Case: Gambhirdan K Gadhvi Vs. The State of Gujarat &amp; Ors

by virtue of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University and therefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary steps at the Government level as requested in the communication dated 30.08.2014. Even the request made by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very lightly. The State ought to have taken the corrective measures by suitably amending the State legislation on par with the UGC Regulations. 14. The submissions made by Shri Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – SP University that as the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, in which the appointment of respondent No.4 herein as the Vice Chancellor, was under challenge came to be dismissed and the High Court refused to issue a writ of quo warranto and the judgment and order passed by the High Court in SCA No.18922 of 2017 was not disturbed by this Court and therefore, the controversy stands concluded and it is not open for the petitioner to raise the same issue again is concerned, the aforesaid submissions is noted only to be rejected. This Court did not opine anything on the merits of the judgment and order passed by the High Court. This Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the ground that by the time the same was taken up for hearing the tenure of respondent No.4 herein as a Vice Chancellor was coming to an end. Even while dismissing the same on the aforesaid ground alone, this Court specifically observed that all the questions of law are left open. 15. Thus, we find that the appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. Moreover, respondent No.4 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. As observed hereinabove, 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, which is as under: - 1. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment. 2. Persons should be a distinguished academician with proven leadership qualities shall be satisfying anyone of the following: 10 years experience of teaching and research. As professor or Vice Chancellor / Pro Vice Chancellor of any University including former Vice Chancellor / Pro Vice Chancellor or Director / Principal of a college / institution / Research Organization with 15 years of teaching / research / administration. 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. We have 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 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 afore- mentioned 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 in our view 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, we are of the opinion that 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. 16. 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]When a writ of quo warranto will lie has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 501 . In para 19, it has been observed and held as under: -19. A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions. This Court in Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana [(2002) 6 SCC 269]  held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions. In B. Srinivasa Reddy [(2006) 11 SCC 731  (2) : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 548 (2)] , this Court has reiterated the legal position that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one which can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The said position has been reiterated by this Court in Hari Bansh Lal [(2010) 9 SCC 655  : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] wherein this Court has held that for the issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy itself that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.9.1 In the case of Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731,  it has been observed by this Court that strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to some extent in a quo warranto proceedings. It is further observed in the said decision that broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by a judicial order. It is further observed that in other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making appointments to public office against law and to protect citizens from being deprived of public office to which they have a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office. It is further observed that it will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry, as to, whether, the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. Thus, as per the law laid down in a catena of decisions, 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 is holding the 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. Keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the jurisdiction of the Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto, the factual and legal controversy in the present petition is required to be considered.10. Respondent No.4 is holding the post of Vice Chancellor. The post of Vice Chancellor in a University can be said to be a public office. There cannot be any dispute about the same. It is nobodys case that holding the post of Vice Chancellor cannot be said to be holding a post of public office.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 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.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 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, 2010/2018.12.2 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.13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present case the UGC vide communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed to the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of the University has drawn the attention of 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 Regulations of UGC.13.2 Despite the above clear instructions from the office of H.E.– Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of all the universities, it is unfortunate that till date the State legislation has not been amended by the State Government and the appointments to the post of Vice Chancellor in the Universities in the said State are being made just contrary to the UGC guidelines and Regulations. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even in the earlier round of litigation being SCA No.18922 of 2017 in which this very petitioner challenged the appointment of this very respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of SPU made in the year 2016, the Division Bench of the High Court made certain observations against the State Government not adopting the UGC Regulations and not amending the State legislation appropriately.Even the aforesaid observations made in para 24 were taken note of by this Court while disposing of the SLP (C) No.21792 of 2018 in which the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court was under challenge.13.3 Thus, despite the communication by the UGC dated 11.08.2014 and thereafter, the communication by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat dated 30.08.2014 and even the observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court in paragraph 24 in its judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, reproduced hereinabove, it is unfortunate that as on today, no further steps have been taken by the State Government, to amend the State legislation and to put the same at par with the UGC Regulations, and the State and the universities thereunder have continued to make the appointments of Vice Chancellors just contrary to the UGC Regulations, which as observed hereinabove are binding.13.4 At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section 9 of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. – 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. Therefore, even as the head of the University, his advice was/is binding upon the University and therefore, the State ought to have taken the necessary steps at the Government level as requested in the communication dated 30.08.2014. Even the request made by the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very lightly. The State ought to have taken the corrective measures by suitably amending the State legislation on par with the UGC Regulations.14. The submissions made by Shri Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – SP University that as the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, in which the appointment of respondent No.4 herein as the Vice Chancellor, was under challenge came to be dismissed and the High Court refused to issue a writ of quo warranto and the judgment and order passed by the High Court in SCA No.18922 of 2017 was not disturbed by this Court and therefore, the controversy stands concluded and it is not open for the petitioner to raise the same issue again is concerned, the aforesaid submissions is noted only to be rejected. This Court did not opine anything on the merits of the judgment and order passed by the High Court. This Court refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the ground that by the time the same was taken up for hearing the tenure of respondent No.4 herein as a Vice Chancellor was coming to an end. Even while dismissing the same on the aforesaid ground alone, this Court specifically observed that all the questions of law are left open.15. Thus, we find that the appointment of respondent No.4 is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. Moreover, respondent No.4 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. As observed hereinabove, 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.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. We have 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 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 afore- mentioned 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 in our view 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, we are of the opinion that 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.16. 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.