Summary
The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Kerala, was challenged by quo warranto. The Search Committee had sent the Chancellor only her name. The Kerala High Court upheld the appointment under the State University Act, relying on Kalyani Mathivanan, on the view that unadopted UGC Regulations do not bind. The Supreme Court quashed the appointment. Following Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi and Anindya Sundar Das, UGC Regulations are subordinate legislation forming part of a central Act on a Concurrent List subject, so they prevail over repugnant State law under Article 254. Kerala had in any case adopted the Regulations, so later amendments bound it too. Both Clause 7.3.0 of the Regulations and Section 13(4) of the State Act required a panel of names, and the Committee was not properly constituted. The appointment was void ab initio.
Issues
- Whether the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of a State university must conform to the UGC Regulations even where the State Act provides otherwise or the State has not adopted their amendments.
- Whether an appointment made on the recommendation of a single name by a Search Committee not constituted as the UGC Regulations require is void, warranting a writ of quo warranto.
Provisions considered
- Clause 7.3.0, UGC (2nd Amendment) Regulations, 2013A Search Committee of eminent persons unconnected with the university must recommend a panel of 3-5 names, from which the Chancellor appoints; sending one name defeated the scheme. (¶¶ 8.6, 8.7, 8.10)
- Section 13(4), APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015Even the State Act required a unanimous panel of not less than three names, so the single-name recommendation breached it too. (¶¶ 8.6, 8.10)
- Article 254 and Entry 25, List III, Constitution of IndiaUGC Regulations made under Section 26 of the UGC Act are central subordinate legislation that prevails over repugnant State university law. (¶¶ 8, 8.2, 8.4)
Held
- Under Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi and Anindya Sundar Das, an appointment as Vice-Chancellor contrary to the UGC Regulations is void ab initio, and the State's contention that the Regulations apply only if specifically adopted cannot be accepted; Kalyani Mathivanan concerned the 2010 Regulations, which were silent on Vice-Chancellors. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4)
- The State had in fact adopted the UGC Regulations and undertaken to amend its laws, so its failure to adopt the 2013 amendment separately did not make the amended Regulations inapplicable. (¶ 8.5)
- Since the Search Committee was not duly constituted under the UGC Regulations and recommended only the first respondent's name instead of a panel, leaving the Chancellor no choice, the appointment was illegal and void ab initio. (¶¶ 8.7, 8.9, 8.10)
Result
Appeals allowed; the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court set aside, the writ petition allowed, and a writ of quo warranto issued declaring the appointment of the first respondent as Vice-Chancellor void ab initio and quashing it; no costs.