REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7634-7635 OF 2022

(@ SLP (C) Nos. 21108-21109 of 2021)

Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at

Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2021 and Order dated 24.09.2021

in Review Petition No. 634 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the

High Court has dismissed the said appeal and the review petition

preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and

order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo

warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice

Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,

Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio, the original writ petitioner has

preferred the present appeals.

1

2.The appellant herein – original writ petitioner preferred the writ

petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for writ of quo

warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice

Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,

Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio inter alia on the grounds that the

appointment of the respondent No. 1 dehors the provisions of the UGC

Regulations; that the composition of the Search Committee was not in

accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; even the recommendation

and appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not in

accordance with the UGC Guidelines; the Search Committee was

required to recommend a panel of three to five names to the Chancellor,

however, in the present case, only one name was recommended to the

Chancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations; the provisions

of the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations

shall not be binding and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall

prevail over the said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with the

UGC Regulations.

2.1The writ petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents. It was

inter alia contended that unless the UGC Regulations are adopted by the

State Government, the University Act enacted by the State shall prevail

and that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the universities

2

and colleges and for the other higher educational institutions under the

provisions of the State legislature as the mater has been left to the State

Government to adopt and implement the scheme.

2.2The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon

the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V.

Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363 by observing that unless the UGC

Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the State

legislation shall prevail. Therefore, the learned Single Judge opined that

once the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 13 of the

University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of the respondent

No. 1 therefore, can be said to be by a duly constituted Search

Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be illegal.

2.3Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the appeal

before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, it was specifically

argued and pointed out that in fact the UGC Regulations were adopted

by the State Government, however, the Division Bench while dismissing

the appeal has observed that as the amendment to the UGC

Regulations have not been adopted, the same shall not be applicable

and/or binding while appointing the respondent No. 1. Again, relying

upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan

3

(supra), the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal, which has given

rise to the present appeals.

3.Shri Amith George, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned

judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court are just contrary to

the decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs.

State of Gujarat and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 as well as the recent

decision of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya

Sundar Das & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022.

3.1It is vehemently submitted by Shri George, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as observed and held

by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the provisions of the UGC

Regulations shall be applicable and prevail. It is submitted that therefore

any provision of the State Act (in the present case, the University Act

and the Regulations), which are in conflict with the UGC Regulations

shall be repugnant and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall have

to be applied.

3.2It is submitted that as such in the present case the UGC

Regulations, 2010 were in fact adopted by the State Government vide

order dated 10.12.2010. However, the High Court has erroneously

observed and held that the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable as

4

the subsequent amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 13.06.2013

have not been specifically adopted by the State Government.

3.3It is submitted that therefore any appointment on the post of Vice

Chancellor of the University contrary to the UGC Regulations shall be

void ab initio and therefore, the High Court ought to have issued a writ of

quo warranto.

3.4It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committee

constituted to recommend the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as

Vice Chancellor was not duly constituted Search Committee as required

under the provisions of the UGC Regulations and therefore the same

was illegal and void ab initio.

3.5It is submitted that even otherwise, ever as per Section 13 of the

University Act, the Search Committee was required to recommend a

panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent

persons in the field of engineering sciences. It is submitted that in the

present case, the Search Committee recommended the name of the

respondent No. 1 alone, which was sent to the Chancellor. It is

submitted that therefore also the appointment of the respondent No. 1

can be said to be contrary to Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015.

5

3.6Making above submissions and relying upon the above two

decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set

aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court

and allow the writ petition preferred by the appellant and to issue a writ

of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as illegal

and void ab initio.

4.Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Jaideep Gupta,

leaned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State – Government

of Kerala. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani

Mathivanan (supra), it is submitted that as observed and held by this

Court unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the state,

the State is not bound by the UGC Regulations. It is submitted that

therefore the Hon’ble High Court has rightly refused to issue a writ of

quo warranto considering and/or relying upon the decision of this Court

in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra).

5.Present appeals are opposed by Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

5.1It is submitted that even assuming that the UGC Regulations, 2013

shall be applicable, in that case also, even considering the relevant

6

provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2013, the Search Committee

constituted in the present case cannot be said to be contrary to UGC

Regulations. It is submitted that in the present case, the Search

Committee was consisted of one member nominated by AICTE and the

Chief Secretary of the State. It is submitted that the member nominated

by AICTE can be said to be a person of eminence in the sphere of

higher education. It is submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the

Search Committee constituted to recommend the name of the

respondent No. 1 was illegally constituted Search Committee.

5.2Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present

appeals.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties at length.

7.The short question, which is posed for consideration of this Court

is: whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice

Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,

Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing

UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015

(State Act)?

7

The other question which is posed before this Court for

consideration is: whether the Search Committee constituted to

recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the

University can be said to be duly constituted Committee?

8.Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case

of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and Kalyani Mathivanan (supra).

Now, the issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail vis-à-vis the

State legislation/State Act, identical question came to be considered by

this Court in the recent decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan

K. Gadhvi (supra). While considering the appointment of the Vice

Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, it is specifically

observed and held by this Court that the appointment of Vice Chancellor

cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations, even if the

State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis-à-vis the

criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC Regulations. It is further

observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the State

Act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended to bring

it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it is the

applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail. It is further observed and

held that being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become part

of the Act. It is further observed and held that in case of any conflict

8

between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central

legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail by applying

the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution as the

subject “education” is contained in the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of

the Constitution. The observations made in relevant paras are as

under:-

“20. Now the next question which is posed for

consideration of this Court is, whether, the appointment of

Respondent 4 as a Vice-Chancellor of the SP University

— Respondent 2 herein can be said to be contrary to any

statutory provisions and whether, can it be said that

Respondent 4 fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of

Vice-Chancellor.

20.1. While examining the aforesaid issues the

relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010

enacted in exercise of powers conferred under clauses

(e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant

provisions of the SPU Act, 1955, are required to be

referred to.

20.2. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make

provision for the coordination and determination of

standards in universities and for that purpose, to establish

a University Grants Commission. Section 12 deals with

“Functions of the Commission”, while Section 14 speaks

of “Consequences of failure of universities to comply with

recommendations of the Commission”. Section 26 deals

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

rules and regulations framed under the UGC Act are

required to be laid before each House of Parliament and

when both the Houses agree then rules and regulations

can be given effect with such modification as may be

made by Parliament. Therefore, any regulation enacted in

exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said to be

subordinate legislation.

9

20.3. For the appointment and career advancement

of teachers in the universities and institutions affiliated to

it, UGC by Regulation dated 4-4-2000, enacted the

University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications

Required for the Appointment and Career Advancement

of Teachers in Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it)

Regulations, 2000. However, in the said Regulation of

2000, no qualifications were prescribed for the post of

“Pro-Chancellor” or “Vice-Chancellor”.

21. Thereafter, 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 31-12-2008 communicated to the Secretary,

University Grants Commission, New Delhi the Scheme of

revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in

universities and colleges following the revision of pay

scales of the Central Government employees on the

recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.

22. By the said letter, the Government of India

directed that there shall be only three designations in

respect of teachers in the universities and colleges,

namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and

Professors. In the said letter revised pay scales, service

conditions and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers

and equivalent positions including the post of Assistant

Professors/Associate Professors/Professors in

universities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of

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 the

State Legislature, provided the State Governments wish

to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms

and conditions mentioned therein.

23. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1-32/2006-

U.II/U.I(i), dated 31-12-2008 issued by the Government of

India and in exercise of the powers conferred under

clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the

UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted the Regulations, 2010 in

supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It was

10

published in the Gazette of India on 28-6-2010 and came

into force with immediate effect.

XXXXXXXXX

25. Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the

universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the

relevant Acts/Statutes of the universities concerned within

six months of adoption of these Regulations.

26. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter alia,

prescribe in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten

years of teaching work experience as a Professor in a

university system. It also provides for constitution of a

Search Committee consisting of a nominee of the

Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the

UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of

the University and the Search Committee has to

recommend the names of the successful candidates.

XXXXXXXXX

50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations

are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under

Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956.

Even as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made

under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of

Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation,

UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any

conflict between the State legislation and the Central

legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the

rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254

of the Constitution as the subject “education” is in the

Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the

Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-

Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC

Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory

provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.”

8.1That thereafter and having found that the appointment of the Vice

Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University was contrary to the UGC

11

Regulations, 2010, this Court issued the writ of quo warranto. It is

required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of

Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) was also pointed out by this Court.

8.2Even in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), it is observed in

paragraph 53 that to the extent the State legislation is in conflict with the

Central legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Central

legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the same shall be

repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative. It is also

required to be noted that in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra),

this Court was considering the UGC Regulations, 2010, which were

silent in regard to the post of Vice Chancellor.

8.3The decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi

(supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in the recent

decision of this Court in the case of Anindya Sundar Das & Ors

(supra) while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of

Calcutta University. In the said decision, it is also observed and held in

paragraph 56 that in view of the decision in the case of Gambhirdan K

Gadhvi (supra), even if the provisions of 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 Vice

Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. It

12

is further observed that the UGC Regulations shall become part of the

statute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail.

8.4In 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. If there is any conflict between

the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail

even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the

provision of the State legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the

submission on behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are

specifically adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be

applicable and the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations

are specifically adopted by the State cannot be accepted.

8.5Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case

as such vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC Regulations have been

specifically adopted by the State Government. At this stage, it is

required to be noted that in the order dated 27.03.2010, while

adopting/accepting the UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in

paragraph 5 that all the universities shall incorporate the UGC

Regulations in their Statutes and Regulations within one month from the

13

date of the said order and Government will initiate steps to amend the

Acts of the Universities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is

further mentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the

steps to amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations of the

UGC Regulations. Merely because the subsequent amendment has not

been specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by

the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be

binding on the State/State’s Universities. Therefore also, the UGC

Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice

Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the

appointment of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant

provisions of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.

8.6Now, the next question, which is posed for the consideration of this

Court is whether in fact in the present case, the Search Committee

constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice

Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,

Thiruvananthapuram can be said to be a duly constituted Search

Committee, is concerned, the relevant clauses of the UGC Regulations,

2013 and Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University

Act, 2015 relating to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor are required

to be referred to, which are as under:-

14

CLAUSE 7.3.0 OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS

COMMISSION (2

nd

AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS.

2013. EXT.R3(a)

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 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. The constitution of the Search

Committee could be as per the Act/Statutes of the

concerned 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 services of the Vice Chancellor shall

be as prescribed in the Act Statutes of the university

consented in conformity with the Principal Regulations.

15

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.

SECTION 13 OF APJ ABDUL KALAM

TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2015

13. The Vice-Chancellor

(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive

and academic officer of the University. He shall be the ex-

officio Chairman of the Executive Committee and of the

Academic Committee.

(2) The first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the

Chancellor on the recommendation of the Government

and thereafter the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by

the Chancellor from among a panel of names

recommended by a Search Committee consisting of the

following members, namely:

(i)one member elected by the Board of

Governors:

(ii) one member nominated by the AICTE

(iii) the Chief Secretary of the State, who

shall be the Convenor of the Committee

(3) The process of preparing a panel shall begin at least

three months before the probable date of occurrence of

the vacancy of the Vice-Chancellor and shall be

completed within the time-limit fixed by the Chancellor.

The Chancellor, however, may extend such time-limit, if,

in the exigency of the circumstances, it is necessary to do

so. However, the process of preparation of the panel shall

be completed within a period of three months, including

the period so extended.

4. The Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel

of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the

eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences. The

16

names shall be in English alphabetical order. The report

shall be accompanied by a detailed write-up on the

suitability of each person included in the panel. In case

the Committee fails to make a unanimous

recommendation as provided, each member of the

Committee may submit the name of one person each to

the Chancellor. The non submission of the name by any

member of the Committee shall not invalidate the

appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

(5) No person who is more than sixty one years of age

shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor and after the

appointment, he shall, subject to the terms and conditions

of his appointment, hold office for a period of four years

from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he

attains the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier.

(6) The persons appointed as Vice-Chancellor will be

eligible for re-appointment provided he has not attained

the maximum age mentioned in sub-section 5.

8.7Thus, as per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, the

selection of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification

of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and the members of the

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. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor

shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended by the

Search Committee. Therefore, the recommendation for appointment as a

Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee duly

constituted and that the Search Committee has to recommend the

17

names and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice

Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search

Committee. While preparing the panel, the Search Committee must 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.

8.8The importance of the post of the Vice Chancellor has been

elaborately observed and considered by this Court in the case of

Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) in paragraphs 53, 54, 54.1 to 54.5, 55

and 56 as under:-

“53. It is to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor

of the university is a very important post so far as the

university is concerned. Being a leader and head of the

institution, the Vice-Chancellor of the university has to

play very important role. While academic qualifications,

administrative experience, research credentials and track

record could be considered as basic eligibility

requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice-Chancellor

would be one who is a true leader and a passionate

visionary. A Vice-Chancellor needs to be one who

understands and handles the affairs of the university as

ethical business and maintains a pellucidity in his conduct

towards the betterment of the university as well as the

students therein. A Vice-Chancellor should be one who

can inspire students and guarantee entry of high quality

teachers into the university system. A Vice-Chancellor

functions as a bridge between the executive and

academic wings of a university as he is the head of both a

“teacher” and an “administrator”.

18

54. We may refer to some of the significant

Commission Reports concerning the personality and role

of a Vice-Chancellor of a university as under:

54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated

that originally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian

university was regarded as an honorary post to be filled

by a prominent man in his leisure time. But now the

position has changed, there is enough work to justify a

full-time appointment and the universities should have

full-time paid Vice-Chancellors. While discussing the

duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the Commission stated that a

Vice-Chancellor must be the chief liaison between the

university and the public and must be a keeper of the

university's conscience, both setting the highest standard

by example and dealing firmly and promptly with

indiscipline and malpractice of any kind. He/she must

have the strength of character to resist unflinchingly the

many forms of pressure. Being a full-time task, it needs

an exceptional man (or woman) to undertake it. The

Commission rejected the proposal of selecting the Vice-

Chancellor by an external body and recommended that

the Chancellor should appoint the Vice-Chancellor upon

the recommendation of the executive.

54.2. The 1971 Report of the Committee on

Governance of Universities and Colleges by the

University Grants Commission chaired by Dr P.B.

Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India while

reiterating the recommendations and observations made

by the aforesaid commissions also stated that the

selection of a Vice-Chancellor is the single most important

decision that the governing body of the university may be

called upon to make. While the Chancellor of a university

may be a high dignitary of the State of the Union of India

or an eminent scholar or eminent person in public life of

the State, the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, being the

important functionary of the university is most strategic.

The powers of proper maintenance of discipline and a

19

healthy environment for both teachers and students in the

university is vested with the Vice-Chancellor along with all

the other powers vested in him/her by various Statutes,

Ordinances or Regulations. The Commission also stated

that appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is made in most of

the universities out of a panel of at least three names by

the Chancellor in case of State Universities and by the

Visitor in case of Central Universities. The panel of names

is prepared by a Search Committee constituted in

accordance with the provision of the Act/Statute. Since it

was difficult to have a uniform system of forming a

committee in all the States, the alternatives to constitute

the Search Committee were also provided in the Report.

54.3. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee

towards New Educational Management by Professor A.

Gnanam (also called as the Gnanam Committee Report,

1990) accentuated the role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating

that the Vice-Chancellor should be a person with vision

and qualities of academic leadership and with a flair for

administration because what the universities need is a

sensitive, efficient, fair and bold administrator. The Vice-

Chancellor should be a distinguished educationist from

the higher education system having highest level of

competence, integrity, morals and self-respect.

54.4. The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented

that the universities need distinguished and dignified

persons as Vice-Chancellors and it is necessary to

ensure that they are treated with dignity and regard,

which the office merits.

54.5. The University Grants Commission in its

handbook titled Governance in Higher Education :

Handbook for Vice-Chancellors published in 2019 has

penned down the role of Vice-Chancellor of Indian

universities having gained a paramount importance in the

recent times. In the words of Prof. D.P. Singh, the then

Chairman of University Grants Commission and former

20

Director of National Assessment and Accreditation

Council (“NAAC”):

“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads of

Universities, the Vice-Chancellors are expected to

be efficient and effective in terms of:

(a) Implementation of National Higher Education

Policy and programmes,

(b) Institutional change in tune with the national

reforms package,

(c) Quality and innovation enhancement and their

sustainability,

(d) Productive engagement with ‘communities of

scholars’ from within their universities and from

national and international domains,

(e) Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation

Ecosystem’ and translation of deliverables to society

and economy,

(f) Adoption of international best practices of

‘Good Governance’.”

“The Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of a

symphony of orchestra with the attributes of:

(a) Developing teams and teamwork, building

partnerships and collaborations delicately

interwoven by collegiality, friendship and

intellectual engagement;

(b) Devising a strategy and action plan with

defined milestones and deliverables;

(c) Ensuring primary accountabilities of self

and the abovementioned university governing

bodies; and

21

(d) Steering an institutional monitoring and

evaluation mechanism on university

performance built on principles of

transparency.”

55. Discussing the situation in the backdrop of

principle of governance as quoted by Chanakya in his

Nitishastra — “Yatha Raja Tatha Praja”, the sense of

morality must begin from the door of the leader who

preaches it.

56. Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-

Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution.

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

academician, excellent administrator and also someone

who has a high moral stature. The aforesaid reports of the

Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari Commission,

Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee have

highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellor

in maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in

addition to its growth and development, keeping in view,

the much needed changes from time to time. Further,

these committees have also made suggestions and

recommendations for identifying the right person for the

said position. At this stage, it is correct to say that a Vice-

Chancellor is the kingpin of a university's system and a

keeper of the university's conscience.”

8.9On the role of Search Committee / Selection Committee, it is

observed in paragraph 57 as under:-

“57. Further, in our view, the Search/Selection

Committee plays a vital and significant role in the

selection of the Vice-Chancellor; yet the selected Vice-

Chancellor's performance in the universities vary from

university to university. Therefore, the members of the

Search Committee, who are given the privilege and

22

honour of selecting and suggesting names for the

appointment of Vice-Chancellor are directly or indirectly

responsible for the achievement of the university.

Commitment to the quality and the objectives of the

universities in particular and higher education system in

general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting the

right person.”

8.10At this stage, it is required to be noted that even as per Section

13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend

unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from

amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which

shall be placed before the Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case,

admittedly the only name of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the

Chancellor. As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor

shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names

recommended by the Search Committee. Therefore, when only one

name was recommended and the panel of names was not

recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of

the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No.

1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC

Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015. Therefore, the

appointment of respondent No. 1 on the basis of the recommendations

made by the Search committee, which was not a duly constituted Search

Committee as per the UGC Regulations and when only one name was

23

recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable

persons as required under Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015), the

appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to be illegal and void ab

initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo warranto was required to be issued.

9.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by

the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned Single

Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ of quo

warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice

Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,

Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio are

hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall

be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent

No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological

University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the

appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul

Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set

aside.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

OCTOBER 21, 2022. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

24