STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 946, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
946
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022)
OCTOBER 11, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Universities – Vice-Chancellor – Re-appointment of –
Challenge to – Calcutta University Act, 1979 – ss. 8 and 60 – High
Court allowed petition u/Art.226 seeking a writ of quo warranto
against the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University – The High
Court held that the State government had no authority to appoint
or re-appoint the VC under s.8 of the Act, or by taking recourse to
the residuary provisions of s.60 of the Act – As a consequence, the
order issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West
Bengal re-appointing the incumbent VC of Calcutta University was
set aside – The High Court held that the scheme of s.8 empowers
only the Chancellor to appoint, re-appoint, temporarily appoint or
remove the VC; and s.60 to which recourse was taken by the State
government provides only for the removal of difficulties arising in
giving effect to the provisions of the statute – Apart from the reasoning
based on the provisions of the Act, the High Court also held that
the UGC Regulations envisage that the appointment of a VC can be
made only by a Visitor / Chancellor, and this came in the way of the
State government making the appointment – On appeal, held: There
is neither an express provision nor a necessary intendment by which
it could be inferred that the
power which is entrusted to the
Chancellor to appoint a VC is taken away in the case of re-
appointment – A re-appointment is the appointment of an existing
incumbent who fulfils the conditions of eligibility – The power of
appointment including of reappointment is entrusted to the
Chancellor and not the State Government – The amended provisions
of s.8(2)(a) of the Act cannot be construed to mean that the power
of reappointment has been taken away from the Chancellor and
entrusted to the State government – Where there is a specific
provision, as in the present case s.8(2)(a), it was not open to the
State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 946
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties – The State
government chose the incorrect path under s.60 by misusing the
“removal of difficulty clause” to usurp the power of the Chancellor
to make the appointment – The government cannot misuse the
“removal of difficulty clause” to remove all obstacles in its path
which arise due to statutory restrictions – Allowing such actions
would be antithetical to the rule of law – In the guise of removing
the difficulties, the State cannot change the scheme and essential
provisions of the Act – Even if the provisions of the Act allowed the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would
be in violation of the UGC Regulations – The Regulations become
part of the statute framed by Parliament and will prevail – The
judgment of the High Court is correct in law and on fact and does
not warrant interference in appeal – The State government could
not have issued the order re-appointing the VC – The University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of
Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations 2018 – Regulation 7.3 – Constitution of
India – Art. 226.
Writs – Writ of Quo Warranto – Held: The writ of quo warranto
can be issued where an appointment has not been made in
accordance with the law – Constitution of India – Article 226 –
Service Law – Appointment.
Interpretation of
Statutes – Where there is a specific provision,
it is not open to the State government to conjure up a lacunae or
omission and purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties
– Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations
and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation
effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would
defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Interpretation of Statutes – A statute must be read to avoid a
construction which would make certain provisions or terms
meaningless or redundant – An effort must be made to read the
provisions of the statute in a holistic manner so as to imbue it with
meaning and content.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. Through a line of cases, this Court has laid out
the terms on which the writ of quo warranto may be exercised.
The Court has settled the position that the writ of quo warranto
can be issued where an appointment has not been made in
accordance with the law. [Paras 23 and 28][963-A; 965-F]
University of Mysore v C.D. Govindra Rao, (1964) 4
SCR 575 – followed.
High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor
Panchayat, (2003) 4 SCC 712; B. Srinivasa Reddy v.
Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board
Employees’ Assn. (2006) 11 SCC 731; Central
Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo
(2014) 1 SCC 161 and Bharati Reddy v. State of
Karnataka (2018) 6 SCC 162 – relied on.
2.1. The procedure for appointing a VC is prescribed in
clauses (b) and (c) of Section 8(1) of the Calcutta University Act
1979. Clause (b) postulates that (i) a search committee has to be
constituted by the state government; (ii) the search committee
has to prepare a panel of three names in order of preference; (iii)
in preparing the panel, the search committee has to give proper
weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher
education system in the country and abroad, adequate experience
in academic and administrative governance; (iv) the search
committee has to reflect its consideration of the above in writing
while submitting the panel to the Chancellor; and (v) the search
committee has
to consist of three persons as stipulated in Section
8(1)(c). [Para 33][966-H; 967-A-B]
2.2. In the case of a reappointment, the unamended
provisions of Section 8(2)(a) provided earlier that a VC would be
eligible for reappointment for a period not exceeding four years,
“subject to the provisions of this section”. The provisions of
Section 8(2)(a) were substituted by the Amending Act of 2019.
Section 8(2)(a) as amended stipulates that a VC shall be eligible
for reappointment for another term of four years “subject to the
satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of his past
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
academic excellence and administrative success established
during his term of office in the capacity of VC”. [Para 34][967-C]
2.3. Section 8(2)(a) is sought to be interpreted by the
appellants as indicating that the power of reappointment is taken
away from the Chancellor and is entrusted to the State
government. This would be an incorrect reading of the statutory
provision. Section 8(2)(a) provides for (i) the term of office of a
VC; (ii) eligibility for reappointment; (iii) the term of office upon
reappointment; (iv) the conditions subject to which a person shall
be eligible for reappointment; and (v) the outer age limit of 70
years. The expression “subject to the satisfaction of the State
government” cannot by a process of inferential reasoning be
construed to vest the power of reappointment in the State
government. The provisions of Section 8 envisage diverse
situations. While the eligibility for appointment is indeed
determined by the State government’s satisfaction, the power of
making the appointment continues to vest in the Chancellor.
[Paras 36 and 37][967-F-H; 968-A]
2.4. The effect of the words “subject to the provisions of
this section” in Section 8(2)(a) in its unamended form was that
the reappointment would have to be in a manner provided in
Section 8, which obviously included Section 8(1). Deletion of those
words in Section 8(2)(a), as amended, would mean that the
procedure which has been prescribed for making the appointment
of a VC,
namely the appointment of a search committee and the
preparation of a panel, would not be attracted in the case of a
reappointment. In the case of a reappointment, a VC who has
completed a term of four years would be eligible subject to the
satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of their
past academic excellence and administrative record during the
term of office held as a VC. [Para 40][968-F-H; 969-A]
3. It is a settled principle of law that a statute must be read
to avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or
terms meaningless or redundant. An effort must be made to read
the provisions of the statute in a holistic manner so as to imbue it
with meaning and content. [Para 41][969-B-D]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Union of India v Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273 :
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 324 and Aswini Kumar Ghose v.
Arabinda Bose 1953 SCR 1 – referred to.
Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co. Ltd. v. Vandry,
AIR 1920 PC 181 – referred to.
4.1. There is neither an express provision nor a necessary
intendment by which it could be inferred that the power which is
entrusted to the Chancellor to appoint a VC is taken away in the
case of a reappointment. A reappointment is the appointment of
an existing incumbent who fulfils the conditions of eligibility. The
fulfilment of the conditions makes a person eligible for
reappointment. The power of appointment including of
reappointment is entrusted to the Chancellor and not to the State
government. The amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a) cannot
therefore be construed to mean that the power of reappointment
has been taken away from the Chancellor and entrusted to the
State government. Reading the provisions in such a manner, would
make the provisions entrusting the power of appointment of the
VC with the Chancellor redundant. [Para 42][969-D-F]
4.2. Moreover, in the present case, the State government
itself made a reference to the Chancellor when the issue as
regards the reappointment of the VC came up. Evidently as the
State government stated before the High Court, the Chancellor
was in disagreement with the State government. Therefore, it is
clear that the State government was in
agreement with the
interpretation of the Act as laid out above. [Para 43][969-G; 970-
A]
5. Section 8(6) stipulates the manner in which a vacancy in
the office of the VC which occurs by reason of death, resignation,
expiration of the term of office, removal or otherwise shall be
filled up. The provision indicates that such vacancy shall be filled
up in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section
8. Section 8(6) has to be read in conjunction with Section 8(1)
since the former expressly refers to the latter. The reference to
the provisions of sub-Section (1) for filling up a vacancy on the
expiration of the term of office will not obviously apply to a case
of reappointment because the procedure contemplated by Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
951
8(1)(b) of a search committee would not attach to a reappointment.
On this aspect, the High Court has correctly disagreed with the
petitioner before it and noted that amended Section 8(2)(a) which
provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term does
not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) has to
be followed for re-appointment. [Para 46][970-F-H]
6. Faced with the view of the Chancellor, the State
government attempted to get around the situation by purporting
to exercise its powers under Section 60 which contemplates a
situation where inter alia any difficulty arises in giving effect to
the provisions of the Act “on account of any lacunae or omission”
in its provisions or for any other reason whatsoever. In such cases,
the State government is empowered, as the occasion may require,
to do anything which appears to it to be necessary for removing
the difficulty notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
elsewhere in the Act or any other law. Where there is a specific
provision, as in the present case Section 8(2)(a), it was not open
to the State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and
purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties. The State
government chose the incorrect path under Section 60 by
misusing the “removal of difficulty clause” to usurp the power of
the Chancellor to make the appointment. A government cannot
misuse the “removal of difficulty clause” to remove all obstacles
in its path which
arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such
actions would be antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the
limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral
adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective;
to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat
the purpose of the legislation. Accordingly, the High Court was
justified in coming to the conclusion that “in the guise of removing
the difficulties, the State cannot change the scheme and essential
provisions of the Act”. [Paras 47, 48, 49 and 50][971-A, C-E;
972-C-F]
Madeva Upendra Sinai v Union of India (1975) 3 SCC
765 : [1975] 2 SCR 640 – relied on.
7. In Gambhirdan K Gadhvi case, despite the appointment
being in terms of the statutory provisions of the Sardar Patel
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
University Act 1955, the Court issued a writ of quo warranto
setting aside the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by relying
upon the UGC Regulations 2018. In view of the decision in
Gambhirdan K Gadhvi, even if the provisions of the Act allowed
the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government,
it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. The Regulations
become part of the statute framed by Parliament and will prevail.
The judgment of the High Court is correct in law and on fact and
does not warrant interference in appeal. The State government
could not have issued the order re-appointing the VC. [Paras 55,
56 and 57][973-E; 974-D-E]
Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC
179 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 14 SCR 621
referred to
Para 9
[2018 ] 3 SCR 137
referred to
Para 11
(1964) 4 SCR 575
followed
Para 23
(2003) 4 SCC 712
relied on
Para 24
(2006) 11 SCC 731
relied on
Para 25
(2014) 1 SCC 161
relied on
Para 26
(2018) 6 SCC 162
relied on
Para 27
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 324
referred to
Para 41
[1953] SCR 1
referred to
Para 41
[1975] 2 SCR 640
relied on
Para 48
(2022) 5 SCC 179
relied on
Para 55
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6706
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2022 of the High Court
of Calcutta in WPA (P) No.55 of 2022.
With
Civil Appeal No. 6707 of 2022.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
953
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advs., Ms. Astha
Sharma, Nipun Saxena, Amit Bhandari, Ravinder Singh, Ms. Raveesha
Gupta, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Kunal Chatterji, Ms.
Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Kabir Shankar Bose, Mukul Singh, Amit
Mishra, Venkata Raghuvamsy D., Kshitij Mittal, Abhijeet, Surjendu
Shankar Das, Sunil Fernandes, Nupur Kumar, Ms. Diksha Dadu,
Divyansh Tiwari, Ms. Muskan Surana, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. By its judgment dated 13 September 2022, a Division Bench of
the High Court at Calcutta allowed a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-
Chancellor1 of Calcutta University. The High Court held that the State
government had no authority to appoint or re-appoint the VC under
Section 8 of the Calcutta University Act 19792 or by taking recourse to
the residuary provisions of Section 60 of the Act. As a consequence, the
order issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal
on 27 August 2021 re-appointing the incumbent VC of Calcutta University
was set aside. The High Court has held that the VC had no authority to
hold that office on the basis of the order of appointment. Both the State
of West Bengal and Dr Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee, the VC whose
appointment has been set aside, are in appeal.
2. By a notification
dated 28 August 2017, the Chancellor of
Calcutta University appointed Professor Dr Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee
as the VC of Calcutta University. The notification was in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 8(1)(a) read with Section 8(2)(a) of the
Act. The term of appointment was for a period of four years with effect
from the date on which she joined office or until she attained the age of
sixty-five or until further orders, whichever is the earliest.
3. The term of office of the VC was to end on 27 August 2021.
The State government in the Higher Education Department submitted
proposals for the re-appointment of the VC for a period of four years to
the Chancellor on 4 June 2021 and 17 June 2021 which were not accepted
as the Chancellor sought certain clarifications.
1 VC
2 the Act
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
4. On 17 August 2021, the Chancellor suo moto accorded an
extension to the tenure of the VC for a period of three months under
Section 8(2)(b) of the Act.
5. The State government issued a notification on 27 August 2021
stating that:
(i)
While extending the tenure of the VC, the Chancellor had
invoked Section 8(2)(b) without consultation with the
Minister, which was mandatory;
(ii)
The step taken by the Chancellor of the University was
void ab initio, particularly in light of provisions of Rule 9
of the West Bengal State Universities (Terms and Conditions
of Service of the Vice Chancellors and the Manner and
Procedure of Official Communication) Rules 2019;
(iii)
The Chancellor of the University had not agreed with the
proposal of the State government and initiated a step without
fulfilling the requisite legal pre-condition of consultation with
the Minister;
(iv)
The provisions of the Act are “silent to deal with the
situation”;
(v)
The State government “has no other option but to invoke
the provisions of Section 60”; and
(vi)
The incumbent VC was being re-appointed with effect from
28 August 2021 for a period of four years or until she attains
the age of seventy, whichever is earlier, in terms of the
provisions of Section 60 read with Section 8(2)(b) of the
Act as amended in 2019.
6. The order of the State government re-appointing the VC was
questioned in a public interest petition instituted by an alumnus of Calcutta
University who is also a practicing advocate. The submissions before
the High Court in support of the petition under Article 226 were that:
(i)
The State government had no power to re-appoint the VC
since both the power to appoint and re-appoint is vested
with the Chancellor;
(ii)
In terms of Section 8(6), the procedure which is prescribed
in Section 8(1) for initial appointment has to be followed for
the purpose of re-appointment as well;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
(iii)
The amended provisions of Section 8(2) do not constitute a
complete code and the entire section has to be interpreted;
(iv)
The provisions of the Act could not have been by-passed
by invoking Section 60;
(v)
The re-appointment of the VC without following the
procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) eliminates competition
and was in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution;
(vi)
The appointment of the VC by the State was contrary to
the UGC (Minimum qualifications for appointment of
teachers and other academic staff in University and Colleges
and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher
Education) Regulations 2018.3
7. The petition was opposed on behalf of the State government by
submitting that:
(i)
In terms of the unamended provisions of Section 8, the
procedure prescribed in sub-Section (1) has to be followed
for re-appointment;
(ii)
This position was altered by the 2019 amendment to the
Act;
(iii)
The appointment and re-appointment of a VC stand on a
different footing and the power of reappointment is vested
with the State government and not the Chancellor;
(iv)
Even if the Chancellor is the re-appointing authority, he has
no discretion once a recommendation is made by the State
government upon its satisfaction; and
(v)
Since the Chancellor has not taken any action in terms of
Section 8 (2)(a), the State government had no option but to
re-appoint the incumbent VC by taking recourse to the
provisions of Section 60.
8. The incumbent
VC who had been re-appointed by the State
government was impleaded as a party to the proceeding and urged that:
(i)
There is a distinction in law between appointment and re-
appointment because in the case of the latter, the zone of
3 UGC Regulations
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
consideration is restricted to persons already holding the
post and in such cases the suitability of the incumbent which
was assessed at the time of initial appointment need not be
reassessed;
(ii)
In the case of a re-appointment, Section 8(2)(a) prescribes
that academic excellence and administrative success are
the only factors which are to be taken into consideration
for re-appointment and the procedure which is prescribed
by Section 8(1) is not attracted; and
(iii)
No writ of quo warranto can be issued where the suitability
of the VC for re-appointment is sought to be questioned.
9. The Division Bench of the High Court relied upon the judgments
of this court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei
Sahoo4 and Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka5 andnoted that a
writ of quo warranto can be issued when:
(i)
A person holding public office lacks eligibility criteria
prescribed for such appointment; and
(ii)
The appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions
or rules.
10. The reasons adduced by the High Court in support of its
judgment were:
(i)
Under Section 7(1), the Governor of the State of West
Bengal is the Chancellor of the University;
(ii)
Section 8(1)(b) confers the powers of appointment on the
Chancellor;
(iii)
Under Section 8(2)(b), the Chancellor has the power to
continue the VC after the expiration of the term of his office
up to a period of two years or until the attainment of
the
age of 70 years whichever is earlier;
(iv)
In terms of Section 8(5), a temporary appointment of the
VC may be made by the Chancellor; and
(v)
Section 8(7) empowers the Chancellor to remove the VC
on satisfaction of prescribed conditions.
4 (2014) 1 SCC 161
5 (2018) 6 SCC 162
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
957
On the above premises, the Division Bench held that the scheme
of Section 8 empowers only the Chancellor to appoint, re-appoint,
temporarily appoint or remove the VC. In other words, the State
government has no power to appoint or re-appoint the VC. The High
Court held that Section 60 to which recourse was taken by the State
government provides only for the removal of difficulties arising in giving
effect to the provisions of the statute.
11. Apart from the reasoning based on the provisions of the Act,
the Division Bench held that the UGC Regulations envisage that the
appointment of a VC can be made only by a Visitor / Chancellor. This in
the view of the High Court came in the way of the State government
making the appointment and, in this context, it relied upon a judgment of
this Court in Ghambirdan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat.6
12. On behalf of the petitioners before the High Court, it was
urged during the course of those proceedings that the same procedure
which was provided for appointment of a VC under Section 8(1) was
required to be followed at the time of re-appointment. On the other
hand, the State government relied on the amended provisions of Section
8(2)(a). On this point, the High Court disagreed with the petitioner and
noted that amended Section 8(2)(a) which provides for the re-appointment
of a VC for another term does not require that the procedure prescribed
in Section 8(1) should be followed for re-appointment. In the amendment
of 2019,
the expression “following the provisions of sub-Section (1)”
were deleted from Section 8(2)(a). The High Court did not therefore
subscribe to the submission of the petitioner before it that the same
procedure was required to be followed for the re-appointment of a VC
as prescribed for the purpose of appointment in Section 8(1).
13. However, ultimately, on the basis of its analysis, the High Court
held that the State government had no authority to re-appoint the VC
either under Section 8 or by taking recourse to the provisions of Section
60 and consequently held that the notification of 27 August 2021 was
contrary to law. It is on that basis, that the re-appointment of the VC has
been set aside.
14. Before we summarize the rival submissions and proceed to
analyse them, it is necessary to advert to the salient provisions of the
Act bearing upon the controversy.
6 (2022) 5 SCC 179
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
15. Section 7(1) stipulates that the Governor shall by virtue of his
office be the Chancellor of the University and shall be the head of the
University and the President of the Senate.
16. Section 8 provides for the VC. Section 8(1)(a) stipulates the
conditions of eligibility for appointment as a VC in the following terms:
“8(1)(a) The Vice-chancellor shall be a distinguished academic
with proven competence and integrity, and having a minimum
of ten years of experience in a University system of which at
least five years shall be as a professor or ten years of experience
in a reputed research or academic administrative organization
of which at least five years shall be in an equivalent position of
professor.”
Section 8(1)(b) provides for the procedure for the appointment of
a VC:
“8(1)(b). The Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor out of the panel of three names recommended in
order of preference by the Search Committee constituted by
the State Government. While preparing the panel, the Search
Committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence,
exposure to the higher education system in the country and
abroad and adequate experience in academic and administrative
governance and reflect the same in writing while submitting
the panel to the Chancellor.”
Clause (c) of Section 8(1) provides for the constitution of a search
committee. In 2019, the State legislature enacted the West Bengal
University
Laws (Amendment) Act 2019. The amended Act was
assented to by the Governor of West Bengal and was published in the
official Gazette on 27 August 2019. As a result of the amending enactment,
amendments were made to the seven state enactments governing state
universities. Section 8(2)(a) as it stood prior to the amendment which
was brought about in 2019, was in the following terms:
“(2)(a) The Vice-chancellor shall hold office for a term of four
years or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is
earlier, and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term
of four years or till he attains the age of sixty-five years,
whichever is earlier, following the provisions of sub-section
(1).”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
959
Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 as amended reads as follows:
“(2)(a) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period of
four years appointed as such in terms of the provisions of sub-
section (1), and shall be eligible for reappointment for another
term of four years subject to the satisfaction of the State
Government and on the basis of his past academic excellence
and administrative success established during his term of office
in the capacity of Vice-Chancellor, or till he attains the age of
seventy years, whichever is earlier.”
Section 8(2)(b) as amended is in the following terms:
“8(2)(b) The Chancellor may, notwithstanding the expiration
of the term of the office of the Vice-Chancellor, allow him to
continue in office for a period not more than two years at a
time in consultation with the Minister, which shall under no
circumstances be extended beyond the age of seventy years,
subject to the satisfaction of the State Government and on the
basis of his past academic excellence and administrative
success established during his term of office in the capacity of
Vice-Chancellor.”
Sub-Sections (5) and (6) of the Section 8 as amended read thus:
“8(2)(5) If –
(a) the Vice-Chancellor is, by reasons of leave, illness or other
cause, temporarily unable to exercise the powers and perform
the duties of his office, or
(b) a vacancy occurs in the office of the Vice-Chancellor by reason
of death, resignation, removal, expiry of term of his office or
otherwise,
then, during the period of such temporary inability or pending
the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor, as the case may be,
the Chancellor in consultation with the Minister may appoint a
person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the
Vice-Chancellor.
(6) The vacancy in the office of the Vice-Chancellor occurring
by reason of death, resignation or expiry of the term of his
office, removal or otherwise shall be filled up by appointment
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
of a Vice-Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section (1) within a period of six months from the date of
occurrence of the vacancy, and such period shall be held to
include any period for which a Vice-Chancellor is allowed to
continue in consultation with the Minister to exercise the powers
and perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor under sub-
section (5).”
17. In the present case, the notification issued by the State
government reappointing the VC specifically notes that the proposal
submitted by it for reappointment of the VC was not accepted by the
Chancellor:
“Whereas, the State Government in the Higher Education
Department, considering the above, had submitted the proposal
of reappointment of Prof. (Dr) Chakravarti Banerjee before the
Hon’ble Chancellor of the University for a period of four years,
on two occasions firstly on 04.06.2021 and secondly on 17.06.2021.
However, Hon’ble Chancellor of the University did not accept
the proposal given by the Higher Education Department and sought
certain clarifications on some issues not related directly with the
subject matter…”
18. In its counter affidavit filed before the High Court, the State
government submitted that in accordance with the amended provisions
of the Act, the State government considering “the past academic
excellence and the administrative success” of the incumbent VC
recommended her re-appointment for a further term of four years
or
until she attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. The State
government submitted that since the VC had already been appointed for
an earlier term there was no requirement of a fresh search committee
for the purpose of a reappointment. However, according to the State
government, the Chancellor was not in agreement with the interpretation
of the amended provisions since the State government opined that when
a reappointment was proposed under amended Section 8(2)(a) there
was no necessity of undergoing a further selection process. The State
government urged that Section 8(2)(a) only postulates satisfaction of
the State government and does not require the concurrence of the
Chancellor. In other words, according to the State government, it has
unfettered rights in the matter of reappointment to the post of VC. This
submission has been rejected by the High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
961
19. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the State of West Bengal urged that:
(i)
The power conferred by Section 8(5) on the Chancellor to
appoint a person to exercise the powers and perform the
duties of the VC during the period of the temporary inability
of an incumbent VC or pending the appointment of a VC
applies only when the power of reappointment has not been
exercised under Section 8(2)(a);
(ii)
Likewise, Section 8(6) applies only when the power to
reappoint under Section 8(2)(a) has not been exercised;
(iii)
Section 8(2)(a) clearly specifies that a VC shall be eligible
for reappointment for another term of four years subject to
the satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of
their past academic excellence and administrative success
during the term of office as a VC;
(iv)
Unamended Section 8(2)(a) stipulated that a VC would be
eligible for reappointment for a period not exceeding four
years “following the provisions of sub-section (1)”; and
(v)
In the amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a), the expression
“”following the provisions of sub-section (1)” was
conspicuously deleted as a result of which the procedure
prescribed in Section 8(1) for the appointment of a VC does
not apply to a reappointment.
20. On the other hand, the petitioner before the High Court,
submitted that:
(i)
Section 8(2)(a) does not take away the power of the
Chancellor to appoint a VC under Section 8(1)(b);
(ii)
In effecting the
reappointment of a VC, the procedure which
is prescribed by sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of constituting
a Search Committee needs to be followed;
(iii)
The UGC Regulations clearly stipulate that the appointment
of a VC has to be made by the Chancellor;
(iv)
In terms of Section 7, the Chancellor is the head of the
University;
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
(v)
Section 8(2)(a) provides for the satisfaction of the State
government coupled with the eligibility of a VC for
reappointment. But this does not take away the power of
the Chancellor to make the appointment; and
(vi)
As a matter of fact, it was on the premise that the power to
reappoint vests with the Chancellor that the file pertaining
to the reappointment of the VC was forwarded to the
Chancellor by the State government.
21. Mr Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the VC submitted that:
(i)
Section 8(6) does not stand with Section 8(2) because in
terms of Section 8(6) the appointment of a VC is to be
made in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (1)
in terms of which the three-member search committee has
to be constituted;
(ii)
The judgment of the High Court in the present case
specifically holds that the procedure which is prescribed by
Section 8(1)(b) of constituting the search committee does
not apply to a reappointment; and
(iii)
Section 8 envisages distinct situations namely:
a.
Appointment of a VC by the Chancellor out of a
panel of three names recommended by the Search
Committee constituted by the State government;
b.
Reappointment in respect of which the power is
vested in the State government under Section 8(2)(a);
c.
Extension of the term of a VC beyond the expiration
of the term of office under Section 8(2)(b) by the
Chancellor in consultation with the Minister;
d.
A
temporary appointment of the VC which is made
by the Chancellor in consultation with the Minister
under Section 8(5).
22. These rival submissions would need to be analyzed. However,
before we enter into a substantive analysis of the submissions, it would
be appropriate to deal with the procedural objection regarding the limits
of the writ of quo warranto.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
963
23. Through a line of cases, this Court has laid out the terms on
which the writ of quo warranto may be exercised. In University of
Mysore v C.D. Govindra Rao, a Constitution Bench of this Court,
speaking through Justice Gajendragadkar (as he then was), held that:7
6. […]
Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial
enquiry in which any person holding 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; if the
inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no
valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him
from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto
confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control
executive action in the matter of making appointments to public
offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a
citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have
a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted
subject to the conditions recognized in that behalf, they tend to
protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases,
persons, not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy
them and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of
the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the
jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo warranto is properly
invoked, the usurper
can be ousted and the person entitled to the
post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen
can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court,
inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is
held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily
leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the
said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law
or not.
(emphasis supplied)
24. In High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor
Panchayat,8 in his concurring opinion in a three judge Bench, Justice SB
Sinha, held that:
7 (1964) 4 SCR 575
8 (2003) 4 SCC 712
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter
of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether
a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a
writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ,
the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider
the respective impact on the candidates or other factors which
may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K.
Jain v. Union of India, SCC para 74.)
23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern
Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to
Govt. of Haryana.)
25. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply
& Drainage Board Employees’ Assn.,9 the limitations of the writ of
quo warranto were elaborated upon by a two judge Bench of this Court.
The court observed:
“49. […] The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ
of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued
when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.
[…]
51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court
cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government
in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the
person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and
is otherwise eligible for appointment. This
Court in R.K. Jain
v. Union of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119] was pleased to hold that the
evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates would not
be gone into a public interest litigation and only in a proceeding
initiated by an aggrieved person, may it be open to be considered.
It was also held that in service jurisprudence it is settled law that
it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the non-appointee to assail
the legality or correctness of the action and that a third party has
no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action.
Further, it was declared that public law declaration would only be
9 (2006) 11 SCC 731
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
965
made at the behest of a public-spirited person coming before the
court as a petitioner…”
(emphasis supplied)
26. In Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei
Sahoo10, another two judge Bench of this Court reiterated that:
21. […] the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a
writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued
when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility
criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory
rules. That apart, the concept of locus standi which is strictly
applicable to service jurisprudence for the purpose of canvassing
the legality or correctness of the action should not be allowed to
have any entry, for such allowance is likely to exceed the limits of
quo warranto which is impermissible. The basic purpose of a
writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the
constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held
by usurper without any legal authority.
(emphasis supplied)
27. More recently, in Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka11, a
three judge Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Justice DY
Chandrachud) was a part, noted the line of precedent clarifying the remit
of the writ of quo warranto.
28. Through these decisions, the Court has settled the position
that the writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has
not been made in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the rival
contentions must be analyzed by dealing with the scheme of the
statutory
provisions governing the appointment and reappointment of the VC.
29. Section 8 of the Act envisages several situations:
(i)
Appointment of a VC (Section 8(1)(b));
(ii)
Reappointment of a VC (Section 8(2)(a));
(iii)
Continuation of the term of a VC upon the expiry of the
term of office (Section 8(2)(b)); and
10 Supra
11 Supra
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
(iv)
Appointment of a person to exercise the powers and perform
the duties of the VC, occasioned by
a.
The temporary inability of the VC to exercise the
powers and perform the duties of the office by
reasons of leave, illness or other causes; and
b.
A vacancy occurring in the office of VC upon the
death, resignation, removal, expiry of term of office
or otherwise. (Section 8(5)).
30. Section 8 makes provisions for firstly, the conditions of eligibility
for holding the office of a VC; secondly, the term for which the office
would be held; thirdly, the procedure for appointment; and fourthly, who
has the power to make the appointment.
31. The conditions of eligibility for holding the post of VC are
stipulated in Section 8(1)(a) namely (i) a distinguished academic with
proven competency and integrity; (ii) (a) minimum of ten years of
experience in a University system of which at least five years shall be
as a professor; or (b) ten years of experience in a reputed research or
academic administrative organization of which at least five years shall
be in a position equivalent to a professor.
32. The term of office of a VC, including in the case of a
reappointment, is four years or until the attainment of the age of 70
years, whichever is earlier. Where the term of office of a VC has expired,
Section 8(2)(b) postulates that, notwithstanding the expiration of the term,
the VC may be allowed to continue in office for a period
not exceeding
two years at a time but such an extension shall not be granted beyond
the age of 70. In case of a temporary inability of an incumbent VC due
to leave, illness or other cause, Section 8(5)(a) contemplates the
appointment of a person to exercise the powers and perform the duties
of that office during the period of such temporary inability. Where a
vacancy occurs by reason of death, resignation, removal, expiry of the
term of office or otherwise, a person may likewise be appointed to
exercise the powers and perform the duties of a VC pending the
appointment.
33. The procedure for appointing a VC is prescribed in clauses
(b) and (c) of Section 8(1). Clause (b) postulates that (i) a search
committee has to be constituted by the state government; (ii) the search
committee has to prepare a panel of three names in order of preference;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
967
(iii) in preparing the panel, the search committee has to give proper
weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education
system in the country and abroad, adequate experience in academic and
administrative governance; (iv) the search committee has to reflect its
consideration of the above in writing while submitting the panel to the
Chancellor; and (v) the search committee has to consist of three persons
as stipulated in Section 8(1)(c).
34. In the case of a reappointment, the unamended provisions of
Section 8(2)(a) provided earlier that a VC would be eligible for
reappointment for a period not exceeding four years, “subject to the
provisions of this section”. The provisions of Section 8(2)(a) were
substituted by the Amending Act of 2019. Section 8(2)(a) as amended
stipulates that a VC shall be eligible for reappointment for another term
of four years “subject to the satisfaction of the State government and on
the basis of his past academic excellence and administrative success
established during his term of office in the capacity of VC”.
35. In other words, Section 8(2)(a) establishes, firstly, the eligibility
of a VC for reappointment for another term of four years; the expression
“another term” signifying that the new term will be in addition to the
earlier term of four years; and, secondly, the requirement that the
eligibility for reappointment would be subject to the satisfaction of the
State government on the basis of academic
excellence and administrative
success during the period when the individual held office of VC.
Significantly, Section 8(2)(a) is a provision which prescribes the term,
namely, the initial term of four years and if an incumbent is reappointed,
a further period of four years. Moreover, Section 8(2)(a) stipulates the
conditions subject to which the VC would be eligible for reappointment
for another term of four years.
36. Section 8(2)(a) is sought to be interpreted by the appellants as
indicating that the power of reappointment is taken away from the
Chancellor and is entrusted to the State government. This would be an
incorrect reading of the statutory provision. Section 8(2)(a) provides for
(i) the term of office of a VC; (ii) eligibility for reappointment; (iii) the
term of office upon reappointment; (iv) the conditions subject to which a
person shall be eligible for reappointment; and (v) the outer age limit of
70 years. The expression “subject to the satisfaction of the State
government” cannot by a process of inferential reasoning be construed
to vest the power of reappointment in the State government.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
37. The provisions of Section 8 envisage diverse situations. While
the eligibility for appointment is indeed determined by the State
government’s satisfaction, the power of making the appointment
continues to vest in the Chancellor in terms of the provisions detailed
below.
38. The Chancellor has been described in Section 7(1) as the
head of the University. The power of appointing a VC is vested by
Section 8(1)(b) in the Chancellor. That provision stipulates that “the VC
shall be appointed by the Chancellor”. Section 8(2)(b) empowers the
Chancellor to allow a VC to continue, notwithstanding the expiration of
its term, for a period of not more than two years at a time in consultation
with the Minister. Here again, the continuation is “subject to the
satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of his past academic
excellence and administrative success” established during the term of
office in the capacity of VC. These words are in terms identical to those
contained in Section 8(2)(a). Section 8(5) entrusts to the Chancellor the
power to appoint the VC as a result of the temporary inability of the VC
to perform the duties of the office or pending the appointment of the VC
when a vacancy has arisen in the office.
39. The issue is whether the deletion of the expression “subject to
the provisions of this section” in the amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a)
would lead to the inference that the power of
reappointment has been
taken away from the Chancellor and entrusted to the State government.
The submission to that effect which has been urged on behalf of the
appellants cannot be accepted.
40. The effect of the words “subject to the provisions of this
section” in Section 8(2)(a) in its unamended form was that the
reappointment would have to be in a manner provided in Section 8, which
obviously included Section 8(1). Deletion of those words in Section
8(2)(a), as amended, would mean that the procedure which has been
prescribed for making the appointment of a VC, namely the appointment
of a search committee and the preparation of a panel, would not be
attracted in the case of a reappointment. In the case of a reappointment,
a VC who has completed a term of four years would be eligible subject
to the satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of their past
academic excellence and administrative record during the term of office
held as a VC. Significantly, Section 8(2)(a) speaks of the satisfaction of
the State government and past academic excellence and administrative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
success during the term of office. Fulfilment of those conditions makes
a person eligible for being reappointed as a VC.
41. It is a settled principle of law that a statute must be read to
avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or terms
meaningless or redundant. In Union of India v Hansoli Devi,12 a
Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated the dictum in the decision of
the Constitution Bench in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose,13
that “it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a
statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate
application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of
the statute.” The Court in Hansoli Devi14 reiterated the decision of the
Privy Council in Quebec Railway, Light Heat & Power Co.
Ltd. v. Vandry15 observing that the “legislature is deemed not to waste
its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes
redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted except for compelling
reasons.” An effort must be made to read the provisions of the statute in
a holistic manner so as to imbue it with meaning and content.
42. There is neither an express provision nor a necessary
intendment by which it could be inferred that the power which is entrusted
to the Chancellor to appoint a VC is taken away in the case of a
reappointment. There is no intrinsic reason or rationale to accept the
interpretation which has been urged on behalf of the
State of West Bengal.
A reappointment is the appointment of an existing incumbent who fulfils
the conditions of eligibility. The fulfilment of the conditions makes a person
eligible for reappointment. The power of appointment including of
reappointment is entrusted to the Chancellor and not to the State
government. The amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a) cannot therefore
be construed to mean that the power of reappointment has been taken
away from the Chancellor and entrusted to the State government. Reading
the provisions in such a manner, would make the provisions entrusting
the power of appointment of the VC with the Chancellor redundant.
43. Moreover, in the present case, the State government itself
made a reference to the Chancellor when the issue as regards the
12 (2002) 7 SCC 273
13 1953 SCR 1
14 Supra
15 AIR 1920 PC 181
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
reappointment of the VC came up. Evidently as the State government
stated before the High Court, the Chancellor was in disagreement with
the State government. Therefore, it is clear that the State government
was in agreement with the interpretation of the Act as laid out above.
44. The High Court has in the course of its judgment also extracted
the communication of the Chancellor dated 17 August 2021 which
indicated that he was not agreeable to such an appointment. While turning
down the proposal to reappoint the VC, the Chancellor had observed
that:
“The proposal dated 4.6.2021 emanating from the State
Government seeking reappointment of Prof. Sonali Chakravarti
Banerjee, Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University for second term
of four years, is not in consonance with the applicable statutory
prescriptions as is amply reflected in the note dated 2.8.2021. I
need to indicate here that without being a participant in selection,
and consequent selection, as incumbent Vice Chancellor cannot
get another term in view of section 8(2)(a) of the Calcutta
University Act 1979.”
45. It would be appropriate to also analyse whether the re-
appointment of the VC has to follow the same process as a fresh
appointment, by setting up a selection committee under Section 8(1) of
the Act, as indicated by the Chancellor.
46. Section 8(6) stipulates the manner in which a vacancy in the
office of the VC which occurs by reason of death,
resignation, expiration
of the term of office, removal or otherwise shall be filled up. The provision
indicates that such vacancy shall be filled up in accordance with the
provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 8. Section 8(6) has to be read in
conjunction with Section 8(1) since the former expressly refers to the
latter. The reference to the provisions of sub-Section (1) for filling up a
vacancy on the expiration of the term of office will not obviously apply
to a case of reappointment because the procedure contemplated by
Section 8(1)(b) of a search committee would not attach to a
reappointment. On this aspect, the High Court has correctly disagreed
with the petitioner before it and noted that amended Section 8(2)(a)
which provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term does
not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) has to be
followed for re-appointment.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
971
47. Faced with the view of the Chancellor, the State government
attempted to get around the situation by purporting to exercise its powers
under Section 60. Section 60 provides as follows:
“If on account of any lacuna or omission in the provisions of this
Act, or for any other reason whatsoever, any difficulty arises as
to the first constitution of any authority of the University under
this Act, or otherwise in giving effect to the provisions of this Act,
the State Government, as occasion may require, may by order do
anything which appears to it to be necessary for the purpose of
removing the difficulty notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law.”
48. Section 60 contemplates a situation where inter alia any
difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act “on account
of any lacunae or omission” in its provisions or for any other reason
whatsoever. In such cases, the State government is empowered, as the
occasion may require, to do anything which appears to it to be necessary
for removing the difficulty notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained elsewhere in the Act or any other law. Where there is a specific
provision, as in the present case Section 8(2)(a), it was not open to the
State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and purportedly
exercise the power to remove difficulties. A “removal of difficulty clause”
has been construed in Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of
India16,
which reads as follows:
“39. To keep pace with the rapidly increasing responsibilities of a
welfare democratic State, the Legislature has to turn out a plethora
of hurried legislation, the volume of which is often matched with
its complexity. Under conditions of extreme pressure, with heavy
demands on the time of the Legislature and the endurance and
skill of the draftsman, it is well nigh impossible to foresee all the
circumstances to deal with which a statute is enacted or to
anticipate all the difficulties that might arise in its working due to
peculiar local conditions or even a local law. This is particularly
true when Parliament undertakes legislation which gives a new
dimension to socio-economic activities of the State or extends the
existing Indian laws to new territories or areas freshly merged in
the Union of India. In order to obviate the necessity of approaching
16 (1975) 3 SCC 765
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
the Legislature for removal of every difficulty, howsoever trivial,
encountered in the enforcement of a statute, by going through
the time-consuming amendatory process, the Legislature
sometimes thinks it expedient to invest the Executive with a very
limited power to make minor adaptations and peripheral
adjustments in the statute, for making its implementation effective,
without touching its substance. That is why the “removal of
difficulty clause”, once frowned upon and nick-named as “Henry
VIII clause” in scornful commemoration of the absolutist ways in
which that English King got the “difficulties” in enforcing his
autocratic will removed through the instrumentality of a servile
Parliament, now finds acceptance as a practical necessity, in
several Indian statutes of post-independence era.”
49. The State government chose the incorrect path under Section
60 by misusing the “removal of difficulty clause” to usurp the power of
the Chancellor to make the appointment. A government cannot misuse
the “removal of difficulty clause” to remove all obstacles in its path
which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be
antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to
make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for
making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the
statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation.
50.
Accordingly, the High Court in our view was justified in coming
to the conclusion that “in the guise of removing the difficulties, the State
cannot change the scheme and essential provisions of the Act”.
51. In the view taken above on the construction of the provision
of the Calcutta University Act 1979, while it is not necessary to advert
to the provisions of the UGC Regulations which were also relied upon
by the High Court in support of its conclusion, for the purposes of
completeness, they are dealt with as well.
52. The University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications
for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities
and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations 2018 have been issued to prescribe, inter alia.
the minimum qualifications for appointment and other service conditions
of University and College teachers.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
973
53. Regulation 1.2 of the UGC Regulations provides that they are
applicable to:
“every University established or incorporated by or under a Central
Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, every Institution including a
Constituent or an affiliated College recognized by the Commission,
in consultation with the University concerned under Clause (i) of
Section 2 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and
every Institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 of the
said Act.”
54. Regulation 7.3 provides for the minimum qualifications of a
VC, selection procedure and the appointment procedure. Regarding the
appointment of the VC, Regulation 7.3 states that:
7.3 Vice Chancellor:
[…]
(iii) The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out
of the Panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee.
55. In Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v State of Gujarat,17 the Sardar
Patel University Act 1955, expressly vested the power of appointment
of the Vice Chancellor in the State government (instead of the
Chancellor). Despite the appointment being in terms of the statutory
provisions of the Sardar Patel University Act 1955, the Court issued a
writ of quo warranto setting aside the appointment of the Vice Chancellor
by relying upon the UGC Regulations 2018. This Court, holding that the
UGC Regulations were binding, held that:
49. Therefore, when the appointment of Respondent 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 4 as the Vice-
Chancellor of the SP University.
50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted
by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and
26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the UGC Act
17 (2022) 5 SCC 179
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be
laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a
subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of
the Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation
and the 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
to 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.
(emphasis supplied)
56. In view of the decision in Gambhirdan K Gadhvi,18 even if
the provisions of the Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor
by the State government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations.
The Regulations become part of the statute framed by Parliament and
will prevail.
57. For the above reasons, we hold that the judgment of the High
Court is correct in law and on fact and does not warrant interference in
appeal. The State government could not have issued the order re-
appointing the VC.
58. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
59. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeals dismissed.
(Assisted by : Preetam Bharti, LCRA)
18 Supra