Summary
The Chancellor did not accept the West Bengal government's proposals to re-appoint the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University for a second term. The State government then re-appointed her itself, invoking the removal-of-difficulties power in Section 60 of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. The Calcutta High Court issued a writ of quo warranto. The Supreme Court upheld that decision. Amended Section 8(2)(a) makes the State government's satisfaction a condition of eligibility for re-appointment and dispenses with a search committee. It does not move the power of appointment, including re-appointment, from the Chancellor to the State. Section 60 cannot be used to invent a lacuna and usurp a power the statute gives elsewhere. The UGC Regulations, 2018 also require the Chancellor to appoint.
Issues
- Whether amended Section 8(2)(a) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979 vests the power to re-appoint a Vice-Chancellor in the State government rather than the Chancellor.
- Whether re-appointment under Section 8(2)(a) requires the search-committee procedure in Section 8(1).
- Whether the State government could re-appoint the Vice-Chancellor under the removal-of-difficulties clause in Section 60 after the Chancellor declined its proposal.
- Whether a writ of quo warranto lay against the re-appointment.
Provisions considered
- Section 8(2)(a) (as amended in 2019), Calcutta University Act, 1979Read as fixing the term of office and the conditions of eligibility for a further four-year term: the State government's satisfaction and the incumbent's academic and administrative record. It does not transfer the Chancellor's power of appointment to the State. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42)
- Sections 7(1), 8(1)(b), 8(2)(b) and 8(5), Calcutta University Act, 1979Under these provisions the Chancellor is head of the University and holds the powers to appoint, continue and make interim appointments. Reading Section 8(2)(a) as giving the State the power to re-appoint would make them redundant. (¶¶ 37, 38, 41, 42)
- Sections 8(1) and 8(6), Calcutta University Act, 1979The search committee and panel procedure governs fresh appointments and the filling of vacancies. It does not apply to re-appointment of an incumbent, on which point the High Court was right. (¶¶ 33, 40, 46)
- Section 60, Calcutta University Act, 1979The removal-of-difficulties power permits only minor adaptations to make a statute work. It cannot be used to manufacture a lacuna where Section 8 expressly provides, or to usurp the Chancellor's power. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50)
- Regulation 7.3, UGC (Minimum Qualifications ... and Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018The Regulation requires the Visitor or Chancellor to appoint the Vice-Chancellor. As held in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi, it binds State universities and prevails over contrary State law, so an appointment by the State would offend it. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54, 55, 56)
Held
- A writ of quo warranto lies where a public office is held without legal authority, including where the appointment is contrary to the statute. The challenge therefore had to be decided on the statutory scheme. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Amended Section 8(2)(a) sets the term and the conditions of eligibility for re-appointment. The words 'subject to the satisfaction of the State Government' cannot be read as vesting the power of re-appointment in the State. The power to appoint, including to re-appoint, remains with the Chancellor, and the State's own reference of its proposals to the Chancellor recognised this. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 42, 43)
- Because the amendment removed the cross-reference to sub-section (1), re-appointment does not require a search committee and panel. Section 8(6) applies to vacancies, not re-appointments. (¶¶ 40, 45, 46)
- Where Section 8 expressly provides for the matter, the State could not invent a lacuna and use Section 60 to bypass the Chancellor. Misusing a removal-of-difficulties clause to sidestep statutory limits is contrary to the rule of law. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50)
- Independently, Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 requires appointment by the Visitor or Chancellor and prevails over State law. An appointment by the State government would violate it. (¶¶ 51, 55, 56)
Result
Appeals dismissed. The High Court's judgment setting aside the State government's order of 27 August 2021 re-appointing the Vice-Chancellor was upheld. No order as to costs.