PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI versus RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 545, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI
v.
RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8184 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 – Regulation
7.3.0 – Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 – Ss. 10, 10 (3) –
Constitution of India – Art. 319 – Appointment of Vice Chancellor
in a University – Eligibility for appointment – Requirement of having
minimum teaching experience – Due process for appointment –
Appellant herein was appointed as a Professor in Soban Singh Jeena
University and worked as such for a period of 8 years and 5 months
– Then he was appointed as Member, Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission – On 13th August 2020, he was appointed as Vice-
Chancellor of the University – Said appointment was challenged
before the High Court, inter alia, on the grounds that at the time
when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, he was not having the
requisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which was
required as per the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, which were adopted
by the State Government – High court quashed the appointment of
the appellant herein, finding the appointment process devoid of due
process prescribed by UGC Regulations, 2018 – Whether the
appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University
was legal and valid and whether it was after following the due
procedure, as required – Held: Under Section 10 of the University
Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, a
person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have a minimum
of 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor in a University or ten
years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated
academic leadership – Merely because his lien was continued on
the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teach
and/or he was having the teaching experience during the period of
lien – Supervising the Ph.D. scholars cannot be said to be having a
teaching experience as a Professor in the University, which is the
requirement as per the UGC Regulations – Further, the selection
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 545
545
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper
identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection
Committee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed out of the
panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee – Appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor cannot
be said to be as per the requirement of the University Act r/w
Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 as it is an admitted
position that no advertisement was issued before appointing the
appellant as Vice-Chancellor, name of the appellant was not
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, selection of
the appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor was not by a panel of
persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and therefore he was
not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names
recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee – Only one name
was placed before the State Government/the Chief Minister for
approval – Under the circumstances, the appointment of the appellant
as Vice-chancellor of the University was just contrary to Section
10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On conjoint reading of Section 10 of the
University Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, a person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor
shall have a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience as
Professor in a
University or ten years of experience in a reputed
research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof
of having demonstrated academic leadership. On conjoint reading
of the aforesaid provisions, the selection for the post of Vice-
Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of
3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee and the Vice-
Chancellor shall be appointed out of the panel of the names
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. In the
present case, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor
cannot be said to be as per the requirement of Section 10 of the
University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,
2018. It is an admitted position that no advertisement was issued
before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. The name of
the appellant was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
547
Committee. The selection of the appellant for the post of Vice-
Chancellor was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection
Committee and therefore he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor
out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-
Selection Committee. [Para 10][558-B-E]
1.2 Proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019,
does not provide that with respect to appointment of first Vice-
Chancellor of the University, the other requirements of selection
and appointment of Vice-Chancellor as provided under Section
10 are not required to be followed and/or adhered to. Even while
making the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor of the
University, the procedure required for selection and appointment
of Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye. If the
submission on behalf of the appellant, the State and the University
is accepted, in that case, the other provisions of Section 10 shall
become otiose and/or redundant. The post of Vice-Chancellor of
the University is a very important post and therefore the most
meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of
the University from and amongst the other eligible meritorious
candidates out of the panel of the names recommended by the
Search-cum-Selection Committee. [Paras 11 & 12][558-F-H; 559-
A-C]
1.3 A Vice-Chancellor should have a minimum teaching
experience of 10 years as a Professor in the University and his
name should be recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee and the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is to be
made out of the panel recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee. As per Section 10(3) of the University Act, 2019,
based on the qualification and eligibility prescribed in the
regulations of the University Grant Commission, the committee
shall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable for
the post of the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, even as per Section
10 of the University Act, 2019, the qualification and eligibility
prescribed in the UGC Regulations shall have to be considered
by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. [Para 13][563-A-C]
1.4 The appellant rendered service as a professor for the
period between 2009 to 2017 (admitted fact that teaching
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
experience as a Professor is 8 years and 5 months) till he was
appointed as member of the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission on 7th October 2017. He continued as a member of
the Public Service Commission till 13th August 2020 when he
was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. Merely
because his lien was continued on the post of a Professor, it cannot
be said that he continued to teach and/or he was having the
teaching experience during the period of lien. Even considering
Article 319 of the Constitution of India, while working as a
member of the Public Service Commission, appellant could not
have rendered any other work on any other post. Therefore, the
contention on behalf of the appellant that the period spent by the
appellant as a member of the Public Service Commission should
be added to his teaching experience, holding lien on the
substantive post, cannot be accepted. Merely because such lien
is held, the period of lien, by no stretch of imagination, can be
treated and/or considered as teaching experience. [Para 14][563-
D-H]
1.5 From the note sheet dated 5th August 2020, it appears
that only one name was placed before the State Government/the
Chief Minister for approval. Under the circumstances, the
appointment of the appellant as Vice-chancellor of the University
was just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w
Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. [Para 16][564-
D-E]
1.6 As
per Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018
and even as per Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, the
selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper
identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection
Committee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection
Committee shall be the persons of eminence in the sphere of
higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with
the University concerned or its colleges. While preparing the
panel, the Search Committee shall give proper weightage to the
academic excellence etc. and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor
shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The
reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared
with other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of the
panel recommended by the Search Committee. In the present
case, such a procedure has not been followed at all. The merit of
the appellant has not at all been compared with other eligible
meritorious persons who may be more meritorious than the
appellant. [Para 17][565-A-D]
1.7 The High Court has rightly quashed and set aside the
appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University.
The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the
University is just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act,
2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which
has been specifically adopted by the State Government. Therefore,
this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto, which is rightly
issued by the High Court. The appointment of the appellant as
Vice-Chancellor of the University is held to be illegal and de hors
the statutory requirements under Section 10 of the University
Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed [Para 18, 19 & 20][565-E-F, G; 566-A]
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5
SCC 179; State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das
& Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1382; Dr. Rajasree M.S.
and Others 2022 SCC Online SC 1473 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2022) 5 SCC 179
referred to
Para 3.5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8184
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2021 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 190 of 2020.
P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Harshika Verma, Bharat Singh, Dhruv
Gupta, Ashish Pandey, Kshtiz Singh, Kushagra Raghuvanshi, Mahipal
Khagnwal, Amit Pawan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Satwik Parikh,
Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Atul Sharma, Aviral Saxena, Jatinder Kumar
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Bhatia, Param Kumar Mishra, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital in Writ Petition No. 190/2020, by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 herein and
has quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellant herein –
original respondent No.5 as the Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena
University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), original
respondent No.5 – Vice-Chancellor of the said University has preferred
the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein was appointed as Professor and
worked as such for the period between 23.5.2009 to 7.10.2017 till he
was appointed as Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission. That thereafter he was appointed by the State Government
as Vice-Chancellor of the University by order dated 11.08.2020. He
assumed the charge as Vice-Chancellor on 13.08.2020. The appointment
of the appellant was challenged before the High Court by way of present
writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that at the time when he was
appointed as Vice-Chancellor, i.e., on 11.08.2020, he was not having the
requisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which was
required as per the University Grants Commission Regulations,
2018
(for short, ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’) which were adopted by the State
Government.
2.1 It was also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner
that even otherwise his appointment as Vice-Chancellor was illegal
inasmuch as his name was not recommended by the Search Committee
and only one name was placed before the Chief Minister and thereafter
without any advertisement he was selected and appointed as Vice-
Chancellor.
2.2 The said writ petition was opposed by the appellant contending,
inter alia, that as per the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘University Act, 2019’), there was no
such requirement of having minimum 10 years’ experience as Professor.
It was submitted that at the relevant time, the length of service as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
Professor as on 01.11.2017 was more than 8 years and 5 months. It was
submitted that while he continued as Member of the Uttarakhand Public
Service Commission, he was on long leave as Professor and his lien on
the post of Professor was continued. It was also the case on behalf of
the appellant that while serving as Member of the Public Service
Commission, he was supervising PhD scholars and therefore the same
was required to be counted for considering the minimum 10 years’
experience. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that he was
found to be meritorious and looking to his academic career the merit
was not compromised. By the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set aside
the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University
by holding that as the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor
was just contrary to Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018
which prescribes the eligibility requirements for appointment as Vice-
Chancellor. While setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-
Chancellor of the University, the High Court has observed and held that
even otherwise the appellant was not having the minimum 10 years’
experience as Professor, even as required as per Section 10(1) of the
University Act, 2019.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, quashing, and setting aside the
appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University, original
respondent No.5 – Vice-Chancellor of the University has preferred the
present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant – Vice-Chancellor of the University,
Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner, Shri Atul Sharma, learned
Advocate for the State, Shri Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and
Shri Harmeet Singh Ruprah, learned Advocate appearing for the
University.
3.1 Shri Patwalia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well
as University have vehemently submitted that Regulation 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018 shall not be applicable. It is submitted that UGC
Regulations, 2018 were adopted by the State Government, subject to the
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
modifications. It is submitted that Regulation 7.3.0 therefore was adopted
by the State, subject to modification. It is submitted that therefore there
was no requirement of having minimum 10 years’ experience as a
professor for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University.
3.2 It is further submitted that as it was a case of appointment of
the first Vice-Chancellor of the University, as per proviso to Section
10(1) of the University Act, 2019, it was open and permissible for the
State Government to appoint a Vice-Chancellor of his choice and as it
was a case of appointment of first Vice-chancellor, it was not required
to have the name recommended by the Search Committee.
3.3 Shri Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate has further submitted
that even otherwise it cannot be said that the appellant was not having
requisite minimum 10 years’ experience as a professor. It is submitted
that as on 1.11.2017, the appellant had rendered 8 years and 5 months
service as a professor. That thereafter when he was appointed as a
member of the Public Service Commission, he was on long leave and his
lien continued on the post of professor on which he was working earlier.
It is submitted that even as a member of the Public Service Commission,
he was supervising the PhD scholars. It is submitted that therefore it
cannot be said that the appellant was not having the requisite minimum
10 years’ experience as a professor.
3.4 It is further
submitted by Shri Patwalia, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was
appointed as Vice-Chancellor after complete satisfaction of the State
Government regarding the eligibility. It is submitted that the appellant is
a distinguished person in the filed of the study of the University or from
equivalent position in Administration. It is submitted that all through his
academic years from matriculation to masters he stood first throughout
and he is an awardee of PhD. Degree from prestigious Indian Institute
of Technology, New Delhi. He had research and publication in national
and international journals, books, internship participation in academic
seminars and conferences. It is submitted that therefore when, in exercise
of powers under Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019 and
considering his academic career and as he was found to be most
meritorious and being the appointment of first Vice-Chancellor, the
appellant was rightly appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University by
the State Government.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
3.5 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this
Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022)
5 SCC 179 as well as the recent decision of this Court in the case of
State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Others, 2022 SCC
Online SC 1382 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant that the said decisions shall not be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand, inasmuch as those were not
the cases of appointment of first Vice-Chancellor. It is submitted that in
the present case, it is the case of the appointment of the first Vice-
Chancellor of the University and therefore proviso to Section 10(1) of
the University Act, 2019 shall be applicable, which permits/authorises
the State Government to make the appointment of Vice-Chancellor.
4. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri Sanjay Parikh,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner.
In support of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-
Chancellor of the University, Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel has
made the following submissions:
i) that the UGC Regulations, 2018 were adopted by the State
Government and Regulation 7.3.0 prescribes that for the post of
Vice-Chancellor, a person must have minimum 10 years’ experience
as a professor in any University and the appointment of the Vice-
Chancellor of the University shall be by the Search Committee
which will submit the panel of 3-5 persons and thereafter amongst
those, appointment of the Vice-Chancellor can be made;
ii) in the present case, the appellant admittedly was not having the
requisite minimum 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor;
iii) service rendered as Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission cannot be considered for the purpose of experience
as a professor because as a Member of the Public Service
Commission he was not required to teach and therefore the service
rendered as a Member of the Public Service Commission cannot
be said to be having the experience in teaching;
iv) having a lien on the post of professor while serving as a member
of the Public Service Commission cannot be said to be having
teaching experience;
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
v) proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019 shall not
be applicable. It is submitted that proviso to Section 10(1) of the
University Act, 2019 does not provide that the requirement of
Section 10 is to be given go-bye. Proviso to Section 10(1) of the
University Act, 2019 does not give any unfettered powers to the
State Government to appoint Vice-Chancellor of the University
de hors Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 and UGC
Regulations, 2018, which were adopted by the State Government;
vi) UGC Regulations, 2018 including Regulation 7.3.0 for
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor have been specifically adopted
by the State Government except the requirement of consideration
of the Search Committee;
vii) neither there was any advertisement given nor the applications
were invited from eligible and meritorious candidates nor the name
of the appellant was recommended by the Search Committee as
the Search Committee was not constituted at all and therefore
the name of the appellant was not recommended by the Search
Committee;
viii) in view of Article 319 of the Constitution of India, the appellant
could not have worked on any other post in any other institution
while continuing as a member of the Public Service Commission
and therefore the submission on behalf of the appellant that while
the appellant was a member of the Public Service Commission,
his lien was continued and/or that he was supervising the Ph.D.
scholars and therefore the period during which he continued as a
member of the Public Service Commission may be treated for the
purpose of teaching experience cannot be accepted.
4.1 Shri Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the original writ petitioner has heavily relied upon the decisions of this
Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and Anindya
Sundar Das (supra) and a recent decision of this Court in the case of
Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others, 2022
SCC Online SC 1473 in support of his submission that the State
Government is bound by the UGC Regulations, 2018 and that if there is
any conflict between the State University Act and the UGC Regulations,
2018 to the extent the provisions of the State University Act are repugnant,
UGC Regulations, 2018 shall prevail.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
4.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. At this stage, Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant – Vice-Chancellor of the University
has made an alternative submission that in case this Court is of the
opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-
Chancellor of the University is not required to be interfered with, in that
case, the appellant proposes to resign and therefore he may be permitted
to resign as Vice-Chancellor of the University.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
7. The short question which is posed for consideration of this
Court is, “whether the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor
of the University was legal and valid and whether it was after following
the due procedure, as required”?
8. While considering the aforesaid issue/question, the relevant
provisions of the University Act, 2019 and UGC Regulations, 2018 are
required to be referred to, which are as under:
Section 10 of the State University Act, 2019:
“10. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor
with the concurrence of the State Government from among the
distinguished persons in the field of study of the University or
from equivalent position in Administration, Industry or Research
Institute whose names are
submitted to him by search committee
constituted by the State Government in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (2).
Provided that fist Vice-Chancellor of University Shall be appointed
by State Government and Shall hold the Post for duration of three
years.
(2) The committee referred in sub-section (1) shall consist of the
following persons:
(a) One person nominated by the Chancellor.
(b) One person nominated by the University Grants Commission
(U.G.C.).
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
(c) The Secretary/Principal Secretary of the State Government
higher education department, who shall be the convener of the
committee.
(3) Based on the qualification and eligibility prescribe in the
regulations of the University Grant Commission, the committee
shall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable for
the post of the Vice-Chancellor. The committee while presenting
the nominations to the Chancellor, shall forward a brief descriptive
note of every nominee’s academic background/ qualifications and
any specializations, but shall not show any preferences.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018:
i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity,
morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellor. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should
be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ of
experience as Professor in a University or ten years’ of experience
in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organisation
with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership.
ii.The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through
proper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-
Selection-Committee, through a public notification or nomination
or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members
of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be persons’ of
eminence in the sphere of
higher education and shall not be
connected in any manner with the University concerned or its
colleges. While preparing the panel, the Search cum-Selection
Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence,
exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad,
and adequate experience in academic and administrative
governance, to be given in writing along with the panel to be
submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the Search
cum Selection Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman,
University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellors
of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.
iii. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of
the Panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
557
iv. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part of
the service period of the incumbent making him/her eligible for all
service related benefits.
9. It is not in dispute that UGC Regulations, 2018 have been adopted
by the State Government vide GO dated 6.9.2019 and Regulation 7.3.0
of Regulations, 2018 has been specifically adopted with a modification
that the process of selection of Vice-Chancellor needs to be adopted but
selection committee and search committee would be constituted as per
the prevalent provisions of the Act at that point of time. Meaning thereby,
the selection committee and search committee would have to be
constituted as per the University Act, 2019 (Section 10). Otherwise, the
eligibility criteria provided under Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,
2018 shall be applicable which, as observed hereinabove, has been adopted
by the State Government vide GO dated 6.9.2019.
9.1 On a fair reading of Section 10 of the University Act, 2019
and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person to be
appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician,
with a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor in a
University. As per Section 10(1), the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed
by the Chancellor with the concurrence of the State Government from
among the distinguished persons in the field of study of the University or
from equivalent position in Administration, industry or Research Institute
whose names are submitted to him by search committee
constituted by the State Government in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (2). Section 10(2) of the University Act,
2019 provides for constitution of the search committee. Section 10(3) of
the University Act, 2019 provides that based on the qualification and
eligibility prescribe in the regulations of the University Grant Commission,
the committee shall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable
for the post of the Vice-Chancellor. It further provides that the committee
while presenting the nominations to the Chancellor, is required to forward
a brief descriptive note of every nominee’s academic background/
qualifications and any specializations, but shall not show any preferences.
9.2 Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribes
that the person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a
distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ teaching
experience as Professor in a University. As per UGC Regulations, 2018,
the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection
Committee, through a public notification or nomination or a talent search
process or a combination thereof. Regulation 7.3.(ii) provides for
constitution of a Search Committee. As per Regulation 7.3.(iii), the Visitor/
Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of names
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
10. Thus, on conjoint reading of Section 10 of the University Act,
2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person to be
appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have a minimum of 10 years’ teaching
experience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in a
reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof
of having demonstrated academic leadership. On conjoint reading of the
aforesaid provisions, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should
be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-
cum-Selection Committee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed
out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee. In the present case, the appointment of the appellant as
Vice-Chancellor cannot be said to be as per the requirement of Section
10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018. It is an admitted position that no advertisement was
issued before appointing the appellant as
Vice-Chancellor. The name of
the appellant was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee. The selection of the appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor
was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and
therefore he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of
the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee.
11. It is the case on behalf of the appellant and the University and
the State that as it was a case of appointment of first Vice-Chancellor
and therefore considering proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act,
2019, the procedure as required for appointment as Vice-Chancellor as
provided under Section 10 is not required to be adhered to and it is open
for the State Government to appoint the first Vice-Chancellor of the
University. The aforesaid has no substance. On a fair reading of proviso
to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, it does not provide that with
respect to appointment of first Vice-Chancellor of the University, the
other requirements of selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor as
provided under Section 10 are not required to be followed and/or adhered
to. Even while making the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
559
the University, the procedure required for selection and appointment of
Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye. If the submission on
behalf of the appellant, the State and the University is accepted, in that
case, the other provisions of Section 10 shall become otiose and/or
redundant.
12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the post of Vice-
Chancellor of the University, as observed by this Court in catena of
decisions, more particularly in the cases of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi
(supra); Anindya Sundar Das (supra); and Dr. Rajasree M.S.
(supra), is a very important post and therefore the most meritorious
person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University from
and amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel of
the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. On
the importance of the post of Vice-Chancellor, this Court in the case of
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra), in paragraphs 53 to 56, has observed
as under:
53. It is to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor of the
university is a very important post so far as the university is
concerned. Being a leader and head of the institution, the Vice-
Chancellor of the university has to play very important role. While
academic qualifications, administrative experience, research
credentials and track record could be considered as basic eligibility
requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice-Chancellor would be
one who is a true leader and a
passionate visionary. A Vice-
Chancellor needs to be one who understands and handles the
affairs of the university as ethical business and maintains a
pellucidity in his conduct towards the betterment of the university
as well as the students therein. A Vice-Chancellor should be one
who can inspire students and guarantee entry of high quality
teachers into the university system. A Vice-Chancellor functions
as a bridge between the executive and academic wings of a
university as he is the head of both a “teacher” and an
“administrator”.
54. We may refer to some of the significant Commission Reports
concerning the personality and role of a Vice-Chancellor of a
university as under:
54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated that
originally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian university was
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
regarded as an honorary post to be filled by a prominent man
in his leisure time. But now the position has changed, there is
enough work to justify a full-time appointment and the
universities should have full-time paid Vice-Chancellors. While
discussing the duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the Commission
stated that a Vice-Chancellor must be the chief liaison between
the university and the public and must be a keeper of the
university’s conscience, both setting the highest standard by
example and dealing firmly and promptly with indiscipline and
malpractice of any kind. He/she must have the strength of
character to resist unflinchingly the many forms of pressure.
Being a full-time task, it needs an exceptional man (or woman)
to undertake it. The Commission rejected the proposal of
selecting the Vice-Chancellor by an external body and
recommended that the Chancellor should appoint the Vice-
Chancellor upon the recommendation of the executive.
54.2. The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governance
of Universities and Colleges by the University Grants
Commission chaired by Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, former
Chief Justice of India while reiterating the recommendations
and observations made by the aforesaid commissions also stated
that the selection of a Vice-Chancellor is the single most
important decision that the governing body of the university
may be called upon to make. While the Chancellor of a university
may be a high
dignitary of the State of the Union of India or an
eminent scholar or eminent person in public life of the State,
the appointment of Vice-Chancellor, being the important
functionary of the university is most strategic. The powers of
proper maintenance of discipline and a healthy environment
for both teachers and students in the university is vested with
the Vice-Chancellor along with all the other powers vested in
him/her by various Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations. The
Commission also stated that appointment of a Vice-Chancellor
is made in most of the universities out of a panel of at least
three names by the Chancellor in case of State Universities
and by the Visitor in case of Central Universities. The panel of
names is prepared by a Search Committee constituted in
accordance with the provision of the Act/Statute. Since it was
difficult to have a uniform system of forming a committee in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
561
all the States, the alternatives to constitute the Search
Committee were also provided in the Report.
54.3. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards New
Educational Management by Professor A. Gnanam (also
called as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990) accentuated
the role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating that the Vice-Chancellor
should be a person with vision and qualities of academic
leadership and with a flair for administration because what the
universities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair and bold
administrator. The Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished
educationist from the higher education system having highest
level of competence, integrity, morals and self-respect.
54.4. The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented that the
universities need distinguished and dignified persons as Vice-
Chancellors and it is necessary to ensure that they are treated
with dignity and regard, which the office merits.
54.5. The University Grants Commission in its handbook
titled Governance in Higher Education: Handbook for Vice-
Chancellors published in 2019 has penned down the role of
Vice-Chancellor of Indian universities having gained a
paramount importance in the recent times. In the words of
Prof. D.P. Singh, the then Chairman of University Grants
Commission and former Director of National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (“NAAC”):
“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads of Universities,
the Vice-Chancellors are expected to be efficient and
effective in
terms of:
(a) Implementation of National Higher Education Policy
and programmes,
(b) Institutional change in tune with the national reforms
package,
(c) Quality and innovation enhancement and their
sustainability,
(d) Productive engagement with ‘communities of scholars’
from within their universities and from national and
international domains,
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
(e) Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation Ecosystem’ and
translation of deliverables to society and economy,
(f) Adoption of international best practices of ‘Good
Governance’.”
“The Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of a
symphony of orchestra with the attributes of:
(a) Developing teams and teamwork, building partnerships
and collaborations delicately interwoven by collegiality,
friendship and intellectual engagement;
(b) Devising a strategy and action plan with defined
milestones and deliverables;
(c) Ensuring primary accountabilities of self and the
abovementioned university governing bodies; and
(d) Steering an institutional monitoring and evaluation
mechanism on university performance built on principles of
transparency.”
55. Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle of
governance as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra — “Yatha
Raja Tatha Praja”, the sense of morality must begin from the
door of the leader who preaches it.
56. Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-Chancellor is
the leader of a higher education institution. As per the norm, he/
she should be an eminent academician, excellent administrator
and also someone who has a high moral stature. The aforesaid
reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari Commission,
Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee have
highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellor in
maintaining the quality and relevance of
universities, in addition to
its growth and development, keeping in view, the much needed
changes from time to time. Further, these committees have also
made suggestions and recommendations for identifying the right
person for the said position. At this stage, it is correct to say that
a Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of a university’s system and a
keeper of the university’s conscience.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
563
13. Thus, considering the aforesaid relevant provisions, a Vice-
Chancellor should have a minimum teaching experience of 10 years as a
Professor in the University and his name should be recommended by
the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the appointment of the Vice-
Chancellor is to be made out of the panel recommended by the Search-
cum-Selection Committee. At this stage, it is required to be noted that
even as per Section 10(3) of the University Act, 2019, based on the
qualification and eligibility prescribe in the regulations of the University
Grant Commission, the committee shall prepare a panel of three persons
who shall be suitable for the post of the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore,
even as per Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, the qualification and
eligibility prescribed in the UGC Regulations shall have to be considered
by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
14. In the present case, at the time when the appellant was
appointed as Vice-Chancellor, even according to the appellant he was
having a teaching experience of 8 years and 5 months as Professor in
the University. The appellant rendered service as a professor for the
period between 2009 to 2017 till he was appointed as member of the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 7.10.2017. He continued as
a member of the Public Service Commission till 13.08.2020 when he
was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University. It is the case on
behalf of the appellant that while serving as a member of
the Public
Service Commission, the appellant was on a long leave and his lien was
continued on the post of Professor and therefore the said period between
7.10.2017 to 13.08.2020 may be considered for the purpose of counting
the experience cannot be accepted. Merely because his lien was continued
on the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teach
and/or he was having the teaching experience during the period of lien.
Even considering Article 319 of the Constitution of India, while working
as a member of the Public Service Commission, he could not have
rendered any other work on any other post. Therefore, the contention
on behalf of the appellant that the period spent by the appellant from
7.10.2017 to 13.08.2020 as a member of the Public Service Commission
should be added to his teaching experience, holding lien on the substantive
post, cannot be accepted. Merely because such lien is held, the period of
lien, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated and/or considered as
teaching experience.
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
15. Similarly, the submission on behalf of the appellant that while
serving as a member of the Public Service Commission, he was
supervising the Ph.D scholars and therefore the period during which he
worked as a member of the Public Service Commission may be counted
for the purpose of experience has also no substance. Supervising the
Ph.D. scholars cannot be said to be having a teaching experience as a
Professor in the University, which is the requirement. Thus, as rightly
observed by the High Court, the appellant was not having the required/
requisite minimum 10 years’ teaching experience as a Professor in the
University, which is the requirement under the UGC Regulations, 2018.
As observed hereinabove, before appointing the appellant as a Vice-
Chancellor of the University, neither any advertisement was issued, nor
the names were called for from the eligible meritorious candidates, nor
his name was recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee,
nor there was any search committee and therefore there was no occasion
for the Search-cum-Selection Committee to recommend the panel of
persons.
16. From the note sheet dated 5.8.2020, it appears that only one
name was placed before the State Government/the Chief Minister for
approval. Under the circumstances, the appointment of the appellant as
Vice-chancellor of the University was just contrary to Section 10 of the
University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that as observed and held by this
Court in the cases of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra); Anindya Sundar
Das (supra); and Dr. Rajasree M.S. (supra), in a case where there is
a conflict between the State University Act and the UGC Regulations,
2018 to the extent State legislation is repugnant, the UGC Regulations,
2018 shall prevail. As observed hereinabove, UGC Regulations, 2018
were adopted by the State Government and the State Government was
otherwise bound to follow and/or act as per the UGC Regulations, 2018.
17. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that
the appellant was the most meritorious person and looking to his academic
career and having been satisfied that he is the suitable and meritorious
person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, thereafter he was appointed
as Vice-Chancellor by the State Government is concerned, it may be
true that the appellant might have a very good/bright academic career.
However, at the same time, it cannot be said that he was the most
meritorious person as his case was not compared with other meritorious
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
565
persons. Therefore, the State Government had no opportunity to compare
his case with other eligible meritorious candidates. As observed
hereinabove, and as per the requirement of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 and even as per Section 10 of the University Act,
2019, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through
proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection
Committee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee
shall be the persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and
shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or
its colleges. While preparing the panel, the Search Committee shall give
proper weightage to the academic excellence etc. and thereafter the
Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of
the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The
reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selected
and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared with other eligible
meritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by the
Search Committee. In the present case, such a procedure has not been
followed at all. The merit of the appellant has not at all been compared
with other eligible meritorious persons who may be more meritorious
than the appellant.
18. In view of the above, the High Court has rightly quashed and
set aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of
the
University. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the
High Court. The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the
University is just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w
Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which has been
specifically adopted by the State Government. Therefore, this is a fit
case to issue a writ of quo warranto, which is rightly issued by the
High Court. No interference of this Court is called for.
19. Now so far as the prayer on behalf of the appellant that the
appellant is ready and willing to resign as Vice-Chancellor of the
University is concerned, the appellant may resign as Vice-Chancellor, if
so advised. It is ultimately for him to resign as a Vice-Chancellor.
However, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the
University is held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirements
under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018.
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI v. RAVINDRA
JUGRAN AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
566
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated
above, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Ankit Gyan and Anurag Bhaskar
Appeal dismissed.
(Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)