# KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2015] 3 S.C.R. 467
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-03-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5946-5947 of2014
- **Bench:** Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, N. V. Ramana
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kalyani-mathivanan-v-k-v-jeyaraj-and-ors-30525
- **Pages:** 59

## Headnote

Service law-Appointment- Post of Vice-Chancellor
A
B
'C
of the University- Appellant's appointment to the said post
challenged, on the ground that as per the UGC Regulations
2010, appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria -Appellant
neither a distinguished academician, with a minimum of 10 D
years experience as professor in a University system nor 10
years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed
research/academic organization -Appellant's case that she
was qualified for the post as per the 1965 Act; and that UGC
Regulations, 2010 were directory and cannot override the E
provisions of the 1965 Act- Appointment set aside by the
High Court- On appeal, held: Post of Vice-Chancellor under
the 1965 Act is a post of an Officer - Provisions regarding
Vice-Chancellor was made for the first time under UGC F
Regulations, 201 O"'" UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory
to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central
Universities and Colleges thereunder; and directory for the
Universities, Colleges and other higher educational
institutions under the State Legislation as the matter has been G
left to the State Government to adopt and implement the
Scheme - Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory
and is partly directory- UGC Regulations, 2010 having not
adopted by the State, the conflict between State Legislation
.H
467
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A
and Statutes framed under Central Legislation does not arise
- Once it is adopted by the State Government, the State
Legislation is to be amended appropriately and there shall
be no conflict between the State Legislation and the Central
Legislation - Thus, the appointment of the appellant as Vice
B Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University upheld - UGC
Regulations of Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards
C inHigher Education 2010- Regulations 7.0.0., 7.3.0., 7.4.0
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - ss. 12, 14, 26,
28- Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965 - ss. 2(m), (n),
(t), 8, 9, 10, 12, 23, 24, 32-Constitution of/ndia, 1950-Art.
246, Seventh Schedule List I entry 66, List Ill entry 25, Art.
D 254.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appointment of the appellant as
ViceChancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University as made by
E the G.O. (1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 is upheld
and the judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Para 45] [525-A-B]
F
1.2 The post of Vice-Chancellor under the
University Act, 1965 isa post of an Officer. The University
Grants Commission Act 1956 as also University Grants
Commission Regulations, 2000 are silent in regard to
G post of Vice-Chancellor. The provisions regarding ViceChancellor have been made for the firsttime under UGC
Regulations, 201 o. UGC Regulations, 2010 is not
applicable to the Universities, Colleges and other higher
educational institutions coming under the purview of the
H · State Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
469
and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and A
conditions therein. The University Act has not been
amended in terms of UGC Regulations, 2010 nor was
any action taken by the UGC under Section 14 of UGC
Act, .1956 as a consequence of failure of University to
comply with the recommendations of the Commission B
under Section 14ofthe UGCAct, 1956. (Para 39, 40] (520F-H; 521-A-B, C-D]
1.3 To the extentthe State Legislation is in conflict
with Central Legislation including sub-ordinate C
legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry
25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the
Central Legislation and would be inoperative. The UGC
Regulations being passed by both the Houses of D
Parliament, though a sub-ordinate legislation has binding
effect on the Universities to which it applies. UGC
Regulat

## Text

_Characters 0–39,285 of 91,121. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39285 for what follows._

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 467
KALYANI MATHIVANAN
v.
K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 5946-5947 of2014
MARCH 11, 2015.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
N. V. RAMANA, JJ.]
Service law-Appointment- Post of Vice-Chancellor
A
B
'C
of the University- Appellant's appointment to the said post
challenged, on the ground that as per the UGC Regulations
2010, appellant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria -Appellant
neither a distinguished academician, with a minimum of 10 D
years experience as professor in a University system nor 10
years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed
research/academic organization -Appellant's case that she
was qualified for the post as per the 1965 Act; and that UGC
Regulations, 2010 were directory and cannot override the E
provisions of the 1965 Act- Appointment set aside by the
High Court- On appeal, held: Post of Vice-Chancellor under
the 1965 Act is a post of an Officer - Provisions regarding
Vice-Chancellor was made for the first time under UGC F
Regulations, 201 O"'" UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory
to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central
Universities and Colleges thereunder; and directory for the
Universities, Colleges and other higher educational
institutions under the State Legislation as the matter has been G
left to the State Government to adopt and implement the
Scheme - Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory
and is partly directory- UGC Regulations, 2010 having not
adopted by the State, the conflict between State Legislation
.H
467
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A
and Statutes framed under Central Legislation does not arise
- Once it is adopted by the State Government, the State
Legislation is to be amended appropriately and there shall
be no conflict between the State Legislation and the Central
Legislation - Thus, the appointment of the appellant as Vice
B Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University upheld - UGC
Regulations of Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and
Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards
C inHigher Education 2010- Regulations 7.0.0., 7.3.0., 7.4.0
- University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - ss. 12, 14, 26,
28- Madurai Kamaraj University Act, 1965 - ss. 2(m), (n),
(t), 8, 9, 10, 12, 23, 24, 32-Constitution of/ndia, 1950-Art.
246, Seventh Schedule List I entry 66, List Ill entry 25, Art.
D 254.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appointment of the appellant as
ViceChancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University as made by
E the G.O. (1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 is upheld
and the judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court is set aside. [Para 45] [525-A-B]
F
1.2 The post of Vice-Chancellor under the
University Act, 1965 isa post of an Officer. The University
Grants Commission Act 1956 as also University Grants
Commission Regulations, 2000 are silent in regard to
G post of Vice-Chancellor. The provisions regarding ViceChancellor have been made for the firsttime under UGC
Regulations, 201 o. UGC Regulations, 2010 is not
applicable to the Universities, Colleges and other higher
educational institutions coming under the purview of the
H · State Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
469
and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and A
conditions therein. The University Act has not been
amended in terms of UGC Regulations, 2010 nor was
any action taken by the UGC under Section 14 of UGC
Act, .1956 as a consequence of failure of University to
comply with the recommendations of the Commission B
under Section 14ofthe UGCAct, 1956. (Para 39, 40] (520F-H; 521-A-B, C-D]
1.3 To the extentthe State Legislation is in conflict
with Central Legislation including sub-ordinate C
legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry
25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the
Central Legislation and would be inoperative. The UGC
Regulations being passed by both the Houses of D
Parliament, though a sub-ordinate legislation has binding
effect on the Universities to which it applies. 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 E
whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. 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 F
implement the Scheme. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is
partly mandatory and is partly directory. UGC
Regulations, 2010 having not adopted by the State Tamil
Nadu, the question of conflict between State Legislation
and Statutes framed under Central Legislation does not G
arise. Once it is 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. [Para 44] [524H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A B-H]
1.4 The finding of the Bombay High Court in
*Suresh Patilkhede case that Regulation 7 .3.0 of the UGC
~egulations, 2010 is not traceable to clause (e) or (g) of
B . Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956 cannot be accepted. Also
it cannot be accepted that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 being a sub-ordinate legislation under
the Act of Parliament cannot override the preliminary
legislation enacted by the State Legislature. However,
C the finding of the Bombay High Court that Regulation
7.3.0 has to be treated as recommendatory in nature is
upheld in so far as it relates to Universities ~nd Colleges
under the State Legislation. [Para 43) [523-F-H; 524-A]
D
E
F
G
H
Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government,
Information and Tourism Department and Others 2009
(3) SCR 355: (2009) 4 sec 590 - relied on .
.
Suresh Patilkhede of Thane vs. Chancellor, University
of Maharashtra 2012 (6) ALLMR 336; State of Tamil
Nadu and another vs. Adhiyhaman Education &
Research
Institute and Others 1995 (2)
SCR 1075: (1995) 4SCC104; Dr. Preeti Srivastava
and another vs. State of M.P. and others 1999 (1)
Suppl. SCR 249: (1999) 7 SCC 120- referred to.
Case Law Reference
2012 (6) ALLMR 336
Referred to.
Para 9
1995 (2) SCR 1075
Referred to.
Para 34
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249
Referred to.
Para 35
2009 (3) SCR 355
Relied on.
Para 36
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
471
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
A
5946-5947 of2014.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2014 of
the High Court of Madras in Madurai bench in W. P. (MD)
Nos.11350of2012and3318of2013
B
WITH
C. A. Nos. 8602-8603 and 6455-6456 of 20:14
K. K. Venugopal, Rakesh Dwivedi, Guru Krishna C
Kumar, R. Venkataramani, Subramonium Prasad,AAG, Gopal
Sankranarayanan, Prerna Priyadarshni, Pooja Dhar,
Vikramaditya, MegaAggarwal, S. Janani, M. Yogesh Kanna,
V. Shyamohan, C. Y. Dhinoja,Abhishek Kumar, G Balaji, Athira . D
Nair, Mahalakshmi Pavani, Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co., Satya
Mitra Garg, ManjuAggarwal, Neelam Singh, Geetha Kovilan
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. These
appeals have been preferred· by the appellants against a
common judgment and order dated 26th June, 2014 passed
E
by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai
Bench in Writ Petition (MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition F
(MD) No.3318of2013.
The aforesaid writ petitions were preferred by K.V.
Jeyaraj and I. Ismail respondents/writ petitioners praying for
issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing the appellant- Dr. G
Kalyani Mathivanan to show cause under what authority she
continues to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor, Madurai
Kamaraj University.
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 3 S.C.R.
A
2. By the impugned judgment the High Court held that
the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan did not satisfy the
eligibility criteria stipulated by the UGC Regulations of
Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other
Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures
B for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010
(hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Regulations, 201 O') for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor and non-fulfilment of such
eligibility criteria cannot be completely white washed on the
C specious plea that the University Grants Commission
Regulations, 2010 are not mandatory. The High Court set aside
the order of appointment of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani
Mathivanan and allowed the writ petitions.
D
3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
The post of Vice-Chancellor in Madurai Kamaraj
University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') fell vacant
in the year 2011-2012 and the Government constituted a
search Committee to appoint a suitable candidate. All together
E names of 104 persons were considered by the search
Committee and finally three persons namely (1) Dr. R.
Jayaraman, Professor of Management Studies (Retd.),
Member Secretary, Centre for Entrepreneurship Development,
F Madurai, (2)Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, Head of the Department
of English, Ethiraj College for Women, Cherinai and (3)Dr. T.
Ramasamy, Professor of History (on lien) Re9istrar,
Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli were short listed. On
the basis of the recommendation of the search Committee,
G the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan was selected and
appointed as Vice-Chancellor by G.0.(1D)No.80, Higher
Education (H2)Department, Gov&1mment'ofTamil Nadu dated
9th April, 2012 for a period of three years with effect from the
date of assumption of office.
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K: V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
473
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
4. Challenging the selection of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani A
Mathivanan, two separate writ petitions were preferred by Dr.
K.V. Jeyaraj, and Dr. I. Ismail, who were aspirants to the said
post-respondents herein. The said challeng~ was mainly on
the ground that as per UGC Regulations, 2010, the person to
be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, should be a distinguished B
academician, with a minimum of 10 years experience as
Professor in a University system or 10 years of experience in
an equivalent position in a reputed research/academic
organization and Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan does not satisfy the C
said criteria. The High Court took up both the writ petitions
together for disposal and by the judgment and order allowed
the writ petitions and set aside the appointment order of
appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor.
D
5. The appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan on notice.
appeared before the High Court and brought to the notice of
the Court the following facts:
She was appointed as Assistant Professor in Ethiraj
College on 16th January, 1981. The Government of Tamil Nadu E
on 5th December, 1983 redesignated the post of Assistant
Professor as Lecturer and Professor as Lecturer [Senior
Scale/Selection Grade]. She was promoted as Lecturer
(Senior Scale) in Ethiraj College on 22nd August, 1991. Since,
F
1995, the appellant has been a recognized Guide for M.Phil.
candidates in the University of Madras. The appellant was
promoted as Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader on 7th May,
1998 and since then she has been a Recognized Guide for
Ph.D candidate in the University of Madras. In 2008, She was G
promoted as Head of the English Department, Ethiraj College.
On 9th September, 2009, the Department of Higher Education,
Government of Tamil Nadu based on the report of the Official
Committee constituted to examine the recommendations of
H
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A the GK. Chadha Committee, passed an order that there shall
be only three designations in respect of Teachers in
Universities and Colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors. It was further ordered
that the posts of Professors shall be created for underB Graduate and Post-Graduate Colleges on the basis of
guidelines prescribed therein. However, this direction has not
been implemented till date in the State of Tamil Nadu.
6. On behalf of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, it
C · was further contended that she is qualified for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor of the University as per the Madurai Kamaraj
University Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'University
· Act, 1965'). It was further contended that the UGC Regulations,
0 2010 are not mandatory but directory and cannot override the
provisions of the University Act, 1965.
E
F
G
H
7. The High Court by the impugned order framed the
fol.lowing questions for consideration, namely:
(i) whether the post of Associate Professor held by the
appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan in a private aided
College can be considered as an equivalent post,
satisfying requirement of paragraph 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2010;
(ii) whether the prescriptions contained in paragraph
7.3 .. 0 of theAnnexure. to the UGC Regulations, 2010 is
. mandatory or directory; and whether the U.G.C.
Regulation, 2010 would override the provisions of the
University Act, 1965 and the Statute framed thereunder.
8. The High Court after taking into consideration the
qualification laid down in theAnnexure to the UGC Regulations,
2010 answered the first question in negative, against the.
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
475
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan.
The High Court also rejected the submission that the ViceChancellor need not be a Professor or teacher and
observed as follows:
"44. Therefore, it is not possible to accept contention
that drawing inspiration from the past, one need not be
a Professor or even a teacher to become a ViceChancellor. As a matter of fact, several committees
were constituted in the past about 70 years by the
Government of India, to improve the standards of
Universities. Recently, a study was conducted by two
persons by name K. Sudha Rao, Vice-Chancellor,
Karnataka State Open University, Mysore and Advisor
ASERF and Mithilesh Kr. Singh, Senior Fellow,
(ASERF), New Delhi analysing the different methods
adopted for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor in
Indian Universities in comparison to those adopted by
some foreign Universities.
45. This paper indicates that as per the reports of
the Radhakrishnan Commission (1948:422-23),
Kothari Commission (1964-1966: 333-35), Gnanam
Committee (1990: 27-30) and Ram/al Parujg
Committee (1993:15-17), the Vice-Chancellors have
an important role in maintaining the quality and
relevance of universities. The highlights of some of the
committees were extracted in the said paper by the
learned authors as follows:-
Generally the Vice-Chancellor should be a
distinguished educationist or eminent scholar in any
of the disciplines or professions, with a high standing
in his/her field and adequate administrative
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
476
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 3 S.C.R.
experience. We are not generally in favour of
appointment of persons who have retired from other
fields. An exception to this general recommendation
should be made only in the case of very outstanding
persons whose association with the universities would
be desirable from every point of view and should not
be made an excuse for accommodating' or 'rewarding
individuals who do not fulfill the conditions laid down. A
Vice-Chancellor is one who stands for the commitment
of the University to scholarship and pursuit of
truth.(Kothari Commission 1964-66:334)
A Vice-Chancellor should be a person with vision.
and (have) qualities of academic leadership with ability
for administration. 1-/e should command high respect
among all sections of the society. The Vice-Chancellor
should be a distinguished academic ... (who) has
commitment to the values for which the Universities
stand .... He must have the ability to provide leadership
to the University by his academic worth, administrative
competence and moral stature,. (Kothari Commission
1964-66:334)
Parikh Committee was not in favour of appointing
Government officials as VCs. Quoting the Kothari
Commission Report, the Parikh Committee mentions
that the Vice-Chancellor is the most important
functionary in a University not only on the
administrative side but is also charged with the
responsibility of creating the right atmosphere for
teachers and students.
The Universities need distinguished and dignified
persons as VCs and it is necessary to ensure that they
are treated with dignity and regard, which the office
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
477
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
merits. (Ram/a/ Parikh Committee 1993: 15).
The Vice-Chancellor is the most important
functionary in a University, not only on the
administrative side but also for securing the right
atmosphere for the teachers and the students to do their
work effectively and in the right spirit. (Report of the
Committee on Model Act for Universities 1964:11)
The Vice-Chancellor being the principal executive
and academic officer of the University, should exercise
general supervision and control over the affairs of the
University and give effect to the decision of all its
authorities. He shall be the ex-officio Chairman of the
Court, Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance
Committee and Selection Committees and shall, in the
absence of the Chancellor preside at any convocation
of the University for conferring degrees. It shall be .the
duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that the provisions
of the Act, Statutes and Ordinances and Regulations
are fully observed and he should have the power
necessary for the discharge of this duty.
(Gajendragadkar Committee on the Governance of the
Unviersity, 1971 :60).
In accordance with Regulation 1 for the office of
VG (Statutes and Ordinances of Cambridge University,
June 2002:655) ... VG is of a stature and his/her
presence commensurate to lead a distinguished
academic institution. The stated mission of the
University is to contribute to society through the pursuit
of education, learning, and research at the highest
international levels of excellence. The VG must f?e of
exceptional caliber with academic credibility, clear
strategic vision, and outstanding leadership qualities.
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
478
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
He/she should have strong management skills and ·
senior level experience gained in a complex institution
and the ability to bring them to bear in a democratic,
self governing University. The ability to promote the
University in a regional, national and international
context, and to increase the financial resources
available to the University, should be key, particularly
in order to realise the full potential of the University."
9. By the impugned judgment, the Madras High Court
C differed with the finding of the Bombay High Court in a similar
case, "Suresh Patilkhede of Thane vs. Chancellor,
University of Maharashtra, in PIL (L} No.8012011, 2012
(6) ALLMR 336. The Bombay High Court by the said judgment
.o
E
F
G
H
held that Vice-Chancellor in his said capacity cannot be
considered as a member of the academic or teaching staff of
the University and also held that the UGC Regulations, 2010
is directory in nature. In the impugned judgment Madras High
Court observed as follows:
"46. Therefore, with great respect, we are unable to
subscribe to the view expressed by the Bombay High
Court in paragraph 13 of the decision in Suresh
Patikhede that the Vice-Chancellor need not be
considered as a member of the academic teaching
staff.
10. The High Court further observed:
"48. If University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010
will have to be given effect to (subject to our finding on
the next two facets of question No.2), the ViceChancel/or should actually be a distinguished
academician. Today, Albert Einstein cannot be
appointed as the Vice-Chanceilor of any University (at
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
479
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
least in India) unless he fulfills the qualifications
prescribed by University Grants Commission, the
reason being that after a legislative enactment lays
down the objective criteria, there is no place for
subjective satisfaction.
49. We do not mean to say that the fourth respondent is
not an academician. She has always been a teacher
and Mr. A.L. Somayaji, teamed Advocate General took
great pains to highlight the academic and other
achievements of the fourth respondent. But we are
solely on the question as to whether we could concur
with the opinion of the Bombay High Court that a ViceChancellor is not part of the teaching staff. There may
be a hair splitting difference between being part of an
academic stream and being part of the teaching faculty.
But it is not possible for us to accept the interpretation
that one can be the academic head but cannot be
considered as part of the teaching staff."
11. For determination of the second question, the
High Court formulated three issues as follows:
"33. In our considered view, the second question
before us, actually has three facets namely:-
a) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor is not to be
considered as part of the teaching staff;
b) Whether the Madurai Kamaraj University Act
A
B
c
D
E
F
and the Statutes issued thereunder prescribe a different
G
set of qualifications for the post of Vice-Chancellor than
those prescribed by the University Grants Commission
Regulations, 2010 leading to a conflict; and
c) Whether in the event of a conflict between the
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015) 3 S.C.R.
A
State enactment and the University Grants Commission
Regulations, 2010, the provisions of the State
enactment would prevail."
12. The High Court held that the post of Vice-Chancellor
B
is a part of academia i.e. teaching staff and the UGC
Regulations, 2010 will prevail over the State enactment i.e.
University Act and the Statutes framed thereunder in the event
of a conflict.
c
13. The High Court in the impugned judgment discussed
D
E
F
G
H
the background history of appointment of Vice-Chancellor in
India and observed as follows:
"43. It is true that when the seeds of Western
education were shown in this country about 150 years
ago, men of eminence from various walks of life were
appointed as Vice-Chancellors. Several Judges of this
Court have adorned the post of Vice-Chancellor of
various Universities including the Madras University
itself. But apart from being great (and rare) Judges,
those men were also distinguished academicians who
excelled in various fields.
students of Indian History would know that Sir John
George Woodraffwho was a Judge of the Calcutta High
Court and who retired as the Officiating Chief Justice
of the same Court, collaborated with Ameer Ali in
publishing the Civil Procedure Code. He was a great
Sanskrit scholar wl10 authored books on Mantra Sastra
and Tantra Sastra, After retiring as the Officiating Chief
Justice, he served a Reader in law in the Oxford
University for seven years. Great Jurists, both (Lawyers
and Judges) such as Sir Subramanya Ayyar, Sir
PS.SivaswamyAwar; JusticeF.D. Oldfield were among
•
+
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
481
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
a few who became the Vice-Chancellors of Madras
A
University, ever since its inception about 150 years.
But today, it is not possible to continue with the same
legacy or two reasons, namely:-
( a) that we do not have such tall men of great
B
eminence and
(b) that today the field is regulated by law."
14. The High Court also relied on an Article titled 'Why C
Socrates should be in the Boardroom in Research
Universities', published in 2010 by Amanda H. Goodall, for
determining the case and observed as follows:
"47. In an interesting Article, titled Why Socrates
should be in the Boardroom in Research Universities,
published in 2010 by Amanda H. Goodall, Leverhulme
Fellow, Warwick Business School, the author points out
two contrasting events that happened in 2003 and 2004.
It is common knqwledge that Cambridge University
came into existence in 1209 and almost about 800
years later, a distinguished Anthropologist, by name
Alison Richard, was appointed as the 344th President
or Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge. She was an
acclaimed academician. In contrast to what happened
at Cambridge in 2003, Oxford University appointed in
2004, a person by name John Hood, who was not an
academic but was only a businessman. He became
the first head of Oxford University, ever since the year
1230, to be elected to the Vice-Chancellorship from
outside the University's current academic body. The
paper authored by Amanda Goodall considered the
question as to why Cambridge and Oxford chose such
different individuals to lead their ancient and reputed
D
E
F
G
H
482
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 3 S.C.R.
institutions. The central theme of the paper was as to
whether there was a relationship between University
performance and leadership by an accomplished
researcher. Eventually, after analysing the statistics from
about 100 Universities throughout the world, the author
came to the conclusion, supported by evidence that
Research Universities should be led by top scholars.
The conclusions reached by the author could be
summarized as follows:
(i) That the best Universities in the world are led by
more established scholars;
(ii) That scholar-leaders are considered to be more
credible leaders in Universities, commanding greater
respect from their academic peers.
(iii) That setting an organisation's academic
standards is a significant part of the function of the ViceChancellor and hence one should expect the standard
bearer to first year that standard.
(iv) That a leader, who is an established scholar,
signals the institution's priorities, internally to its faculties
and externally to potential new academic recruits,
students, alumni, donors and the media. '
(v) That since scholarship cannot be viewed as a
proxy for either management experience or leadership
skills, an expert leader must also have expertise in
areas other than scholarship."
15. Learned counsel for parties relied on the aforesaid
observation made by the High Court but we are of the view
that it is not necessary to notice the background history of
· H appointment of Vice-Chan~llors or the great personalities who
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
483
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
held such posts or the interestingArticle, titled 'Why Socrates A
should be in the Boardroom in Research Universities',
published in 2010 by Amanda H. Goodall as they are not
relevant for determining the issue involved in the present case.
16.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Dr. Kalyani B
Mathivanan, has taken similar pleas as were taken before the
High Court.
17.
The contesting respondent No.1-Dr. K.Y. Jeyaraj
has taken the following pleas:
{i) The words "Teaching Staff of the University" occuning
in Clause (e) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956 are
words of wide import. Section 2(n) of the Madurai
Kamaraj University Act defines Teachers of the
University, as persons appointed by the University to
give instruction on its behalf. Any person appointed to
the University including the Vice-Chancellor, other than
mere administrative staff can be required by the
University to give instructions on its behalf. Thus,
teaching staff should include those who are appointed
to contribute and who can be called upon to contribute
to or assigned to contribute to educational activities of
the University in its functional sense.
(ii) The UGC regulations having been perceived to be
for the advancement and promotion of University
education, will qualify as a high principle of persuasive
public policy which would commend itself for acceptance
by the University. It is a matter of fact that no University
Act .has provided for, or enacted in respect of
qualifications for appointment of Vice-Chancellors. To
the extent that such a matter is not occupied by State
University legislation falling under Entry 25 of the
c
D
E
F
G
H
484
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
concurrent list, it would be subject to all provisions
enacted including regulations, traceable to Entry 66,
List- I. This Hon'ble Court has declared that regulations
made under statutes traceable to Entry 66 would also
fall within the scope of Entry 66 and would override
legislation under Entry 25.
(iii) The UGC Regulations are persuasive principles
of public policy relevant for the promotion and
advancement of University and higher education.
Consequently in the absence of any higher standards
and in the absence of any other relevant guidelines,
the appointing authority cannot act in disregard of the
UGC guidelines. The selection process will be a
process void for Jack of any standard. Acting in this
regard would thus be in frustration of the object and
purposes of UGC Act as well as the University
legislation itself.
(iv) A person appointed to a public office without
reference to any standards or norms or criteria, has no
right to hold such an office. Since all appointments to
all public offices created by statutes have to be made
on the basis of a norm, standard or a criterion, the onus
is on the person appointed to show that a relevant norm,
standard or criterion has been adopted. This has not
been done by the appellant.
(v) No case has been canvassed that the appointment
in question is otherwise based on a relevant standard
or criterion, higher in quality than the UGC Regulations.
No case has also been made out that on the application
of such a higher criterion that the appointing authority
did not find any other person considered for
appointment, as suitable and fit enough to be appointed
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
485
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
as Vice-Chancellor.
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and the issues that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether UGC Regulations, 2010 is mandatory in
nature; and
(ii) Whether in the event of conflict between the
University Act, Regulations framed thereunder and the
UGC Regulations, 2010, the provisions of the UGC
Regulations, 2010 would prevail or not; and
(iii) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor of a University
is to be considered as part of teaching staff.
A
B
c
19. For determination of these issues, it is necessary D
to notice the relevant provisions of University Commission Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as the, 'UGC Act, 1956'), UGC
Regulations, 2010, the University Act, 1965 and the statutes
framed thereunder.
E
University Grants Commission Act, 1956:
UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisions for
the co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities
and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants F
Commission.
Section 12 deals with the 'function of the Commission', relevant
of which is quoted hereunder:
"12. It shall be the general duty of the Commission to
take, in consultation with the Universities or other bodies
concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the
promotion and co-ordination of University education
and for the determination and maintenance of standards
G
H
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2015] 3 S.C.R.
A
of teaching, examination and research in Universities,
and for the purpose of performing its functions under
this Act, the Commission mayB
c
D
( a) inquire into the financial needs of Universities;
(b) ............................. .
(c) ............................. .
(d) recommend to any University the measures
necessary for the improvement of University education
and advise the University upon the action to be taken
for the purpose of implementing such recommendation;
(e) to (i) ... ....................... .
(j) perform such other functions as may be
prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the
Commission for advancing the cause of higher
education in India or as maybe incidental or
E
conducive to the discharge of the above functions."
F
G
H
Section 14 deals with 'consequences offailure of
Universities to comply with recommendations of the
Commission' which is as follows:
14. If any University 1 [grants affiliation in respect of any
course of study to any college referred to in subsection
(5) of section 12A in contravention of the provisions of
that. sub-section or] fails within a reasonable time to
comply with any recommendation made by the
Commission under section 12 or section 13, 2[or
contravenes the provision of any rule made under
clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 25,
or of any regulation made underclause(e) orclausejf)
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
487
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
or clause (g) of section 26,] the Commission, after
A
taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by
the University 3[for Such failure or contraventions may
withhold from the University the grants proposed to be
made out of the Fund of the Commission."
20.
Another relevant provision with which we are
concerned is Section 26 - 'power to make regulations'. The ·
. relevant portion of the said section is quoted below:
B
"Section 26. (1) The Commission {may, by notification
c
in the Official Gazette, make regulations] consistent with
this Act and the rules made thereunder-
(a) to (d) x x x x x
"(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily
be required of any person to be appointed to the
· teaching staff of the University, having regard to the
branch of education in which he is expected to give
instruction;"
(f)xxxx
"(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the
co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities."
21. As per Section 28 the Rules and Regulations framed
under the U. GC. Act are required to be laid before each House
D
E
F
of Parliament and when both the Houses agree then the Rules
and Regulations can be given effect with such modification as
may be made by the Parliament. Section 28 reads as below: G
"Section 28. Every rule and every regulation made
under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is
made, before each House of Parliament while it is in
H
488
A
B
c
D
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
session, for a total period of thirty days which may be
comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session
immediately following the session, or the successive
sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any
modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses
agree that the rule or regulation should not be made,
the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in
such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may,
be; so, however, that any such modification or
annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of
anything previously done under that rule or regulation.']
[No rule made or purporting to have been made, with
retrospective effect, under section 25 of the principal
Act before the commencement of this Act shall be
deemed to have been invalid or ever to have been
invalid merely on the round that such rule was made
with retrospective effect and accordingly every such rule
E
and every action taken or thing done thereunder shall
be as valid and effective as if the provisions of section
25 of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, were in
force at all material times when such rule was made or
F
action or thing was taken or done.]"
22. From the aforesaid provisions, we find that the
University Grants Commission has been established for the
determination of standard of Universities, promotion and coordina~ion of University education, for the determination and
G maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and
research in Universities, for defining the qualifications
regarding the teaching staff of the University, maintenance of
standards etc. For the purpose of performing its functions under
the UGC Act (see Section 12) like defining the qualifications
H
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.
489
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
and standard that should ordinarily be required of any person A
to be appointed in the Universities [see Section 26(1)(e)(g)]
UGC is empowered to frame regulations.
It is only when both the Houses of the Parliament
approve the regulation, the same can be given effect. Thus, B
we hold that the U.G.C. Regulations though a subordinate
legislation has binding effect on the Universities to which it
applies; and consequence of failure of the University to comply
with the recommendations of the Commission, the UGC may
withhold the grants to the university made out of the Fund of C
the Commission. (See Section 14)
23. UGC Regulations, 2010 and Annexure
enclosed therein
For the appointment and career· advancement of
teachers in the Universities and Institutions affiliated to it UGC
D
by Regulation No.F.3-1/2000(PS) dated 4th April, 2000,
enacted the University Grants Commission(Minimum
qualifications required for the appointment and career E
advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions
affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as
the "UGC Regulations, 2000"). In the said Regulation of 2000,
no qualifications were prescribed for the post of 'ProChancellor' or ·v:ce-Chancellor'.
F
The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource
Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by
letter No.1-32/2006-U.ll/U.l(i) dated 31st December, 2008
communicated the Secretary, University Grants Commission,
G
New Delhi the Scheme of revision of pay of teachers and
equivalent cadres in Universities and Colleges following the
revision of pay scales of Central Government employees on
the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.
H
\
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 3 S.C.R.
A . By the said letter, the Government of India directed that there
shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in
Universities and Colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors.
B
In the said letter revised Pay Scales, Service Conditions
and Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent
positions including the post of Assistant Professors/Associate
Professors/Professors in Universities and Colleges were
intimated. Pay scales of Pro-Vice-ChancellorNice-Chancellor
C 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 State legislature, provided State Governments wish to adopt
0
and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned therein.
24.
In view of the aforesaid letter No.1-3212006-U .II/
U.l(i), dated 31st December, 2008 issued by the Government
of India and in exercise of the powers conferred under clause
E (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act,
1956, UGC enacted Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the
UGC Regulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of
India on 28th June, 2010 and came into force with immediate
F effect. Relevant portion of the said Regulations is as follows:
"UGC REGULATIONS
ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER
ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND
G
COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE
H
MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION 2010
To be published in the gazette of India
Part Ill Sector 4
KALYANI MATHIVANAN v. K. V.