# GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 4 S.C.R. 406
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-03-03
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gambhirdan-k-gadhvi-v-the-state-of-gujarat-ors-36044
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Universities: Appointment of Vice Chancellor - Writ of quo
warranto - Writ petition alleging that eligibility criteria was diluted
and UGC Regulations, 2018 were violated - Held: Being a
subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act
and in case of any conflict between State legislation and Central
legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/
principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Art.254 of the Constitution
as the subject 'education' is in the concurrent list - By adopting the
scheme and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure
from the central government and when respondent No.4 is paid a
fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/
- per month, the State and the Universities thereunder are bound by
the UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018 -
Respondent No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not
constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 and also does not
fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018,
namely, having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor
in the university system - Appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor of respondent No.2-University, is contrary to the UGC
provisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018 - Writ of quo warranto
issued for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent
No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University - UGC Regulations,
2010/2018 - Regn. 7.3.0 - Writ of quo warranto - Constitution of
India - Art.254.
Universities: 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 said reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari
Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
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 - These committees have also made
suggestions and recommendations for identifying the right person
for the said position - A Vice Chancellor is the king pin of a
University's system and a keeper of the University's conscience -
Further, 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 honour of selecting and suggesting
names for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or
indirectly responsible for the achievement of the University.
Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 - ss. 9, 10 - Governor of
Gujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue
of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the
Senate - As the head of the University, his advice is binding upon
the University - Universities.
Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued
when a person holding public office does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. [Para 9.1][423-H;
424-A]
Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1
SCC 501 : [2012] 10 SCR 883; Retd. Armed Forces
Medical Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2006) 11 SCC 731 : 2006 (10) SCALE 224 - relied
on.
1.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for
the co-ordination 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,927 of 83,030. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39927 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 406
406
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019)
MARCH 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Universities: Appointment of Vice Chancellor - Writ of quo
warranto - Writ petition alleging that eligibility criteria was diluted
and UGC Regulations, 2018 were violated - Held: Being a
subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act
and in case of any conflict between State legislation and Central
legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/
principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Art.254 of the Constitution
as the subject 'education' is in the concurrent list - By adopting the
scheme and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure
from the central government and when respondent No.4 is paid a
fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/
- per month, the State and the Universities thereunder are bound by
the UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018 -
Respondent No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not
constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 and also does not
fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018,
namely, having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor
in the university system - Appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor of respondent No.2-University, is contrary to the UGC
provisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018 - Writ of quo warranto
issued for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent
No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University - UGC Regulations,
2010/2018 - Regn. 7.3.0 - Writ of quo warranto - Constitution of
India - Art.254.
Universities: 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 said reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari
Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
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 - These committees have also made
suggestions and recommendations for identifying the right person
for the said position - A Vice Chancellor is the king pin of a
University's system and a keeper of the University's conscience -
Further, 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 honour of selecting and suggesting
names for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or
indirectly responsible for the achievement of the University.
Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 - ss. 9, 10 - Governor of
Gujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue
of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the
Senate - As the head of the University, his advice is binding upon
the University - Universities.
Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued
when a person holding public office does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. [Para 9.1][423-H;
424-A]
Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1
SCC 501 : [2012] 10 SCR 883; Retd. Armed Forces
Medical Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2006) 11 SCC 731 : 2006 (10) SCALE 224 - relied
on.
1.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for
the co-ordination 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
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
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 the Parliament and when both the Houses
agree then rules and regulations can be given effect with such
modification as may be made by the Parliament. Therefore, any
regulation enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can
be said to be subordinate legislation. [Para 11.2][424-E-G]
2. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by
Letter No.132/2006 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. 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 ProVice 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. In view of the aforesaid Letter 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. Regulation
7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellor. UGC Regulations,
2010, inter alia, prescribes in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall
have ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
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. [Paras
11.3 - 11.3.3][425-A-G; 426-G-H]
3.1 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Union
Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down a scheme
of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the
Universities following the 6th Central Pay Commission. The
Scheme provides a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special
allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para
8(p)(v) of the said scheme provides that it is extended to
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 with
certain conditions, inter alia, financial assistance from the Central
Government to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure
and remaining 20% shall be met by the State Government. It
further provides that payment of Central assistance for
implementing the scheme is subject to the condition that the
entire scheme of revision of pay scales together with all the
conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations and
other guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governments
and the Universities thereunder without any modification. [Para
11.4][427-A-D]
3.2 In the present case, State of Gujarat has adopted the
said Scheme dated 31.12.2008 by a Resolution dated 11.11.2009
with effect from 01.01.2006 subject to the conditions mentioned
in the said resolution. Even in the said resolution, condition No.13
provides that the State Government will publish the educational
qualifications as per the UGC instructions published from time
to time and quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms,
instructions, resolutions will have to be implemented. It is not in
dispute that the SP University is receiving Central financial
assistance under the Scheme and it is included in the State
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
universities receiving Central financial assistance as per Section
12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. Therefore, having adopted the UGC
Scheme and implemented the same and getting Central financial
assistance to the extent of 80% of the maintenance expenditure,
the State Government and the SP University are bound by the
UGC Regulations, 2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are
superseded by the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, the
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor and the
constitution of the search committee for appointment of a Vice
Chancellor remains the same. Therefore, the State of Gujarat
and the universities thereunder including the SP University are
bound to follow UGC Regulations, 2010 and UGC Regulations,
2018. [Para 11.4][427-D-G]
4. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Vice Chancellor of
the SP University under the SPU Act, 1955. Section 10 of the
said Act relates to the post of Vice Chancellor. As per Section 10
of the Act, 1955 the search committee shall consist of two
members (not being persons connected with the respondent -
University or with any affiliated college or recognised institution)
out of whom, one shall be a person nominated in the manner
prescribed by Statutes by the Syndicate and the Academic Council
jointly and the other shall be a person nominated in the manner
prescribed by Statutes by the Vice Chancellor of all the
Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat and the
third member to be nominated by the Chancellor. Section 10 of
the SPU Act does not provide any qualification whatsoever for
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. Even the eligibility
criteria to be prescribed is left to the Search Committee. There
are no guidelines whatsoever on the eligibility criteria to be
prescribed by the Search Committee. On the other hand, the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 specifically prescribes the
qualification / eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor. It
also provides for the constitution of the Search Committee. As
observed hereinabove as per Regulation 7.3.0 a person shall have
ten years of teaching work experience as a professor in the
university system and it also provides for constitution of a search
committee consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
411
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/
Executive Council of the University. But respondent No.4 did
not/ does not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. He was/is not having ten years of
teaching work experience as a professor in the university system.
Moreover, his name was not recommended by the legally
constituted search committee, constituted as per the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018. Also, the search committee has
prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor
by diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in the UGC
Regulations, 2010/2018. Thus, the provisions of the SPU Act,
1955/provisions under the State legislation are just contrary to
the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, which, as observed
hereinabove, are binding on the State Government and the
universities thereunder. Even the State Government has not
bothered to amend the State legislation - to put at par with the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018 and has continued the appointment
in the universities dehors the UGC Regulations. [Paras 12 -
12.2][427-H; 429-B-H; 430-A]
5. By adopting the Scheme and having accepted 80% of
the maintenance expenditure from the Central government and
when respondent No.4 is paid a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along
with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month, which is
prescribed as per the Scheme of 2008, the State and the
universities thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations,
including the UGC Regulations, 2018. The appointment of
respondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibility criteria
prescribed by the Search Committee. In fact, in the instant case,
H.E. - Governor of Gujarat who is also the Chancellor of all the
Universities in the said State had through his Principal Secretary
directed that the communication from the Secretary, University
Grants Commission, Government of India, New Delhi dated 11th
August, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps be taken in that
regard. This Court has referred to the aforesaid letter dated 30th
August, 2014. The letter of the Secretary of the UGC dated 11th
August, 2014 to H.E. - Governor of Gujarat informing about the
regulations titled "Minimum qualifications for appointment of
teachers and other academic staff in Universities and Colleges
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
and measures for the maintenance of standards in higher
education, 2010" has also been extracted above in the said letter.
It has been clearly stated that the UGC has prescribed minimum
qualifications for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor and
therefore, such an appointment must be in accordance with the
provisions laid down in the aforementioned regulations of the
UGC. It is clear that the respondent-state of Gujarat has failed to
take note of the communication from the UGC and instead the
respondent-University has left to the sweet will of the search
committee to prescribe eligibility criteria for the appointment of
the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The eligibility criteria when
once fixed by the UGC under its regulations would apply to all
the universities which are aided by the UGC to be bound by the
said regulations even in the absence of the same being
incorporated under the respective universities Act of the
respective States. Therefore, when the appointment of respondent
No.4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and
the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, this is a fit
case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside
the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of
the SP University. [Para 15][434-H; 435-A-H; 436-A-C]
6. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are
enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section 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 the Parliament. Therefore, being a
subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the
Act. In case of any conflict between State legislation and 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 of 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. [Para
16][436-C-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
Annamalai University represented by Registrar v.
Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 : [2009] 3 SCR
355; Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors, (2015)
6 SCC 363 : [2015] 3 SCR 467 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 3 SCR 355
referred to
Para 3.7
[2015] 3 SCR 467
referred to
Para 3.7
[2012] 10 SCR 883
relied on
Para 9
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1525 of 2019.
[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]
I.H. Syed, Sr. Adv., Varinder Kumar Sharma, Shantanu Sharma,
Prithu Parimal, Ms. Parul Sharma, Advs. for the petitioner.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, Manoj
Ranjan Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gaurav Agrawal, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Ms. Srishti Mishra, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of quo warranto challenging
the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of respondent
No.2 - Sardar Patel University (hereinafter referred to as "SP
University") and to quash and set aside the notification dated 29.08.2019,
bearing No.GH/SH/76/SPY/122010/2626/ KH-2 passed by respondent
No.1 - State of Gujarat, appointing respondent No.4 as the Vice
Chancellor of the respondent - SP University. The petitioner has also
prayed for any other appropriate writ, direction and order directing
respondent authorities to recover from respondent No.4 all consequential
benefits not limited to pay, with retrospective effect, that have been
extended to him by virtue of his illegal appointment as Vice Chancellor
of the SP University.
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the University
Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC") framed UGC
Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures
for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as the "UGC Regulations, 2010") which, inter alia, prescribes
in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching work
experience as a professor in the 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 UGC, a nominee of Syndicate/
Executive Council of the University. That the Search Committee has to
recommend the names of suitable candidates for appointment as Vice
Chancellor of a University.
2.1 That the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been substituted
subsequently vide UGC Regulations, 2018 with slight modifications which
shall be referred to hereinbelow.
2.2 It is the further case on behalf of the petitioner that the Union
Ministry of Human Resource Development laid down a Scheme of
revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in the Universities
following the 6th Central Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as the
"Scheme"). The Scheme provides a fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with
a special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Vice Chancellor.
Para 8(p)(v) of the said Scheme provides that it is extended to 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 with certain conditions, inter alia,
financial assistance from the Central Government to the extent of 80%
of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20% shall be met by the
State Government. Payment of Central assistance for implementing the
scheme was subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revision
of pay scales together with all the conditions to be laid down by the
UGC by way of regulations and other guidelines shall be implemented
by the State Governments and the Universities thereunder without any
modification. According to the petitioner, the State of Gujarat passed a
Resolution dated 11.11.2009 adopting the Scheme. Since the Scheme
has been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon
the State of Gujarat including the respondent - SP University. That on
adoption of the Scheme by the State Government as well as the SP
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
University, the said University is receiving Central financial assistance
under the Scheme and is included in the list of State universities receiving
Central financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956.
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that since the Scheme has been
adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon the State
of Gujarat including the SP University.
2.3 The UGC addressed a communication dated 11.08.2014 to
H.E. - the Governor of Gujarat seeking compliance with the UGC
Regulations, 2010 with respect to appointment of Vice Chancellors in
the State of Gujarat. That H.E. - the Governor of Gujarat communicated
to the Government of Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 to
comply with the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to the appointment
of Vice Chancellors. At this stage, it is required to be noted that H.E. -
Governor of Gujarat is the ex-officio Chancellor of all the Universities in
the State including the SP University.
2.4 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that ignoring Regulation
7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, a Search Committee was constituted
under Section 10(2)(b) of the Sardar Patel University Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the "SPU Act") on 29.07.2016 with no
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. According to the petitioner, even
as per Section 10(2)(b), the Search Committee has only the authority to
recommend a panel of suitable candidates. The Search Committee, in
the present case, exceeded its jurisdiction and prescribed its own eligibility
criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criteria
laid down in the UGC Regulations, 2010. That respondent No.2 issued
an advertisement, inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor,
while mentioning the aforesaid eligibility criteria prescribed by the Search
Committee. Thereafter the State issued a notification appointing
respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University for his first
term of three years. According to the petitioner respondent No.4 was
not having teaching work experience as a professor for a period of ten
years, which is mandatory as per the UGC Regulations, 2010. That
respondent No.4 herein was promoted to the post of Professor with
effect from 08.03.2008. According to the petitioner though respondent
No.4 lacked the eligibility, he was appointed as the Vice Chancellor at
the fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- which is as per the revised Scheme -
Appendix I dated 31.08.2008.
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
2.5 That the petitioner challenged the said appointment of
respondent No.4 before the High Court by way of filing Special Civil
Application (SCA) No.18922 of 2017. By judgment and order dated
05.07.2018 the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said
SCA by observing and holding that the UGC Regulations had not been
adopted by the State of Gujarat and thus were not binding upon respondent
University. While dismissing the SCA and upholding the appointment of
respondent No.4 to the post of Vice Chancellor of the University, the
Division Bench of the High Court referred to Section 10 of the SPU
Act, which does not provide for any qualification whatsoever for
appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. The Division Bench of the
High Court observed that such a position would leave room for a lot of
arbitrariness in the matter of selection of persons for appointment as
Vice Chancellor. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that
though it is true that UGC Regulations provides for certain qualifications,
however, the same are not binding unless the State legislation is
appropriately amended. That the Division Bench of the High Court also
noted the communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed by the UGC to
H.E. - Governor of Gujarat. By the said communication it was requested
to ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are
made in accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations.
The said Regulations, inter alia, provide for minimum qualifications for
the appointment of Vice Chancellor in Regulation 7.3.0. The High Court
noted that the Principal Secretary to H.E. - the Chancellor had addressed
a communication dated 30.08.2014 to the Principal Secretary,
Government of Gujarat, requesting him to take note of the said important
communication and take necessary steps at the Government level but
the same had been ignored by the State and no steps had been taken
pursuant thereto. Therefore, the High Court observed that it is high time
the State of Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the State
legislation appropriately so that no room is left for any manipulation,
arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that despite the above observations made in para 24 by the High
Court, no further steps have been taken by the State Government to
adopt the UGC Regulations and amend the State legislation appropriately.
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the High Court dismissing SCA No.18922/2017, upholding the
appointment of respondent No.4 to the post of Vice Chancellor of SP
University, petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
this Court by filing SLP (C) No.21792/2018. The said SLP came up
before this Court for final hearing on 30.07.2019. However, by the time
the said SLP could be heard, only one month remained in the first term
of respondent No.4, therefore, this Court did not interfere with the
appointment of respondent No.4 and vide order dated 30.07.2019 disposed
of the same; however, this Court specifically observed that all questions
of law are left open.
2.7 That thereafter an advertisement dated 12.06.2019 was
published, inviting applications to the post of Vice Chancellor of
respondent No.2 - SP University. According to the petitioner again the
Search Committee was not constituted as per the UGC Regulations.
According to the petitioner in the said advertisement the Search
Committee has further diluted the eligibility criteria to suit respondent
No.4, in so far as it states that persons who have remained Vice Chancellor
for one term are eligible. That thereafter respondent No.4 has been
again appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University vide
notification dated 29.08.2019 for a further term of three years. It is the
case on behalf of the petitioner that impugned notification appointing
respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University is absolutely
illegal and in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC
Regulations, 2018. Therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred
for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent
No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of the SP University.
2.8 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the earlier decision
of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in Special Civil Application
No.18922/2017 may come in the way of the petitioner and if again the
petitioner approaches the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. This is because the petitioner will have
to face the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in
SCA No.18922/2017 which though challenged before this Court, the
same was disposed of without considering the legality and/or correctness
of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in SCA No.18922/2017. This was because by the time the matter
was heard, only one month of service of respondent No.4 was left and
while disposing of the SLP, it was observed by this Court that all questions
of law are left open. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is prayed to
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
entertain the present writ petition and consider the same on merits in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Shri I.H. Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the appointment of respondent
No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP University is absolutely illegal and contrary
to the statutory guidelines issued by the UGC.
3.1 It is contented that appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice
Chancellor is by a Search Committee not legally constituted as per the
UGC guidelines.
3.2 It is submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time when his first
appointment was made as Vice Chancellor, he was not fulfilling the
eligibility criteria required as per the UGC guidelines as well as even the
eligibility criteria fixed by even the Search Committee. It is further
submitted that at the relevant time when respondent No.4 was appointed,
he was not having ten years of experience as a professor which was
mandatorily required as per the UGC guidelines as well as the eligibility
criteria fixed by the Search Committee.
3.3 It is further contended by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case the Search
Committee constituted was not legal and valid. It is urged that as per the
UGC guidelines which the State and universities were bound, one of the
members of the Search Committee should be the Chairman of the UGC
and/or his nominee. It is submitted that in the present case the Search
Committee constituted did not include the Chairman of the UGC and/or
his nominee. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.4 by such an
illegal Search Committee is absolutely illegal and contrary to the statutory
provisions and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set
aside by issuing a writ of quo warranto.
3.4 It is further submitted by Shri Syed learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the present case even the
Search Committee prescribed the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice
Chancellor. That the SPU Act as such does not provide and/or prescribe
any eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor which as such is a
very important and prestigious post so far as the University is concerned.
That even the Division Bench of the High Court in the earlier round of
litigation in paragraph 24 of the judgment specifically criticised the State
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
for not prescribing/providing the minimum qualifications for appointment
of Vice Chancellor at par with the UGC Regulations, 2010. It is submitted
that Division Bench of the High Court even noted the communication
dated 11.08.2014 addressed to H.E. - Governor of Gujarat to ensure
that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in
accordance with the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations/
guidelines which provide for minimum qualifications for the appointment
of Vice Chancellor as per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,
2010 and also noted that even H.E. - Governor of Gujarat addressed a
communication dated 30.08.2014 to the State Government to take note
of the communication dated 11.08.2014 and to take necessary steps at
the Government level. That thereafter the Division Bench of the High
Court has noted that said communications have been ignored by the
State government and no steps have been taken pursuant thereto and
therefore, it is high time that the State government adopts the UGC
Regulations and amends the State legislation appropriately so that no
room is left for manipulation, arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism.
That despite the above and even thereafter also no further steps have
been taken by the State Government to amend the State legislation.
3.5 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that by adopting the Scheme dated
31.12.2008 vide Resolution dated 11.11.2009, all regulations framed by
the UGC shall be binding on the State Government including the SP
University. That UGC Regulations, 2010 which, inter alia, prescribe in
Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching work
experience as a professor in the University system. It also provides for
constituting of the search committee, consisting of a nominee of the
Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, a nominee
of the Syndicate/Executing Council of the University. That such a search
committee has to recommend the names of the successful candidates.
It is submitted that in the present case respondent No.4 was appointed
as Vice Chancellor for the second term even though he did not fulfil the
said criteria.
3.6 It is submitted that even respondent No.4 was being paid a
fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/-
per month as per the Scheme dated 31.12.2008. It is submitted that once
the Scheme dated 31.12.2008 had been adopted by the State government
and the SP University and the said University started receiving central
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
financial assistance and even it is included in the list of State universities
receiving financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act,
1956, thereafter it will not be open to the State and/or the University not
to follow the UGC Regulations and to continue to appoint the Vice
Chancellor illegally and contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations,
2010 (now UGC Regulations, 2018).
3.7 It is further submitted by Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the UGC Regulations, 2010/
2018 are Central legislation and therefore, the State and/or the State
universities are bound by the Central legislation and UGC Regulations,
2010/2018, the subject 'education' being in the Concurrent List of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on the decisions
of this Court in the cases of Annamalai University represented by
Registrar Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism
Department and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 and Kalyani Mathivanan
Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors, (2015) 6 SCC 363.
3.8 Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has submitted that the post of Vice Chancellor in a University
is a very important and prestigious post. Post of Vice Chancellor can be
said to be holding of a public office. It is submitted that the future of the
students - next generation can be said to be in the hands of the Vice
Chancellor who has to run the administration and management and lead
the University and guide the students. It is urged that therefore greater
care and caution should be taken while making the appointment of the
Vice Chancellor of a University and the best talent shall have to be
appointed as Vice Chancellor. It is submitted that any appointment as a
Vice Chancellor contrary to the statutory rules and regulations warrants
issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is submitted that the Vice Chancellor,
not having the requisite qualifications and who does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria and/or who is appointed by a search committee which is not
legally constituted, cannot hold such an important public office.
3.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition and to issue a
writ of quo warranto as prayed in the petition.
4. Shri Manoj Ranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the UGC - respondent No.3 herein has as such supported the
petitioner. It is submitted that in a search committee for appointment as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
Vice Chancellor, one of the members of the search committee shall be a
nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. It is submitted that UGC
Regulations, 2010 and 2018 were/are binding to all the States and the
Universities.
4.1 It is further submitted that even as per clause 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, the members of the Search cum Selection
Committee, can be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education.
It further provides that one member of the search committee shall be
nominated by the Chairman of the UGC for selection of Vice Chancellors
of the State, Private and Deemed to be universities. That as per the
UGC Regulations, Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor
out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search cum Selection
committee. It is contended that being a Central legislation all the States,
Private and Deemed to be Universities are bound by the UGC Regulations
and the guidelines issued from time to time.
5. The present petition is opposed by Shri Vinay Navare, learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University.
5.1 Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University has vehemently submitted
that in the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition and did not interfere with the appointment
of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University and the
SLP against the same was dismissed by this Court. Therefore, it is not
open for the petitioner to again challenge the appointment of respondent
No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for the second term. It is submitted that as
such the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the subsequent Regulations, 2018
have not been adopted by the State government and therefore, the UGC
Regulations are not binding to the State and/or universities and in the
present case SP University.
5.2 It is submitted that appointment of respondent No.4 is governed
under the SPU Act, 1955 and the Search Committee was constituted by
the State government under the SPU Act. That as such Section 10 of
the said Act, does not provide for any specific eligibility criteria/minimum
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor, therefore, the Search
Committee itself prescribed the eligibility criteria. That after selecting
respondent No.4 and on the recommendations made by the Search
Committee, respondent No.4 has been appointed.
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
5.3 It is submitted that in the absence of any statutory breach,
appointment of respondent No.4 has been made as per the SPU Act,
1955 and hence no writ of quo warranto be issued. It is submitted that
while challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 in the first term,
the Division Bench of the High Court rightly refused to issue a writ of
quo warranto. Therefore, with regard to the appointment of respondent
No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for the second term also, no writ of quo
warranto can be issued.
5.4 It is further submitted by Shri Navare, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - SP University that even
otherwise the petitioner has no locus standi. It is submitted that the
petitioner is an ex-employee of the respondent - University and has a
grudge against the University and therefore, the present writ petition
has been preferred challenging the appointment of Vice Chancellor. It is
prayed not to entertain the writ petition at the instance of such a person.
6. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.4, while adopting the submissions made by Shri Navare,
has further submitted that so far as the appointment of respondent No.4
as a Vice Chancellor for the second term is concerned, UGC Regulations,
2010 are not applicable as UGC Regulations, 2010 have been substituted
by the UGC Regulations, 2018.
7. Ms.