# Dr. Rakshapal Singh v. Prof. Chandra Shekhar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 647
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-25
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3848 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-rakshapal-singh-v-prof-chandra-shekhar-ors-50340
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(i) As per Para-7.3 of the University
Grants
Commission
(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and other Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the UGC Regulations,
2010'), a person to be appointed as Vice
Chancellor, amongst other qualifications,
must have 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. Since as on the date of
appointment, the respondent No.1 was
having less than ten years experience as a
Professor in a University, therefore, his
appointment is void ab-initio.

(ii) Para 1.2 of the UGC Regulations,
2010 provides that it shall apply to every
university established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a
State Act, every institution including a
constituent
or
an
affiliated
college
recognized
by
the
Commission,
in
consultation with the university concerned
under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956
and every institution deemed to be a
university under Section 3 of the said Act.
Para 1.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010
provides that the Regulations shall come
into force with immediate effect. Based on
the aforesaid two Paras 1.2 and 1.3 of the
UGC Regulations, 2010, it is submitted that
even if any State Law provides minimum
qualification/ experience in conflict with
the Regulations, 2010 for the post of Vice
Chancell

## Text

6 All. Dr. Rakshapal Singh Vs. Prof. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
647
to even larger number of employees and
extended to daily wagers and other persons
not working on a temporary or a
permanent post including, work charge
employees.

In case of V. Sukumaran vs. State of
Kerala (2020) 8 SCC 106, the Supreme
Court held:

"22. We begin by, once again,
emphasising that the pensionary provisions
must be given a liberal construction as a
social welfare measure. This does not imply
that something can be given contrary to
rules, but the very basis for grant of such
pension must be kept in mind i.e. to
facilitate a retired government employee to
live with dignity in his winter of life and,
thus,
such
benefit
should
not
be
unreasonably denied to an employee, more
so on technicalities."

Thus, again to save Section 2 of the
Act of 2021 from the vice/arbitrariness, in
the spirit of the judgment of Prem Singh
(supra), the word 'post' is required to be
diluted to save it from arbitrariness and
hence, the word 'post' used in Section 2 of
the Act of 2021, be it temporary or
permanent, has to be read down as
'services
rendered
by
a
government
employee, be it of temporary or permanent
nature'."

9. The present Regulations of 1992 are
parallel to the Rules of State Government
which have been read down by the
Supreme Court, being held in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as
they create an artificial categorization of
similarly situated employees. In the present
case also an artificial classification is
created as admittedly, as the daily wager
employees perform the same duties as the
regular employees and are throughout
treated as the regular employee. They were
also regularized in continuation of their
daily wage services. Thus, the matter is
squarely covered by the law settled in case
of Prem Singh (Supra).

10. Thus, the writ petition is allowed
and impugned order dated 28.08.2020 is set
aside.

11. Respondents are directed to
ensure regular payment of pensionary and
other benefits to the petitioner under the
Regulations of 1992, treating their entire
service
to
be performed
as
regular
employee of the Nagar Panchayat within a
period of three months. However, back
pension shall be paid for the last three years
only.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ-C No. 3848 of 2023

Dr. Rakshapal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Prof. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohammad Aon, Sri Mohd. Parvez, Sri Gopal
Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, Sri Shashi Prakash
Rai, Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri R.K. Ojha (Sr.
Advocate), Sri A.K. Singh(Sr. Advocate)

The
University
Grants
Commission
Regulations,
2018
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Universities (111th Amendment) 2019
(U.P. Act No.20 of 2019) -writ of Quo
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Warranto to declare appointment of the
respondent No.1 as interim Vice Chancellor-as
void ab-initio -as the appointment of the
respondent No.1 is contrary to Para 7.3 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018- less than ten years
experience as a Professor in a UniversityRespondent University established under the
U.P.
Act,
1973
by
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Universities (111th Amendment) 2019 (U.P.
Act No.20 of 2019)-provided that until the
First Statutes of the respondent University are
made under Section 50, the Statutes of the
University
of
Dr.
Bhim
Rao
Ambedkar
University, Agra, as in force immediately
before
the
establishment
of
the
said
University shall apply to it subject to such
adaptations and modifications as the St.
Government may, by notification, provide - St.
Government has not adopted the UGC
Regulations, 2018 and instead decided that
the provisions of St. Universities Act, 1973
shall
remain
applicable-
Therefore,
appointment cannot be said to be an
appointment
contrary
to
the
statutory
provisions.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari Vs Ravindra
Jugran & ors., 2022 (16) SCALE 410

2. St. of W. B. Vs Anindya Sundar Das & ors.,
AIR 2022 SC 3902

3. Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. Vs Dr. Rajasree
M.S. & ors., 2022 (15) SCALE 377

4. Gambhirdan K. Gadhavi Vs St. of Guj. & ors.,
(2022) 5 SCC 179

5. Amrit Prasad Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A
No.62753 of 2015

6. Jagdish Prasad Sharma & ors.Vs St. of Bihar
& ors., (2013) 8 SCC 633

7. Kalyani Mathivanan Vs K.VS Jeyaraj & ors.,
(2015) 6 SCC 363

8. Hari Bansh Lal Vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto &
ors., (2010) 9 SCC 655
9. B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Karnataka Urban Water
Supply Drainage Board Employees' Assc., (2006)
11 SCC 731 (2)

10. Jagdish Prasad Sharma & ors.Vs St. of Bihar
& ors., (2013) 8 SCC 633

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gopal Krishna, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1, Sri A.K. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi
Prakash
Rai,
learned
counsel
for
respondent no. 2/University, Sri Bharat
Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3
and Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned counsel
for the respondent No.4/ UGC.

Facts:-

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case
are that the respondent No.1 has been
appointed as the Interim (first) Vice
Chancellor
of
the
respondent
No.2University (a new University), i.e. Raja
Mahendra Pratap Singh State University,
Aligarh (for short 'RMPSS University') by
a Government Order No.600/lRrj-1-202116(26)/2019 dated 30.12.2021, issued in
exercise of powers
conferring under
Section 4(1-B) of the Uttar Pradesh State
Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the U.P. Act, 1973'). The petitioner
has filed the present writ petition praying
for a relief in the nature of a writ of Quo
Warranto to declare appointment of the
respondent No.1 as void ab-initio and
consequently to quash and set it aside on
the ground that the appointment of the
respondent No.1 is contrary to Para 7.3 of
The
University
Grants
Commission
6 All. Dr. Rakshapal Singh Vs. Prof. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
649
(Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic Staff in
Universities
and
Colleges
and
other
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards
in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018
(hereinafter referred to as 'the UGC
Regulations, 2018').

Submissions
on
behalf
of
petitioner:-

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits as under:

(i) As per Para-7.3 of the University
Grants
Commission
(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and other Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the UGC Regulations,
2010'), a person to be appointed as Vice
Chancellor, amongst other qualifications,
must have 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. Since as on the date of
appointment, the respondent No.1 was
having less than ten years experience as a
Professor in a University, therefore, his
appointment is void ab-initio.

(ii) Para 1.2 of the UGC Regulations,
2010 provides that it shall apply to every
university established or incorporated by or
under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a
State Act, every institution including a
constituent
or
an
affiliated
college
recognized
by
the
Commission,
in
consultation with the university concerned
under Clause (f) of Section 2 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956
and every institution deemed to be a
university under Section 3 of the said Act.
Para 1.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010
provides that the Regulations shall come
into force with immediate effect. Based on
the aforesaid two Paras 1.2 and 1.3 of the
UGC Regulations, 2010, it is submitted that
even if any State Law provides minimum
qualification/ experience in conflict with
the Regulations, 2010 for the post of Vice
Chancellor, then to the extent of conflict,
the State Law shall be void and Para 7.3 of
the UGC Regulations, 2010 shall prevail in
view of the Article 254 of the Constitution
of India.

(iii) Para 7.3(1) of The University
Grants
Commission
(Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and other Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the UGC Regulations,
2018'), is identical to Para 7.3 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 and as such even if the
provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018
are applied, still the appointment of the
respondent No.1 would be void ab-initio
inasmuch as he does not possess the
minimum required qualification for the post
of Vice Chancellor.

4. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the following judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court:-

(a) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari
vs. Ravindra Jugran and others, 2022
(16) SCALE 410 (Paras-12 and 13)

(b) State of West Bengal vs. Anindya
Sundar Das and others, AIR 2022 SC
3902 (Paras-52 to 56)

(c) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs.
Dr. Rajasree M.S. and others, 2022 (15)
SCALE 377 (Paras 8.1 to 8.5)
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(d) Gambhirdan K. Gadhavi vs.
State of Gujrat and others, (2022) 5 SCC
179 (Paras-32, 33, 36, 48, 49, 50 and 51)

Submissions
on
behalf
of
respondents:-

5. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the respondent
No.1 submits as under:

(i) The controversy involved in the
present writ petition is squarely covered by
a Division Bench judgment of this Court
dated 16.11.2015 in Writ-A No.62753 of
2015 (Amrit Prasad vs. State of U.P. and
5
others)
in
which
in
similar
circumstances, a coordinate bench of this
court has held that since the Regulations,
2010 have not been adopted by the State
Government in the matter of selection of
Vice Chancellor, therefore, Para 7.3 of the
UGC Regulations, 2010 or the UGC
Regulations, 2018 shall not apply.

(ii) The aforesaid judgment in the case
of Amrit Prasad (supra) being a judgment
of this Court by a bench of equal strength,
therefore, it is binding upon this bench and
this bench cannot take a different view
except that in the event of disagreement, it
may refer the matter to a larger bench.

(iii) There is a vast difference between
the provisions of UGC Regulations, 2010
and the UGC Regulations, 2018. While
Para 1.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2010
made the applicability of the Regulations to
every universities etc., Para-1.2 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 framed in supersession
in all the earlier Regulations is differently
worded as under:

"1.2 Every university or institution
deemed to be University, as the case may
be, shall as soon as may be, but not later
than within six months of the coming into
force of these Regulations, take effective
steps for the amendment of the statutes,
ordinances or other statutory provisions
governing it, so as to bring the same in
accordance with these Regulations."

(iv) Pursuant to the UGC Regulations,
2018 and specifically with reference to
Para 1.2 thereof, the State Government
has
issued
a
Government
Order
No.600/Seventy-1-2019-16(114)/2010
dated 28.06.2019 adopting the UGC
Regulations, 2018 to a limited extent.
This GO specifically provides with regard
to
Vice
Chancellor
and
Pro-Vice
Chancellor as under:

"8- उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य कवश्वकवद्यालय अकिकनयम1973 में कुलपकत एवं प्रकत-कुलपकत की कनयुकि की
प्रकिया का उल्लेख है, जो यथावत लागू रहेंगे।

11- 'कोड आफ प्रोफेशनल इवथक्स' सम्बन्धी विवनर्म
विश्वविद्यालर् तथा महाविद्यालर् के वशक्षक संिगय, पुस्तकालर्
संिगय, शारीररक वशक्षा एिं खेल वनदेशकों के सम्बन्ध में लागू
होंगे वकन्तु प्रवत कुलपवत एिं कुलपवत के सम्बन्ध में उत्तर प्रदेश
राज्र् विश्वविद्यालर् अवधवनर्म, 1973 के प्राविधान ही प्रभािी
होंगे। अतः प्रवत कुलपवत एिं कुलपवत के सम्बन्ध में 'कोड
आफ प्रोफेशनल इवथक्स' सम्बन्धी विवनर्म को लागू वकर्े जाने
पर अध्र्र्न कर वनर्यर् वलर्ा जार्ेगा। "

(v) In the case of Jagdish Prasad
Sharma and others vs. State of Bihar and
others, (2013) 8 SCC 633 (Para-72), a
three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as under:

"72. As far as the States of Kerala
and U.P. are concerned, they have their
own problems which are localised and
stand on a different footing from the other
States, none of whom who appear to have
the same problem. Education now being a
List III subject, the State Government is at
liberty to frame its own laws relating to
education in the State and is not,
therefore, bound to accept or follow the
Regulations framed by the UGC. It is only
natural that if they wish to adopt the
6 All. Dr. Rakshapal Singh Vs. Prof. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
651
Regulations framed by the Commission
under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956,
the States will have to abide by the
conditions
as
laid
down
by
the
Commission."

(vi) Thus, in view of the law laid down
by three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme
court in the case of Jagdish Prasad
Sharma and others (supra), the State of
Uttar Pradesh is at liberty to frame its own
laws relating to education in the State or
follow the regulations framed by the
Commission under Section 26 of the UGC
Act, 1956 and if the State of U.P. wishes to
adopt it, then it has to abide by the
conditions as may be laid down by the
Commission. In so far as the appointment
of
Vice
Chancellor
and
Pro-Vice
Chancellor is concerned, State Government
has issued the aforesaid government order
dated 28.06.2019, therefore, Para 7.3 of the
UGC Regulation shall not be applicable for
appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor
with reference to para 1.2 of the said
Regulations.

(vii)
In
the
case
of
Kalyani
Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and others,
(2015) 6 SCC 363 (Paras-62 and 63),
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

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

62.1. To the extent the State legislation
is in conflict with Central legislation
including sub-ordinate legislation made by
the Central legislation under Entry 25 of
the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to
the Central legislation and would be
inoperative.

62.2.The UGC Regulations being
passed by both the Houses of Parliament,
though a subordinate legislation has
binding effect on the Universities to which
it applies.

62.3. UGC Regulations, 2010 are
mandatory to teachers and other academic
staff in all the Central Universities and
Colleges thereunder and the institutions
deemed
to
be
Universities
whose
maintenance expenditure is met by UGC.

62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 is
directory for the universities, colleges and
other
higher
educational
institutions
under the purview of the State legislation
as the matter has been left to the State
Government to adopt and implement the
Scheme. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010
are partly mandatory and is partly
directory.

62.5. The UGC Regulations, 2010
having not been adopted by the State of
Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict
between State legislation and the Statutes
framed under Central legislation does not
arise. Once they are adopted by the State
Government, the State legislation to be
amended appropriately. In such case also
there shall be no conflict between the
State
Legislation
and
the
Central
legislation.

63. In view of the reasons and finding
as
recorded
above,
we
uphold
the
appointment of Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as
Vice-Chancellor,
Madurai
Kamaraj
University as made by the G.O.(1D)No.80,
Higher
Education
(H2)
Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9-4-2012
and set aside the impugned common
judgment and order dated 26-6-2014
passed by the Division Bench of the
Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in
K.V. Jeyaraj v. Chancellor of Universities,
2014 SCC OnLine Mad 2701. The appeals
are
allowed
but
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs."

(viii) A writ of Quo Warranto lies only
when the appointment is made of an
ineligible person and in conflict with the
relevant
rules/
statute.
Since
the
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointment of the respondent No.1 has
been
made
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973 and also since in Section 4(1-B)
of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, no
experience
has
been
provided
for
appointment of the first Vice Chancellor of
the University and the appointment is an
interim appointment, therefore, a writ of
Quo Warranto shall not lie as the
respondent No.1 is the first Vice Chancellor
of the University. Reliance is placed upon
the judgment in the case of Hari Bansh
Lal vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors,
(2010) 9 SCC 655.

(ix) Question of repugnancy with reference
to proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of
India does not come into picture inasmuch as the
UGC Regulations, 2018 itself have left the State
for adoption of the Regulations. The position also
stood clarified by a three judges bench of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish
Prasad Sharma and others (supra). The
judgments on the proposition relied by learned
counsel for the petitioner is of two judges bench
while the judgment in the case of Jagdish
Prasad Sharma and others (supra) is by a
three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court
and consequently, it shall have precedence over
the aforesaid two judgments on the limited
question of repugnancy.

(x) The entire writ petition is based on
the UGC Regulations, 2010 while the UGC
Regulations, 2018 are in force.

6. Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4 submits
that the provisions of the UGC Regulations,
2018 being mandatory in nature has to be
complied with while making appointment
on the post of Vice Chancellor.

7. Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the
respondent
no.
3
adopts
the
aforenoted submissions made by Sri R.K.
Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for respondent No.1.

8. Sri A.K. Singh, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the respondent
No.2 also adopts the submissions made by
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate
appearing
for
respondent
No.1
as
aforenoted.

9. Learned counsels for the parties
have not made any other submissions
except those aforenoted.

Discussion and Findings:-

10. Appointment of the respondent
No.1 was made by the State Government
by the above referred Government Order
dated 30.12.2021 in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 4(1-B) of the U.P.
Act, 1973. For ready reference, Section
4(1-B) of the U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 and the Government Order dated
30.12.2021
for
appointment
of
the
petitioner
as
Interim
(First)
ViceChancellor, are reproduced below:

"Section 4(1-B) of the U.P. State
Universities Act, 2013:-

4(1-B) in relation to the Universities to
be established under sub-section (1-A) -

(a) the State Government shall
appoint interim officers of the Universities
(other than the Chancellor) and shall
constitute interim authorities of such
Universities in such manner as it thinks
fit.;

(b)
the
officers
appointed
and
members of the authorities constituted
under clause (a) shall hold office until
the appointment of officers or the
constitution
of
the
authorities
in
6 All. Dr. Rakshapal Singh Vs. Prof. Chandra Shekhar & Ors.
653
accordance with clause (c) or such other
earlier date as may be specified by the
State Government in this behalf :

Provided that the State Government
may, by notification extend the term of the
members of such authorities for a period
not exceeding one year.

(c) the State Government shall take
steps for the appointment of officers and
constitution
of
authorities
of
such
Universities
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of this Act, so that the same may
be completed before the expiry of the
respective terms of the interim officers and
members under clause (b).

Government Order for appointment
of the respondent No.1:-

mRrj izns'k 'kklu

mPp f'k{kk vuqHkkx&1

la[;k&2344@lRrj&1&2021&161⁄4261⁄2@2019

y[kuÅ % fnukad 30 fnlEcj 2021

vkns'k

mRrj izns'k jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 1973
dh /kkjk&4 dh mi /kkjk 1⁄41&[k1⁄2 ds vUrxZr iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s izks0 pUnz'ks[kj] gsM ,.M
Mhu QsdsYVh vkQ ykW] nhun;ky mik/;k; xksj[kiqj
fo'ofo|ky;] xksj[kiqj dks jktk egsUnz izrki flag
jkT; fo'ofo|ky;] vyhx<+ dk vUrfje 1⁄4izFke1⁄2
dqyifr fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky lg"kZ
Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA

eksfudk ,l0 xxZ

vij eq[; lfpoA "

11. The respondent No.2 - University
has been established under the U.P. Act,
1973 by the Uttar Pradesh Universities
(111th Amendment) 2019 (U.P. Act No.20
of 2019) and it has been provided that until
the First Statutes of the respondent No.2University are made under Section 50, the
Statutes of the University of Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar University, Agra, as in force
immediately before the establishment of the
said University shall apply to it subject to
such adaptations and modifications as the
State Government may, by notification,
provide. Similar provisions by amendment
regarding first ordinance of the respondent
No.2 - University, have been made by the
aforesaid Amendment Act.

12. Thus, it is undisputed that the
appointment of the respondent No.1 has
been
made
as
Interim
(First)
Vice
Chancellor of the respondent No.2 -
University by a Government Order dated
30.12.2021 issued by the State Government
in exercise of powers conferred under the
aforequoted provisions in Section 4(1-B) of
the U.P. Act, 1973. Therefore, the aforesaid
appointment of the respondent No.1 as
Interim (First) Vice Chancellor of the
newly created University (respondent No.2)
cannot be said to be an appointment
contrary to the statutory provisions. Thus, a
writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued.

13. That apart, B. Srinivasa Reddy
vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply
Drainage Board Employees' Association,
(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) (Paras-43 and
97(c)), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:

"43. Whether a Writ of Quo Warranto
lies to challenge an appointment made
"until further orders" on the ground that it
is not a regular appointment? Whether the
High Court failed to follow the settled law
that a Writ of Quo Warranto cannot be
issued unless there is a clear violation of
law? The order appointing the appellant
clearly stated that the appointment is until
further orders. The terms and conditions
of appointment made it clear that the
appointment is temporary and is until
further orders. In such a situation, the
High Court, in our view, erred in law in
issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto. The rights
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
underArticle 226can be enforced only by an
aggrieved person except in the case where
the writ prayed for is for Habeas Corpus.

97(c). The Writ of quo warranto does
not lie if the alleged violation is not of a
statutory provision."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. Apart from above, in the case of
Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others vs.
State of Bihar an others, (2013) 8 SCC
633 (Para-72), Hon'ble Supreme court
while considering the provisions of the
UGC Regulations framed under Section 26
of the UGC Act, 1956, in the context of the
State of Uttar Pradesh observed that State
Government shall be bound to accept or
follow the Regulations framed by the UGC,
if it wishes to adopt the Regulations framed
by the Commission under Section 26 of the
UGC Act, 1956. Para-72 in the case of
Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others
(supra) (SCC), is reproduced below:

"59. As far as the States of Kerala and
U.P. are concerned, they have their own
problems which are localised and stand on
a different footing from the other States,
none of whom who appear to have the same
problem. Education now being a List III
subject, the State Government is at liberty
to frame its own laws relating to education
in the State and is not, therefore, bound to
accept or follow the Regulations framed by
UGC. It is only natural that if they wish to
adopt the Regulations framed by the
Commission under Section 26 of the UGC
Act, 1956, the States will have to abide by
the conditions as laid down by the
Commission."

15. In Paragraphs-6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent No.3 (State of Uttar Pradesh), it
has been stated as under:

"6. That respondent no. 1 under
Section 4(1-b) of the U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973 by Government Order dated
30.12.2021 was appointed as the Interim
(First) Vice Chancellor of Raja Mahendra
Pratap Singh State University, Aligarh
(herein after referred as university). A copy
of the Government Order dated 30.12.2021
is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure No. CA-2 of this counter
affidavit.

7. That the U.P. State University Act
1973 in Section 4(1-b) for establishment of
new universities and alteration of the area
or names of university, provides for Interim
appointment of officers to be made by the
State Government. A copy of the Section
4(1-b) of the U.P. State University Act,
1973 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure No. C-3 of this counter affidavit.

9. That the provisions of the University
Grants Commission Regulation 2010 and
2018 for the appointment of the Vice
Chancellor at the Universities not been
adopted by the State Government, thus is
not applicable either for the interim or
regular
appointment
of
the
Vice
Chancellors of the State Universities
governed by the U.P. State Universities Act,
1973.

10. That the Government order dated
28.06.2019 which relates to the adoption of
the U.G.C. regulation, 2018 in paragraph
no. 2 (8) mentions that provisions for the
appointment of Vice Chancellor and Pro
Vice Chancellor of the State University
shall be the same as mentioned in the U.P.
State University Act, 1973. A copy of G.O.
dated 28.06.2019 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure No. CA- 4 of this
counter affidavit.
11. That the U.G.C. Regulations for the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor not
been adopted by the State Government,
interim (First) appointment of respondent
6 All. Sri Kanhaiya Lal Trust & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
655
no. 1 by the State Government at Raja
Mahendra Pratap Singh State University,
Aligarh made in provisions of the U.P. State
University Act, 1973 being lawful and
bonafide deserve to be upheld. The writ
petition being devoid of merit and liable to
be dismissed."

16. The aforesaid Government Order
dated 28.06.2019 was specifically referred
and relied by learned counsels for the
respondents in their arguments but no reply
was submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner in this regard. Thus, so far as the
appointment of the respondent No.1 as
Interim (First) Vice-Chancellor is concerned,
the State Government by the Government
Order
No.600/lRrj-1-2019-16(114)/2010
dated 28.06.2019, has specifically provided
in para-8 thereof that the procedure for
appointment of Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice
Chancellor as provided in the Uttar Pradesh
State Universities Act, 1973 shall continue to
be applicable. The aforesaid government
order was issued with reference to the UGC
Regulations, 2018. Thus, so for as the
procedure
for
appointment
of
ViceChancellor
and
Pro-Vice-Chancellor
is
concerned, the State Government has not
adopted the UGC Regulations, 2018 and
instead decided that the provisions of State
Universities
Act,
1973
shall
remain
applicable. Similar view has been taken by a
coordinate Bench of this Court by judgment
dated 16.11.2015 passed in Writ-C No.62753
of 2015 (Amrit Prasad vs. State of U.P. and 5
others)
while
considering
the
UGC
Regulations, 2010. The aforesaid view also
finds support from the three judges bench
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others (supra).

17. So far as the judgments relied by
the petitioner in the case of Gambhirdan
K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and
others, (2022) 5 SCC 179 (paras 2.4 and
Para-29),
Prof.
Narendra
Singh
Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran and
others, 2022 (16) SCALE 410 (para-9)
and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr.
Rajasree M.S. and others, 2022 (15)
SCALE 377 (Paras-2.3 and 8.5) are
concerned, we find that in all these
judgments, an important fact was that the
concerned State Government have adopted
the relevant UGC Regulations, 2010/ 2018.

18. For all the reasons aforestated, the
appointment of the respondent No.1 as
Interim (First) Vice-Chancellor of the
respondent No.2 - University being in
terms of the provisions of Section 4(1-B) of
the U.P. State Universities 1973, is neither
illegal nor contrary to the statutory
provisions. Therefore, a writ of Quo
Warranto cannot be issued. The writ
petition has no merit and is, therefore,
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 3955 of 2022

Sri Kanhaiya Lal Trust & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Gaurav Singh, Sri Kumar Sreshtha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushal Kishore Mani

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code,
2006-Petitioner a registered trust-purchased