# DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2013] 9 S.C.R. 117
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-08-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6831 of 2013
- **Bench:** G.S. Singhvi, V. Gopala Gowda
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-ram-tawakya-singh-v-state-of-bihar-and-others-29415
- **Pages:** 82

## Headnote

UNIVERSITIES:
A
B
Appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice- c
Chancellors - 'Consultation with State Government' -
Expression 'consultation' - Connotation of - Explained - Held:
Though, the final decision is with the consulter, he cannot
generally ignore the advice of the consultee except for good
reasons -- There should be meeting of minds between the
D
parties involved in the process of consultation on the material
facts and points involved -- Consultation is not complete or
effective unless the parties thereto make their respective
. points of view known to the other and discuss and examine
the relative merit of their views.
E
Appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice
Chancellors - Notifications dated 9.2.2013, 19.2.2013 and
14.3.2013 issued for appointment of candidates as ViceChancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different
Universities in State of Bihar - Held: As regards the instant F
matters, Chancellor has been consistently flouting the
mandate of law and making appointments completely
disregarding the requirement of academic excellence and
experience and without effectively consulting the State
Government -- He neither adopted any transparent method
G
of making selection nor did he keep in view the qualifications
enumerated in the relevant statutory provisions -- He also
acted in contemptuous disregard of the pronouncements
117
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
made by the High Court in two rounds of litigation, that
appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors
must precede meaningful and effective consultation with State
Government - He selected for appointment some persons who
were facing prosecution under various criminal laws and/or
B involved in financial irregularities -- The mechanism adopted
by Chancellor in making appointments is blatantly violative
of the scheme of the BSU Act and the PU Act and also Art.
14 of the Constitution - Impugned Notifications are quashed
- Consequential directions issued - Bihar State Universities
c Act, 1976 -ss.10 and 12 - Patna University Act, 1976 - ss. 11
and 14 - Nalanda Open University Act, 1995 - ss. 11 and 13
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14.
Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors -
Appointment to the offices of - Held: Position of Vice
D Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor is extremely important
in every University - They are responsible for maintaining the
academic standard and discipline of the University and also
ensure that all the bodies and authorities conduct themselves
in conformity with the statutory provisions -- Relevant statutory
E provisions prescribe the qualification of academic excellence
as a condition precedent for appointment to these posts -
Even if the language of the relevant provisions may not
postulate selection of Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor
by inviting application through open advertisement, the
F candidate must be a person reputed for his scholarship and
academic interest or eminent educationist having experience
of administering the affairs of any University, and selection
of such a person is possible only if a transparent method is
adopted and efforts are made to reach out to people across ·
G the country -- Art. 14 of the Constitution which mandates that
every action of the State authority must be transparent and
fair has to be read in the language of these provisions -- The
UGC Regulations, which provide for constitution of a Search
Committee consisting of eminent educationists . ·
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
119
academicians are intended to fill up an apparent lacuna in
A
the provisions - Bihar Acts No. 1212013, 1312013 and 1412013
have subsequently amended the relevant provisions in
consonance with the relevant UGC Regulations.
LOCUS STAND/:
B
Appointment of Vice Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors - Writ petition by a Professor and Head of
Department in a University, in the State, challenging the
appointments, though he was not a candidate for such
appointments - Held: M

## Text

_Characters 0–39,904 of 142,740. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39904 for what follows._

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 117
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH
v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6831 of 2013)
AUGUST 19, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.)
UNIVERSITIES:
A
B
Appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice- c
Chancellors - 'Consultation with State Government' -
Expression 'consultation' - Connotation of - Explained - Held:
Though, the final decision is with the consulter, he cannot
generally ignore the advice of the consultee except for good
reasons -- There should be meeting of minds between the
D
parties involved in the process of consultation on the material
facts and points involved -- Consultation is not complete or
effective unless the parties thereto make their respective
. points of view known to the other and discuss and examine
the relative merit of their views.
E
Appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice
Chancellors - Notifications dated 9.2.2013, 19.2.2013 and
14.3.2013 issued for appointment of candidates as ViceChancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different
Universities in State of Bihar - Held: As regards the instant F
matters, Chancellor has been consistently flouting the
mandate of law and making appointments completely
disregarding the requirement of academic excellence and
experience and without effectively consulting the State
Government -- He neither adopted any transparent method
G
of making selection nor did he keep in view the qualifications
enumerated in the relevant statutory provisions -- He also
acted in contemptuous disregard of the pronouncements
117
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
made by the High Court in two rounds of litigation, that
appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors
must precede meaningful and effective consultation with State
Government - He selected for appointment some persons who
were facing prosecution under various criminal laws and/or
B involved in financial irregularities -- The mechanism adopted
by Chancellor in making appointments is blatantly violative
of the scheme of the BSU Act and the PU Act and also Art.
14 of the Constitution - Impugned Notifications are quashed
- Consequential directions issued - Bihar State Universities
c Act, 1976 -ss.10 and 12 - Patna University Act, 1976 - ss. 11
and 14 - Nalanda Open University Act, 1995 - ss. 11 and 13
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14.
Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors -
Appointment to the offices of - Held: Position of Vice
D Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor is extremely important
in every University - They are responsible for maintaining the
academic standard and discipline of the University and also
ensure that all the bodies and authorities conduct themselves
in conformity with the statutory provisions -- Relevant statutory
E provisions prescribe the qualification of academic excellence
as a condition precedent for appointment to these posts -
Even if the language of the relevant provisions may not
postulate selection of Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor
by inviting application through open advertisement, the
F candidate must be a person reputed for his scholarship and
academic interest or eminent educationist having experience
of administering the affairs of any University, and selection
of such a person is possible only if a transparent method is
adopted and efforts are made to reach out to people across ·
G the country -- Art. 14 of the Constitution which mandates that
every action of the State authority must be transparent and
fair has to be read in the language of these provisions -- The
UGC Regulations, which provide for constitution of a Search
Committee consisting of eminent educationists . ·
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
119
academicians are intended to fill up an apparent lacuna in
A
the provisions - Bihar Acts No. 1212013, 1312013 and 1412013
have subsequently amended the relevant provisions in
consonance with the relevant UGC Regulations.
LOCUS STAND/:
B
Appointment of Vice Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors - Writ petition by a Professor and Head of
Department in a University, in the State, challenging the
appointments, though he was not a candidate for such
appointments - Held: Maintainable - Further, even assuming
C
that the writ petitioner does not have any direct personal
interest in such appointments, High Court could have suo
motu taken cognizance of the issues raised by him and
treated his petition as one filed in public interest and decided
the same on merits - Public interest litigation.
D
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
Art. 136 - Appeal by State Government challenging order
of High Court after the Chancellor initiated process of making
appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors
E
pursuant to order of High Court - Maintainability of -
Discussed.
F
Appointments of two persons as Vice-Chancellors of
Magadh and Veer Kunwar Singh Universities in terms of
Notifications dated 9.4.2010 and 15.4.2010 were
challenged by the appellant and another on the ground
that the Chancellor had not consulted the State
Government as per the requirement of s. 10(2) of the Bihar
State Universities Act, 1976 ('the BSU Act'). The Single
G
Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and
quashed the notifications issued by the Chancellor.
Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 822 and 824 of 2011 filed by
the appointees were dismissed by the Division Bench of
the High Court and their special leave petitions were
H
120
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.9.2011. During the
pendency of the Letters Patent Appeals, the Chancellor ~
issued Notifications dated 1.8.2011 and 3.8.2011 for
appointment of ten persons as Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors of different Universities in the State. The
B said appointments were challenged in another writ
petition filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that
the Chancellor had not consulted the State Government
as per the mandate of s. 10(2) of the BSU Act and s. 11 (2)
of the Patna University Act, 1976. The Division Bench of
c the High Court quashed the appointments and directed
that the Chancellor would propose names for
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors in the named Universities to the State
Government with the relevant materials and the latter
0 would forward its opinion in respect of all such names
to the Chancellor.
The appellant filed C.A. No. 6831 of 2013 challenging
the direction given by the High Court. He has also
questioned the direction given by the High Court virtually
E debarring him from being considered for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor. The State of
Bihar and others filed C.A. No. 6830 of 2013 challenging
the order of the High Court on the ground that the view
taken by it on the scope of ss.10(2) and 12(1) of the BSU
F Act and ss.11(2) and 14(1) of the PU Act was contrary to
the one expressed by the coordinate Bench in LPA Nos.
822 and 824 of 2011. After the order dated 7 .12.2012
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the
Governor-cum-Chancellor, Bihar issued notifications
G dated 9.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 for appointment of certain
persons as Vice Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors
of different Universities. This was challenged by the
appellant in Writ Petition No. 158 of 2013. On 18.3.2013,
the Supreme Court stayed the operation of Notifications
H dated 9.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 and directed that the senior
•,
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
121
most Deans in the Universities would discharge the
A
function of the Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors. Meanwhile, the Governor-cum-Chancellor
issued yet another order dated 14.3.2013 appointing one
person as Vice-Chancellor and two as Pro ViceChancellors.
B
It was contended for the writ petitioner and
appellants that the direction given by the Division Bench
of the High Court to the Chancellor to propose names for
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceC
Chancellors was liable to be set aside and the
appointments made by him were liable to be quashed
because by taking advantage of the direction contained
in the'" impugned order, the Chancellor arbitrarily
prepared the list of the persons to be appointed as ViceChancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors without making
D
any selection whatsoever and without following any
transparent method for making a choice from amongst
the persons of academic excellence;· unquestionable
integrity and institutional commitment and without
effectively consulting the State Government. It was
E
pointed out that the said list issued by the Chancellor
included some persons against whom criminal cases
were registered with the police and/or were pending in
the court(s). It was submitted that even though the BSU
Act and the PU Act were not suitably amended for
F
incorporating the UGC regulations dated 30.6.2010, the
Chancellor was duty bound to keep in mind the
parameters laid down by the UGC for selecting the
candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors.
G
Allowing the appeals and the writ petition, the Court.
HELD: 1.1 Section 10 of the BSU Act and s.11 of the
PU Act make it clear that the position of Vice-Chancellor
H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A is extremely important in every University. The Pro-Vice
Chancellor appointed in terms of s.12 of BSU Act and
s.14 of P.U. Act is also a whole time offieer of the
University and is entitled to exercise such powers and
perform such duties which may be prescribed or which
B may be conferred or imposed on him by the ViceChancellor. He is responsible for admission and conduct
of examination upto Bachelor course and also the
student welfare. The Vice-Chancellor and the Pro ViceChancellor are responsible for maintaining the academic
c standard and discipline of the University and also ensure
that all the bodies and authorities conduct themselves in
conformity with the statutory provisions. This is the
precise reason why s.10(1) of the BSU Act and s.11 (1) of
the PU Act are couched in negative form and prescribe
0 the qualification of academic excellence as a condition
precedent for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. [para 1214] [181-G-H; 182-G-H; 183-A-B]
1.2 The word 'consultation' used in ss.10(2) and 12(1)
of the BSU Act and s.11 (2) and 14(1) of the PU Act is of
E crucial importance. Consultation is a process which
requires meeting of minds between the parties involved
in the process. Though, the final decision is with the
consultor, but he cannot generally ignore the advice of
the consultee except for good reasons. In order for two
F minds to be able to confer and produce a mutual impact,
it is essential that each must have for its consideration
full and identical facts, which can constitute both the
source and foundation of the final decision. There should
be meeting of minds between the parties involved in the
G process of consultation on the material facts and points
involved. Consultation is not complete or effective unless
the parties thereto make their respective points of view
known to the other and discuss and examine the relative
merit of their views. [para 15-16] [183-G-H; 184-A-E]
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
123
Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court (1970)
A
2 SCR 666, .Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth
and Another (1977) 4 SCC 193; Union of India vs. Sankar
Chand Himatlal Sheth and Another 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 419
= 1996 (10) SCC 469; S.P Gupta vs. Union of India 1982 SCR
365 = 1981 Suppl. sec 87; Gauhati High Court and another
B
vs. Kuladhar Phukan 2002 (2) SCR 808 = 2002 (4) SCC 524
- referred to.
Rollo v. Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948)
1 All ER 13, Fletcher v. Minister of Town and Country Planning
C
(1947) 2 All ER 946 - referred to.
Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn. 1960, Vol.9),
Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol.16A, 1956 Edn.) - referred to.
1.3 As regards the instant matters, the Chancellor has o
been consistently flouting the mandate of law and making
appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors without effectively consulting the State
Government and
completely
disregarding
the
requirement of academic excellence and experience. He
did not adopt any transpa'rent method of making
selection nor did he keep in view the qualifications
enumerated in s.10(1) of the BSU Act and s.11(1) of the
E
PU Act. Further, the extraordinary haste exhibited by the
Chancellor in getting the notifications issued on 9.2.2013
speaks volume of his intention to prevent the State
Government from bringing to the fore, the facts relating
to criminal cases pending against some of his nominees.
[para 19,20 and 22] [187-D; 188-C-D; 190-D-E]
F
1.4 The entire exercise undertaken by the Chancellor G
was ex-facie against the mandate of ss. 10(1), 10(2) and
12(1) of the BSU Act and ss. 11(1), 11(2) and 14(1) of the
PU Act, because he made every possible effort to prevent
the State Government from providing inputs about the
candidates and conveying its opinion on their suitability
H
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors. He also acted in contemptuous disregard of
the pronouncements made by the High Court in two
rounds of litigation, that the appointments of the ViceChancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors must precede
B meaningful and effective consultation with the State
Government. What is most shocking is that the
Chancellor selected some persons for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice-Chancellor despite the fact
that they are facing prosecution under various criminal
c laws and/or are involved in financial irregularities. The
mechanism adopted by the Chancellor in making
appointments is blatantly violative of the scheme of the
BSU Act and the PU Act and also Art. 14 of the
Constitution. [para 23) [191-8-E, G]
D
2.1 For the last many years the Chancellors have been
appointing Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors
without adopting any transparent and fair method of
selection. Even though the language of ss.10(1) and 12(1)
of the BSU Act and ss.11 (1) and 14(1) of the PU Act does .
E not postulate selection of Vice-Chancellor or Pro ViceC h an cello r by inviting application through open
advertisement, a wholesome reading of these sections
makes it clear that Vice-Chancellor must be a person
reputed for his scholarship and academic interest or
F eminent educationist having experience of administering
the affairs of any University and selection of such a person
is possible only if a transparent method is adopted and
efforts are made to reach out to people across the country.
Art. 14 of the Constitution which mandates that every
G action of the State authority must be transparent and fair
has to be read in the language of these provisions and if
that is done, it becomes clear that the Chancellor has to
follow some mechanism whereby he can prepare panel
by considering persons of eminence in the field of
H education, integrity, high moral standard and character
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
125
who may enhance the image of the particular University.
A
[para 23-24] [191-E-F, H; 192-A-D]
B
2.2 The UGC regulations, which provide for
constitution of a Search Committee consisting of eminent
educationists I academicians are intended to fill up an
apparent lacuna in the provisions like s.10(1) of the BSU
Act and s. 11 (1) of the PU Act. If the UGC regulations had
been engrafted in the two Acts, an unseemly controversy
relating to appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors could have been avoided. However, it has
been brought to the notice of the Court that C
subsequently, by Bihar Acts Nos. 14/2003, 13/2013 and
12/2013, ss.10 and 12 of the BSU Act, ss.11 and 14 of the
PU Act and ss.11 and 13(a) of the Nalanda Open
University Act, 1995 respectively, have been amended in
consonance with the UGC Regulations. [para 25-26] [192D
E-F; 193-8-D]
3.1 Challenge to the locus standi of the appellant (in
E
F
CA No. 6831 of 2013) was rightly rejected by the High
Court. It is not in dispute that he is a Professor and Head
of the Department of Chemistry in Veer Kunwar Singh
University, Ara. Therefore, the mere fact that he did not
project himself as a candidate for the office of ViceChancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor is not sufficient to
deny him the right to question the appointments made by
the Chancellor. His anxiety to ensure that eminent
educationists are appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors In the State can very well be
appreciated. Even if it may be possible to say that the
appellant does not have any direct personal interest in
the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceG
Chancellors in the State Universities, the High Court
could have suo motu taken cognizance of the issues
raised by him and treated his petition as one filed in
public interest and decided the same on merits. [para 2829] [195-C-G]
H
..
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav
Gosavi 1987 (1) SCR 458 = (1987) 1 sec 227- relied on.
3.2 It is true that the State Government moved this
Court only after the Chancellor initiated the process of
8 making appointments and an apparently incorrect
statement was made before the Court on 18.3.2005 in the
context of the Governor's refusal to approve the
amendments made in the two Acts but these factors are
not sufficient to negate the State Government's challenge
C to the direction given by the High Court which, gave free
hand to the Chancellor to manipulate the appointment of
the persons of his choice, some of whom are embroiled
in criminal cases, without getting a selection made keeping
in view the requirements of s.10(1) of the BSU Act and
D s.12 (1) of the PU Act. [p~ra 30] [196-G-H; 197-A-B]
4(i) In the result, Notifications dated 9.2.2013,
19.2.2013 and 14.3.2013 issued for appointment of the
private respondents as Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors of different Universities are declared illegal
E and quashed.
(ii) The direction given by the High Court to the
Chancellor to propose names for appointment of ViceChancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors is modified and it
is directed that the Chancellor shall prepare a panel of
F suitable persons for appointment to the offices of ViceChancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors keeping in view
the provisions of ss. 10(1), 10(2) and 12 of the BSU Act
and ss. 11 (1 ), 11 (2) and 14 of the PU Act as amended by
Bihar Act No.14/2013 and 13/2013 respectively and by
G following a transparent and fair method of selection.
(iii) The Chancellor shall make appointments after
effective and meaningful consultation with the State
Government, as indicated in the orders passed by the
H Single Judge in CWJC No. 8141/2010 and the Division
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
127
Bench of the High Court in LP.A. Nos. 822 and 824 of A
2011. [para 31) [197-C-H]
Case Law Reference:
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 419 referred to
para 3.2
1982 SCR 365
referred to
B
para 3.2
2002 (2) SCR 808
referred to
para 3.2
(1970) 2 SCR 666
referred to
para 17
(1977) 4 sec 193
referred to
para 18
c
(1948) 1 All ER 13
referred to
para 18
(1947) 2 All ER 946
referred to
para 18
1987 (1) SCR 458
relied on
para 29
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal NO.
6831 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2012 of the
High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 15123 of 2011.
E
WITH
C.A. Nos. 6830 of 2013 & W.P. (C) No. 158 of 2013.
Ranjit Kumar, Ram Jethmalani, Manan Kumar Mishra, L.
F
Nageshwara Rao, Vijay Hansaria, Rudreshwar Singh, Abhinav
Mukerji, Kumar Ranjan, Gopal Jha, Sishir Pinaki, Sanjay Jain,
Ravi Shankar Kumar, Birenara Kumar Chaudhary, Arun Kumar,
D.K. Thakur, Priyambica Jha, Dr. V.P. Appan, Ashish Dixit,
Karan Kalia, Pranav Dinesh, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Amit Pawan,
Rajiv Kumar, Hareesh Ahmad Minhaaj, Sudhanshu Saran,
G
Tarkeshwar Nath, B.K. Pandey, Nirmal Singh, T.G. Narayanan
Nair, Rohit Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Prem Prakash,
V.V. Gautam, Rikesh Singh, Sanjay Kapur, Anmol Chandan,
Priyanka Das, Shubhra Kapur, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, D.K .
. Sinha, Shantanu Sagar, Smarhar Singh, Abhishek Kr. Singh,
H
. 128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
A Gopi Raman, Mohd. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rehan, Minhajul
Rashid, Navin Gupta, Neeraj Shekhar, Kunal Verma,
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, lrshad Ahmad, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Tayenjam Momo Singh for the appearing
parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted in the special leave
retitions.
2. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh, who had filed writ petition
C before the Patna High Court for quashing the appointments of
Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different
Universities in the State of Bihar, has questioned the directions
contained in order dated 7.12.2012 passed by the Division
Bench of that Court. The State of Bihar and two others have
D also filed an appeal against the order of the High Court and
simultaneously questioned the notifications issued by the
Chancellor for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro ViceChancellors. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh has filed Writ Petition
No.158/2013 for quashing the appointments of the private
E respondents as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice,-Chancellors.
The background facts
3.1 By Notifications dated 9.4.2010 and 15.4.2010, the
Chancellor appointed Dr. Arvind Kumar and Dr. Subhash
F Prasad Sinha as Vice-Chancellor of Magadh and Veer Kunwar
Singh Universities, respectively. The same were challenged by
Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh and Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh in
CWJC No.8141/2010 on the ground that the Chancellor had
not consulted the State Government as per the requirement of
G Section 10(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (for
short, 'the BSU Act'). The learned Single Judge of the Patna
.High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the
notifications issued by the Chancellor. He referred to the
affidavits filed by the parties, the documents produced by them
H as also the documents summoned by the Court and observed:
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
129
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"23. From the various averments as well as the relevant
A
extract of the notings of the file annexed with the
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
there is sufficiency of material to show that the stand of the
State is un-ambiguous that there was no consultation of
any kind on the issue of appointment of Vice Chancellors
B
including the two Vice Chancellors whose appointments
are under challenge in the present writ application. The
Court opines that if there was any consultation, there would
not have been occasion for the Minister or the State to take
such clear and categorical stand on the issue of c
consultation and to annex all those notings of the file to
show that there was actually no consultation, so far as the
State was concerned.
24. Now, let us take notice of the stand taken by the office
of the Chancellor on whose behalf counter affidavit dated
D
23.03.2011 was initially filed. This counter affidavit has
been sworn by one Kumar Braj Kishore Sahani, who is
stated to be the Joint Secretary in the Governor's
Secretariat and he has stated that he was well acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case. The affidavit
E
also states that he has been authorized to swear affidavit
in this case on behalf of respondent no. 2 i.e. Chancellor
of Universities, Raj Bhawan, Patna. What is relevant in this
affidavit is paragraph 5 which is being reproduced for
ready reference :-
F
"That the Vice Chancellor of V.K.S. University, Ara and the
Vice Chancellor of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya have
been appointed by the Hon?ble Chancellor in consultation
with the State Government on 29th March, 2010, and
G
Notifications of appointments of Vice Chancellors as per
provisions of Section 10(2) of the B.S.U. Act, 1976 were
issued from the Chancellor's Secretariat on 9.4.2010 (Ann.
7 of the I.A.) and on 15.4.2010 (Ann. 8 of the I.A.). It is
wrong to allege that there had been no consultation with
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
the State Government."
25. A stand has been taken on behalf of the Chancellor
that since the notification itself talks in terms of consultation
with the State Government on 29.03.2010, then it is a
complete answer to the controversy which have been
created in the matter of appointment of two Vice
Chancellors because nothing more is required to be seen
beyond the notification.
26. Court was not satisfied with such a sweeping stand
taken on behalf of the Chancellor, in view of other overwhelming evidence which have been brought on record not
only by the petitioners but also by the State Government.
27. In this background, the Court directed production of the
file relating to consultation which supposedly took place
with the State Government on 29.03.2010.
28. Learned Senior Counsel representing the Chancellor,
namely, Mr. Y. V. Giri tendered a file for perusal by the
Court to show that there was consultation with the then H.
R.D. Minister on the issue, based on which the Chancellor
made the appointments of the two Vice Chancellors. The
file in question is file No. ACT -. 01/10 which has an
endorsement "Bihar State Universities Tribunal Act."
Reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel
representing the Chancellor to pages 51, 52 and 53 of the
said file. The Court observed that since the file in question
did not relate to appointment of Vice Chancellors but with
regard to constitution of a University Tribunal and the
objections of the Governor to ratification of the said bill.
The relevant pages, namely, page nos. 51, 52 and 53 of
the said file was ordered to be brought on record by way
of an affidavit so that all the parties to the dispute including
the Court had the benefit of looking into the same closely
on the question of consultation with the State.
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
131
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
29. A counter affidavit again on behalf of respondent no.
'A ·
2 i.e. the Chancellor duly sworn by Kumar Brij Kishore
Sahani, Joint Secretary in the Governor's Secretariat dated
18.04.2011 was filed annexing the said pages as
Annexure R-2/1 ~ This is supposed to be the portion of the
file in which the so called consultation for appointment of
B
Vice Chancellors took place or its evidence is reflected
though the main minutes in the file deals with constitution
of Bihar Universities Tribunal.
30. Since the noting on the question of consultation is in
C
the purported hand of the Chancellor which speaks for
itself, therefore, the Court feels that all the pages itself
should be reproduced as part of this order. Annexure- R2/1, therefore, is duly scanned and forms part of this order.
The note of the Chancellor is not fully legible.
32. The Court has meticulously gone through the said note
of the Chancellor which has been purportedly made in his
own pen. The first thing which the Court notices is that the
note does not have any initiai of the Minister and it has
been incorporated in a file not even related to the question
of appointment of Vice Chancellors to the Universities of
Bihar muchless the Universities in question. There is
obvious evidence that the visit of the Minister to the Raj
Bhawan and the discussion he had with the Chancellor.
primarily. related to the objections the Governor had in
giving his assent to the Universities Tribunal Bill. which was
pending approval of His Excellency for many a months. if
D
E
F
not more than a year. Another significant aspect which
emerges from the noting is that no separate Minutes came
to be drawn up on a separate file or piece of paper as if G
Chancellor's Secretariat lacks stationery or Secretarial
assistance. It was not even sent to the Minister for his
signature or acknowledgment of what was recorded. It
also shows that even a file was not opened on the issue
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
......
of appointment to such important posts of Vice
Chancellors. What was the compelling circumstance under
which such a noting was done remains a mystery wrapped
in an enigma. A reading of the said note. even if it is
accepted as evidence of the so called consultation. it does
not show that the two names were even mentioned for
appointment as Vice Chancellors to the two Universities.
namely, Magadh University or Veer Kunwar Singh
Universitv. in the so called discussion. There is generality
of discussion that vacancies are existing in the Universities
and there was some urgency of filling up those vacancies
on due priority. But that by itself did not mean by giving a
go bye to the law.
33. It is also not further understood or explained as to why
the so called "Minutes", if at all, could not be drawn up
subsequently and referred to the concerned Minister of
H.R.D. for obtaining his signature as a proof of his
agreeing of what was recorded therein. The Court is not
aware of any Minutes being drawn up unilaterally without
any endorsement or acknowledgment thereto of the parties
to such consultation or deliberations. It is also not
understood as to what was the occasion for the Chancellor
to make such endorsement on a file and on a Minute which
dealt through and through with regard to objections His
Excellency had to give assent to a Bill relating to
constitution of a Tribunal for the Universities.
34. Court has serious reservation whether the above
exercise amounts to consultation on behalf of the State,
based on which the Chancellor could go ahead and make
unilateral appointments of Vice Chancellors, without even
basic materials or subject of consultation existing before
the two authorities. How did the Chancellor zero down on
these two names still stands a mystery and unexplained .
35. No further comments on the issue as well as the so
H
called material of consultation is required to be offered by
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
133
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the Court. Inferences are obvious. The Court can now well
A
appreciate 'the background to the H.R.D. Minister?s
notings and letters denying any consultation on the issue
of appointment of Vice Chancellors. Though he does
accept that his visit to Raj Bhawan related to discussion
on the Tribunal Bill and that alone, the stand of the Minister
B
stands corroborated and seems more closer to the actual
state of affairs, as noting by the Chancellor is in the file
relating to the University Tribunal Bill and that too on the
page of the Minutes dealing with the Tribunal Bill.
36. The Court, therefore, has serious reservation or doubt
C
whether this evidence or proof can be taken as the ultimate
answer or material showing consultation between the State
and the Chancellor, meeting the requirement of
consultation undern section 10(2) of the Act, vesting him
with the authority to make appointments at his level on the
D
post of Vice Chancellors to the two Universities."
(emphasis supplied)
3.2 The learned Single Judge then adverted to the
E
judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Sankat Chand
Himatlal Sheth and Another AIR 1977 SC 2328, S.P. Gupta
v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, Gauhati High Court and
Another v. Kuladhar Phukan (2002) 4 SCC 524 and held:
"51. There could be an arguable case that even the
F
Chancellor has some flexibility with regard to suggesting
names which may come within his knowledge or domain
but those details and opinion must be shared and
deliberated between the State Government and the
Chancellor and some kind of opinion reached, before it
G
can be said that there was consultation with regard to the
persons who are fit or otherwise deserving to be
appointed as Vice Chancellors. Obviously, the manner
and the way appointments to the two posts have been
made, in the opinion of this Court, does not satisfy the
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
A
requirement of consultation and there is much a-miss with
regard to the way the whole exercise has been carried out
at the office of the Chancellor and in the manner in which
Chancellor has gone about making appointments to the
post.
B
52. Consultation with the State is a must. Consultation with
the State must be effective. Consultation also means
1.2lacing of materials between the consulting and the
consulted 1.2artv. There has to be 1.2ro1.2er deliberations by
c
1.2roducing all materials duly recorded to show that such
exercise was carried out and there was a1.21.2lication of mind
with regard to all those 1.2ersons who may be otherwise
eligible. If all these elements are missing and there is no
evidence in this regard in existence, then the Court will
have no hesitation in recording that any a1.21.2ointment
D
made, may be at the behest or at the level of the
Chancellor, would be in clear breach of the reguirements
of Section 10(2} of the Act. There is no absolute 1.2ower of
the Chancellor to make am;~ointment on the 1.2ost of Vice
Chancellor or Pro Vice Chancellor at his level without the
E
consultation with the State within the meaning of law
enunciated by Courts and as mandated and that alone
would satisfv the reguirement of consultation under section ·
10(2} of the Act.
F
53. In this case there are 1.2redominant materials to show
that there was never any consultation with any State
authorities and the Chancellor on the guestion of
a1.21.2ointment of two Vice Chancellors. If the two Vice
Chancellors came to be a1.21.2ointed in breach of Section
G
10(2} of the Act, then the a1.21.2ointment will have to be
interfered with and the issue cannot be allowed to rest."
(emphasis supplied)
3.3 Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 822 and 824 of 2011 filed
H by Dr.Subhash Prasad Sinha and Dr. Arvind Kumar,
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
135
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
respectively were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
A
Court vide judgment dated 8.9.2011, paragraphs 18 and 19 of
which are extracted below:
"18 The word "shall" is only indicative. The need of
consultation is between two constitutional authorities, one
is the Chancellor whose rule has been noticed above and
the other is the State Government which has a high stake
in ensuring that standard of higher education in the State
B
is maintained and the hundreds of crores of rupees
allocated to the Universities every year are well utilized by
appointment of suitable persons who are not only reputed
C
for their scholarship and academic interest but can also
be good administrators, capable of safeguarding the
finances and interests of the Universities. The Governor as
Chancellor does not have the elaborate requisite machinery
to enable him to form the appropriate opinion for
D
appointing persons as Vice Chancellors and this is
adequately taken care of by providing consultation with the
State Government. The nature of duty of both the
Constitutional authorities in this context is to promote
public interest and interest of higher education by selecting
and appointing best persons avai!able out of eligible
candidates. To achieve this object the stipulated
consultation has to be effective. It is not only desirable but
clearly a must, before selection and appointment.
E
19. Though the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Indian Administrative Service (SGS) Association v.
Union of/ndia (1993 1 Supp. 22 SCC 731) has been cited
on behalf of the appellants, a careful perusal shows that
F
the settled principles as to what shall constitute consultation
G
and when it is mandatory do not support the case of the
appellants. The judgment approves that prior consultation
is mandatory and moreso if its violation would affect
fundamental rights or fair procedure. In the present case,
the dispute whether 9pinion or advice of the State
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 9 S.C.R.
Government will bind the Chancellor or not is not at all in
issue. The controversy is in respect of earlier stage as to
whether the State Government should have adequate
opportunity to give its opinion or advice in respect of the
appointees. The procedure and details as to who shall be
taken into consideration on account of eligibility and who
shall be selected out of eligible persons has rightly not
been prescribed by the Act because the appointment and
consultation process has been left in the hand of high
Constitutional functionaries. Nonetheless. like any
selection process it must be fair. Consultation with the
State Government has been introduced by the Legislature
with the obvious aim of making the selection procedure
wider in ambit. deeper in contents. transparent and fair.
The State Government has the means to render intensive
and extensive information and input in course of
consultation. The consultation in such important matter and
at such high level needs to be effective so that after the
Chancellor has made tentative choice on considering the
entire information and input given by the State
Government. the latter may provide further relevant
information. if available. in respect of tentatively selected
persons. in order to avoid the risk of Universities being
placed in the hands of wrong persons or unsuitable
persons."
(emphasis supplied)
3.4 The special leave petitions filed by the two appointees,
which were registered as SLP (C) Nos. 27644/2011 and
27725/2011, were dismissed by this Court on 29.9.2011.
G
3.5 During the pendency of the letters patent appeals
H
before the High Court, the Chancellor issued Notifications
dated 1.8.2011 and 3.8.2011 for appointment of as many as
'ten persons as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of
different Universities of the State. The details of these
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
137
appointments are as under:
SI
NotificaMemo No.
Name
Appointed as
No. tion date
1
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Shambhu
Vice-Chancellor
1789(GS (I)
Nath Singh
of Patna
University,
Patna
2
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Bimal
Vice-Chancellor
1834(GS (I)
Kumar
of B.R.A.
University,
Muzafar
3
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Ram
Vice-Chancellor
1864(GS (I)
Vinod Sinha
of J.P.
University,
Chapra
.4
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Arun
Vice-Chancellor
1819(GS (I)
Kumar
of B.N.Mandal
University,
Madhepura
5
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Arvind
Vice-Chancellor
1849(GS (I)
Kumar
of K.S.D.
Pandey
Sanskrit
University,
Darbhanga.
6
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Md.
Vice-Chancellor
1804(GS (I)
Shamsuzzoha of Maulana
Maharul Haque
Arabic &
Persian
University,
Patna
7
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. PushpenPro Vice1924(GS (I)
dra Kumar
Chancellor of
Verma
B.N. Manda!
University,
Madhepura
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 9 S.C.R.
8
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Kumaresh Pro Vice1894(GS (I)
Prasad Singh Chancellor of
L.N. Mithila
University,
Darbhanga
9
01/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Sultana
Pro Vice1879(GS (I)
Khushood
Chancellor of
Jabeen
Maulana
Mazharul Haque
Arabic &
Persian
University,
Patna
10 03/08/11
BSU-13/2011Dr. Lal
Pro Vice1941(GS (I)
Keshwar
Chancellor of
Prasad
Patna
Singh
University
3.6 The afore-mentioned appointments also became
subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No.15123 of 2011 filed
E by Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh mainly on the ground that the
Chancellor had not consulted the State Government as per the
mandate of Section 10(2) of the BSU Act and Section 11 (2)
of the Patna University Act, 1976 (for short, 'the PU Act').
3.7 In the counter affidavits filed by the appointees an
F
objection was taken to the locus standi of Dr. Ram Tawakya
Singh on the premise that he was not eligible to be appointed
as Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor. The Division Bench
of the High Court rejected the objection by observing that being
a member of the teaching faculty of a University in the State,
G the petitioner was legitimately entitled to see that appointments
to the offices of Vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice-Chancellor are
made in accordance with law from amongst those who are
.qualified and are meritorious. The Division Bench then
'considered the question whether the Chancellor had made
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR
139
[G.S.