Summary
In 2020 the Uttarakhand Government appointed the first Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University without any advertisement or search committee, on a single name placed before the Chief Minister. He had about 8 years and 5 months' service as Professor. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's writ of quo warranto. Section 10 of the University Act read with UGC Regulation 7.3.0, which the State had adopted, requires 10 years as Professor and appointment from a search committee panel. The proviso allowing the State to appoint the first Vice-Chancellor does not dispense with these requirements. Time spent as a Public Service Commission member, while holding a lien and supervising PhD scholars, is not teaching experience.
Issues
- Whether the State could appoint the first Vice-Chancellor under the proviso to Section 10(1) of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 without a search committee panel and the eligibility prescribed by Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
- Whether service as Member of the State Public Service Commission, with a lien on the post of Professor and supervision of PhD scholars, counts towards ten years' experience as Professor.
Provisions considered
- Section 10 and proviso to Section 10(1), Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019The Vice-Chancellor must be appointed from a panel prepared by the search committee on UGC eligibility; the proviso for the first Vice-Chancellor does not dispense with the other requirements of Section 10. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 13)
- Regulation 7.3.0, UGC Regulations, 2018Adopted by the State by GO dated 6.9.2019; requires ten years as Professor and appointment from a Search-cum-Selection Committee panel of 3-5 persons, and prevails over repugnant State law. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 16)
- Article 319, Constitution of IndiaA Public Service Commission member could not render work on any other post, so that period cannot be added to teaching experience. (¶ 14)
Held
- Read together, Section 10 of the University Act and Regulation 7.3.0 require a Vice-Chancellor to have at least ten years' experience as Professor in a University and to be appointed out of a panel recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee; the appellant's appointment, made without advertisement, search committee or panel and on a single name placed before the Chief Minister, did not comply. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13, 15, 16)
- The proviso to Section 10(1), allowing the State Government to appoint the first Vice-Chancellor, does not exempt that appointment from the other requirements of Section 10; otherwise those provisions would be rendered otiose. (¶ 11)
- A lien on the post of Professor during service as Public Service Commission member, which Article 319 confines to that office, does not amount to teaching experience, nor does supervising PhD scholars; the appellant lacked ten years' experience as Professor. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- However bright the appellant's academic record, he could not be called the most meritorious when his case was never compared with other eligible candidates as the panel procedure ensures; the appointment was illegal and quo warranto rightly issued, the appellant being free to resign if so advised. (¶¶ 12, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8184 of 2022 against the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment dated 10.11.2021 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 190 of 2020 dismissed; appointment as Vice-Chancellor held illegal; no costs.