PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. versus DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 252, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Arguments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S.
v.
DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635/2022)
OCTOBER 21, 2022
[M.R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 254 –UGC Regulations, 2010 –
UGC Guidelines – APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
(AAKTU) Act, 2015 (University Act, 2015/State Act) & Regulations
– S. 13 – Appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor – Requirement
of recommending a panel of names by search committee – State
government’s discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations,
2010 – Repugnancy between State legislation and Central legislation
– Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of
the Kerala High Court to declare the appointment of the respondent
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram as
void on the ground the appointment was contrary to UGC
Regulations, which required that the Search Committee should
recommend a panel of three to five names for consideration, but in
the instant case, only one name was recommended – Further
contended that UGC Act shall prevail over State legislation  – Single
Judge dismissed the petition by noting that unless the UGC
Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the
State legislation shall prevail and once the Search Committee was
constituted as per Section 13 of the University Act enacted by the
State, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be by
a duly constituted
Search Committee and as such the appointment
cannot be said to be illegal – Appellant appealed before a Division
Bench, which came to be dismissed – Question for the Supreme
Court – Whether while making the appointment of respondent No.
1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram, the
appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or
in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)?;
Whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend the name
of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the University can be
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 252
252
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
253
said to be duly constituted Committee? – Held: Any appointment as
a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search
Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio – If there is any conflict
between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union
law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India
to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant –
Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically
adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to
contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding
on the State/State’s Universities – Search Committee in this case
was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per UGC regulations
– Under UGC regulations, the Search Committee duly constituted
has to send a panel of 3-5 names for consideration as appointment
as Vice Chancellor, and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended
by the Search Committee – Even under University Act, the Search
Committee shall recommended unanimously a panel of not less than
three suitable persons – When only one name was recommended
and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had
no option to consider the names of the other candidates – Thus, the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/
or contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations as well as
even to the University Act, 2015.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on
the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is
constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations
shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict between the State
legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail
even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the
extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant.
[Para 8.4][264-B-D]
1.2 In the present case as such vide order dated 10
December 2010, the UGC Regulations have been specifically
adopted by the State Government. In the order dated 27 March
2010, while adopting/accepting the UGC Regulations, it is
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
specifically observed in paragraph 5 that all the universities shall
incorporate the UGC Regulations in their Statutes and
Regulations within one month from the date of the said order and
Government will initiate steps to amend the Acts of the
Universities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is further
mentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the
steps to amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations
of the UGC Regulations. Merely because the subsequent
amendment has not been specifically adopted/accepted by the
State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the
amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/
State’s Universities.  Therefore also, the UGC Regulations were
applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor in
the respective Universities in the State and the appointment of
the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions
of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.
[Para 8.5][264-E-H]
1.3 As per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, the
selection of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper
identification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and
the members of the Search 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. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the
Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended by
the Search Committee. The recommendation for appointment as
a Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee duly
constituted and that the Search Committee has to recommend
the names and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the
Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the
Search Committee. [Para 8.7][267-D-F]
1.4 Even as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015,
the Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less
than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons
in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before
the Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case, admittedly the only
name of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the Chancellor.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
255
As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names
recommended by the Search Committee. Therefore, when only
one name was recommended and the panel of names was not
recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the
names of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of
the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to
the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the
University Act, 2015. Therefore, the appointment of respondent
No. 1 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Search
committee, which was not a duly constituted Search Committee
as per the UGC Regulations and when only one name was
recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable
persons as required under Section 13(4) of the University Act,
2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to be
illegal and void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo warranto
was required to be issued. [Para 8.10][271-H; 272-A-D]
1.5 The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue
the writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and
void ab initio are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition
is
allowed. There shall be a writ of quo warranto declaring the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram
as void ab initio and consequently, the appointment of respondent
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set aside.
[Para 9][272-E-F]
Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. (2015)
6 SCC 363 : 2015 (3) SCR 467; Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi
Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 179; State
of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. 2022
(14) SCALE 636 – referred to.
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 3 SCR 467
referred to
Para 2.2
(2022) 5 SCC 179
referred to
Para 3
2022 (14) SCALE 636
referred to
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-
7635 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2021 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.514 of 2021 and dated 24.09.2021
in R.P. No.634 of 2021.
Dr. Amit George, Mohammed Sadique T.A., Mrs. Anu K. Joy,
Alim Anvar, Mobashshir Sarwar, Piyo Harold, Bharat Rayadurgam, Amol
Acharya, A. Bhaumik, Ms. Iram Peerjada, Advs. for the Appellant.
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot,
Mrs. Ashly Harshad, C. K. Sasi, Abdulla Naseeh V. T., Ms. Meena K.
Poulose, P. V. Dinesh, Rahul Raj Mishra, Bineesh K, Ashwini Kumar
Singh, Ravinder Agarwal, Lekhraj Singh, 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 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2021 and Order dated 24.09.2021
in Review Petition No. 634 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the
High Court has dismissed the said appeal and the review petition preferred
by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo warranto to
declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of
the APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram
as void ab initio, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present
appeals.
2. The appellant herein – original writ petitioner preferred the
writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for writ
of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as
Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
257
Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio inter alia on the grounds that the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 dehors the provisions of the UGC
Regulations; that the composition of the Search Committee was not in
accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; even the recommendation
and appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not in
accordance with the UGC Guidelines; the Search Committee was
required to recommend a panel of three to five names to the Chancellor,
however, in the present case, only one name was recommended to the
Chancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations; the provisions
of the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations
shall not be binding and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall
prevail over the said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with the
UGC Regulations.
2.1 The writ petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents.
It was inter alia contended that unless the UGC Regulations are adopted
by the State Government, the University Act enacted by the State shall
prevail and that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the
universities and colleges and for the other higher educational institutions
under the provisions of the State legislature as the mater has been left to
the State Government to adopt and implement the scheme.
2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs.
K.V.
Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363 by observing that unless
the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government,
the State legislation shall prevail. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
opined that once the Search Committee was constituted as per Section
13 of the University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of the
respondent No. 1 therefore, can be said to be by a duly constituted
Search Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be
illegal.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the appeal
before the Division Bench.  Before the Division Bench, it was specifically
argued and pointed out that in fact the UGC Regulations were adopted
by the State Government, however, the Division Bench while dismissing
the appeal has observed that as the amendment to the UGC Regulations
have not been adopted, the same shall not be applicable and/or binding
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
while appointing the respondent No. 1.  Again, relying upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan (supra), the Division
Bench has dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to the present
appeals.
3. Shri Amith George, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment(s)
and order(s) passed by the High Court are just contrary to the decision
of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat
and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 as well as the recent decision of this
Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das
& Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022.
3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri George, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as observed and held
by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the provisions of the UGC
Regulations shall be applicable and prevail.  It is submitted that therefore
any provision of the State Act (in the present case, the University Act
and the Regulations), which are in conflict with the UGC Regulations
shall be repugnant and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall have
to be applied.
3.2 It is submitted that as such in the present case the UGC
Regulations, 2010 were in fact adopted by the State Government vide
order dated 10.12.2010.  However, the High Court has erroneously
observed and held that the UGC Regulations shall not be
applicable as
the subsequent amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 13.06.2013
have not been specifically adopted by the State Government.
3.3 It is submitted that therefore any appointment on the post of
Vice Chancellor of the University contrary to the UGC Regulations shall
be void ab initio and therefore, the High Court ought to have issued a
writ of quo warranto.
3.4 It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committee
constituted to recommend the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as
Vice Chancellor was not duly constituted Search Committee as required
under the provisions of the UGC Regulations and therefore the same
was illegal and void ab initio.
3.5 It is submitted that even otherwise, ever as per Section 13 of
the University Act, the Search Committee was required to recommend
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
259
a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent
persons in the field of engineering sciences.  It is submitted that in the
present case, the Search Committee recommended the name of the
respondent No. 1 alone, which was sent to the Chancellor.  It is submitted
that therefore also the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said
to be contrary to Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015.
3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above two
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set
aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court
and allow the writ petition preferred by the appellant and to issue a writ
of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as illegal
and void ab initio.
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Jaideep Gupta,
leaned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State – Government
of Kerala.  Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani
Mathivanan (supra), it is submitted that as observed and held by this
Court unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the state,
the State is not bound by the UGC Regulations.  It is submitted that
therefore the Hon’ble High Court has rightly refused to issue a writ of
quo warranto considering and/or relying upon the decision of this Court
in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra).
5. Present appeals are opposed by Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel
appearing on
behalf of the respondent No. 1.
5.1 It is submitted that even assuming that the UGC Regulations,
2013 shall be applicable, in that case also, even considering the relevant
provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2013, the Search Committee
constituted in the present case cannot be said to be contrary to UGC
Regulations. It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committee
was consisted of one member nominated by AICTE and the Chief
Secretary of the State. It is submitted that the member nominated by
AICTE can be said to be a person of eminence in the sphere of higher
education.  It is submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the Search
Committee constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1
was illegally constituted Search Committee.
5.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeals.
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties at length.
7. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this
Court is: whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 as
Vice Chancellor of the  APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing
UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act,
2015 (State Act)?
The other question which is posed before this Court for
consideration is: whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend
the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the University
can be said to be duly constituted Committee?
8. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the
case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra)  and Kalyani Mathivanan
(supra).  Now, the issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail vis-
à-vis the State legislation/State Act, identical question came to be
considered by this Court in the recent decision of this Court in the case
of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra).  While considering the appointment
of the Vice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, it is
specifically observed and held by this Court that the appointment of
Vice Chancellor cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations,
even if the State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis-
à-vis the criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC
Regulations.  It is
further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the
State Act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended to
bring it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it is
the applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail.  It is further observed
and held that being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become
part of the Act.   It is further observed and held that in case of any
conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the
Central legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail by
applying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution
as the subject “education” is contained in the Concurrent List of Schedule
VII of the Constitution.  The observations made in relevant paras are as
under:-
“20. Now the next question which is posed for
consideration of this Court is, whether, the appointment of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
261
Respondent 4 as a Vice-Chancellor of the SP University —
Respondent 2 herein can be said to be contrary to any statutory
provisions and whether, can it be said that Respondent 4 fulfils
the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
20.1. While examining the aforesaid issues the relevant
provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 enacted in exercise of
powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1)
of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
and the relevant provisions of the SPU Act, 1955, are required
to be referred to.
20.2. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision
for the coordination and determination of standards in universities
and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants
Commission. Section 12 deals with “Functions of the
Commission”, while Section 14 speaks of “Consequences of
failure of universities to comply with recommendations of the
Commission”. Section 26 deals with “Power to make
regulations”. As per Section 28 the rules and regulations framed
under the UGC Act are required to be laid before each House
of Parliament and when both the Houses agree then rules and
regulations can be given effect with such modification as may
be made by Parliament. Therefore, any regulation enacted in
exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said to be subordinate
legislation.
20.3. For the appointment and career advancement of
teachers in the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC
by
Regulation dated 4-4-2000, enacted the University Grants
Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for the
Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in
Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000.
However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were
prescribed for the post of “Pro-Chancellor” or “Vice-Chancellor”.
21. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resource Development Department of Higher
Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated
31-12-2008 communicated to the Secretary, University Grants
Commission, New Delhi the Scheme of revision of pay of
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges
following the revision of pay scales of the Central Government
employees on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay
Commission.
22. By the said letter, the Government of India directed
that there shall be only three designations in respect of teachers
in the universities and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
Associate Professors and Professors. In the said letter revised
pay scales, service conditions and Career Advancement Scheme
for teachers and equivalent positions including the post of
Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/Professors in
universities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of Pro Vice-
Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor were also mentioned therein. It was
intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to the
universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions
coming under the purview of the State Legislature, provided the
State Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme
subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.
23. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/
U.I(i), dated 31-12-2008 issued by the Government of India and
in exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g)
of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC
enacted the Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC
Regulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on
28-6-2010 and came into force with
immediate effect.
XXXXXXXXX
25. Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/State
Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes
of the universities concerned within six months of adoption of
these Regulations.
26. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter alia, prescribe
in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching
work experience as a Professor in a university system. It also
provides for constitution of a Search Committee consisting of a
nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman
of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
263
the University and the Search Committee has to recommend
the names of the successful candidates.
XXXXXXXXX
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 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.”
8.1 That thereafter and having found that the appointment of the
Vice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University was contrary to the UGC
Regulations, 2010, this Court issued the writ of quo warranto.  It is required
to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani
Mathivanan (supra) was also pointed out by this Court.
8.2 Even in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), it is
observed in paragraph 53 that to the extent the State legislation is in
conflict with the Central
legislation including subordinate legislation made
by the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the
same shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative.
It is also required to be noted that in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan
(supra), this Court was considering the UGC Regulations, 2010, which
were silent in regard to the post of Vice Chancellor.
8.3 The decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K.
Gadhvi (supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in the
recent decision of this Court in the case of Anindya Sundar Das &
Ors (supra) while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor
of Calcutta University.  In the said decision, it is also observed and held
in paragraph 56 that in view of the decision in the case of Gambhirdan
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
K Gadhvi (supra),  even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would
have to be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice
Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio.   It
is further observed that the UGC Regulations shall become part of the
statute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail.
8.4 In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court, any
appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the
Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio.  If there is any conflict between
the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail
even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the
provision of the State legislation is repugnant.  Therefore, the submission
on behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations  are specifically
adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable and
the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations are specifically
adopted by the State cannot be accepted.
8.5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present
case as such vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC Regulations have
been specifically adopted by the State Government.  At this stage, it is
required to be noted that in the order dated
27.03.2010, while adopting/
accepting the UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in paragraph
5 that all the universities shall incorporate the UGC Regulations in their
Statutes and Regulations within one month from the date of the said
order and Government will initiate steps to amend the Acts of the
Universities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is further
mentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the steps to
amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations of the UGC
Regulations.  Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been
specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the
State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be
binding on the State/State’s Universities.  Therefore also, the UGC
Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice
Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the appointment
of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions of
the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
265
8.6 Now, the next question, which is posed for the consideration
of this Court is whether in fact in the present case, the Search Committee
constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram can be said to be a duly constituted Search
Committee, is concerned, the relevant clauses of the UGC Regulations,
2013 and Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
Act, 2015 relating to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor are required
to be referred to, which are as under:-
CLAUSE 
7.3.0 
OF 
UNIVERSITY 
GRANTS
COMMISSION (2nd AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS.
2013. EXT.R3(a)
7.3.0 VICE CHANCELLOR:
i. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity; morals
and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a
distinguished academician with a minimum of ten years of
experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of
experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/
or academic administrative organization.
ii. The selection of Vice Chancellor should be through proper
identification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee
through a public notification or nomination or a talent search
process or in combination. The members of the above Search
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 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 to be given in writing along with the
panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. The constitution
of the Search Committee could be as per the Act/Statutes of
the concerned university.
iii. The Visitor/ Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out
of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
iv. The conditions of services of the Vice Chancellor shall be as
prescribed in the Act Statutes of the university consented in
conformity with the Principal Regulations.
v. The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part of
the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her
eligible for all service related benefits.
SECTION 
13 
OF 
APJ 
ABDUL 
KALAM
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2015
13. The Vice-Chancellor
(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and
academic officer of the University. He shall be the ex-officio
Chairman of the Executive Committee and of the Academic
Committee.
(2) The first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor
on the recommendation of the Government and thereafter the
Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from
among a panel of names recommended by a Search Committee
consisting of the following members, namely:
(i)
one member elected by the Board of Governors:
(ii)
one member nominated by the AICTE
(iii)
the Chief Secretary of the State, who shall be
the Convenor of the Committee
(3) The process of preparing a panel shall begin at least three
months before the probable date of occurrence of the vacancy
of the Vice-Chancellor and shall be completed within the time-
limit fixed by the Chancellor.  The Chancellor, however, may
extend such time-limit, if, in the exigency of the circumstances,
it is necessary to do so. However, the
process of preparation of
the panel shall be completed within a period of three months,
including the period so extended.
4. The Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not
less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent
persons in the field of engineering sciences. The names shall be
in English alphabetical order. The report shall be accompanied
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
267
by a detailed write-up on the suitability of each person included
in the panel. In case the Committee fails to make a unanimous
recommendation as provided, each member of the Committee
may submit the name of one person each to the Chancellor. The
non submission of the name by any member of the Committee
shall not invalidate the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
(5) No person who is more than sixty one years of age shall be
appointed as Vice-Chancellor and after the appointment, he shall,
subject to the terms and conditions of his appointment, hold office
for a period of four years from the date on which he enters
upon his office or till he attains the age of sixty five years,
whichever is earlier.
(6) The persons appointed as Vice-Chancellor will be eligible
for re-appointment provided he has not attained the maximum
age mentioned in sub-section 5.
8.7 Thus, as per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, the
selection of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification
of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and the members of the
Search 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. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor
shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended by the
Search Committee. Therefore, the recommendation for appointment as
a Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee
duly
constituted and that the Search Committee has to recommend the names
and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor
out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.
While preparing the panel, the Search Committee must 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.
8.8 The importance of the post of the Vice Chancellor has been
elaborately observed and considered by this Court in the case of
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) in paragraphs 53, 54, 54.1 to 54.5, 55
and 56 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
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
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
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
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 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.
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
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,
(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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
(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.”
8.9 On the role of Search Committee / Selection Committee, it is
observed in paragraph 57 as under:-
“57. Further, in our view, the Search/Selection
Committee plays a vital and significant role in the selection of
the Vice-Chancellor; yet the selected Vice-Chancellor’s
performance in the universities vary from university to university.
Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are given
the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting names for
the appointment of Vice-Chancellor are directly or indirectly
responsible for the achievement of the university. Commitment
to the quality and the objectives of the universities in particular
and higher education system in general, are of course the deciding
factors in selecting the right person.”
8.10 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even as per Section
13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend
unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
[M.R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be
placed before the Visitor/Chancellor.  In the present case, admittedly
the only name of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the Chancellor.
As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint
the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the
Search Committee.  Therefore, when only one name was recommended
and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no
option to consider the names of the other candidates.  Therefore, the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or
contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the
University Act, 2015.  Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 1
on the basis of the recommendations made by the Search committee,
which was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per the UGC
Regulations and when only one name was recommended in spite of
panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable persons as required under Section
13(4) of the University Act, 2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1
can be said to be illegal and void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo
warranto was required to be issued.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals succeed.  The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned
Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ of
quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio are
hereby quashed and set aside.  The writ petition is allowed.  There shall
be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the
appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul
Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and
set aside.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
Ankit Gyan and Anurag Bhaskar
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)