulations become

part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and

the Central legislation, the Central legislation shall prevail by applying the

principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution,

as the subject „education‟ is in the Concurrent List (List III) of Seventh

Schedule to the Constitution. Reference in this regard can be made to

Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra).

22. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the law

discussed hereinabove, it thus becomes clear that in the absence of a

nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission in the

Search-cum-Selection Committee, the recommendations made by such a

committee would be void ab initio, as has been held by the Apex Court in

the case of Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. (supra) in para No.24:

“24. In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court, any

appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the

Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the

UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. …”

23. If that be so and the appointment takes place on the basis of

recommendation of a Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to

the provisions of the UGC regulations, notwithstanding the fact that the

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

20

initial period of appointment has come to an end followed by the

reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for a second term, yet the

reappointment on that basis cannot be upheld and would therefore

become unsustainable in law.

24. Be that as it may, we hold that the initial appointment and

consequently the subsequent reappointment of private respondent No.6,

being contrary to the UGC regulations, are bad in law.

25. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be a writ

of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No.6 as Vice

Chancellor of Dr. YSR Horticulture University as void ab initio, and

consequently, the reappointment shall stand quashed. No order as to

costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR , CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO , J

AKN

HCJ & RRR, J

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 &

W.P. No.17740 of 2023

21

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

&

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

W.P.(PIL) No.95 of 2023 along with

WRIT PETITION No.17740 of 2023

DATE : .06.2024

AKN