Writ Of Quo Warranto Can Be Issued Where An Appointment Has Not Been Made In Accordance With Law : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law.

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli observed thus while dismissing the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal and Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee challenging the order of the Calcutta High Court which had set aside the decision of the State to re-appoint Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University. The High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Anindya Sundar Das, an alumnus of Calcutta University and a practicing advocate seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University.

The Apex Court bench observed that the State of West Bengal usurped the powers of the Chancellor (WB Governor) while re-appointing Banerjee as the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University.

The bench noted that the High Court had observed that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when: (i) A person holding public office lacks eligibility criteria prescribed for such appointment; and (ii) The appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions or rules. The court, therefore, dealt with the procedural objection regarding the limits of the writ of quo warranto.

Referring to various judgments including Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2018) 6 SCC 162, the bench observed:

"Through these decisions, the Court has settled the position that the writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law".

Case details

State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831 | CA  6706 of 2022| 11 October 2022 | Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli

Counsel: Sr. Adv Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sr. Adv Jaideep Gupta for appellants

Headnotes

Calcutta University Act, 1979 ; Section 8 - Upheld Calcutta High Court order that set aside the decision of the State to re-appoint Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University - The State government could not have issued the order re-appointing the VC - The power of appointment including of reappointment is entrusted to the Chancellor and not to the State government. The amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a) cannot therefore be construed to mean that the power of reappointment has been taken away from the Chancellor and entrusted to the State government - Amended Section 8(2)(a) which provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term does not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) has to be followed for re-appointment. (Para 29-57)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - Quo Warranto - The writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law - Referred to Bharati Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2018) 6 SCC 162. (Para 28)

University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 - Vice Chancellor Appointment - Even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would be in violation of the UGC Regulations. - Referred to Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v State of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242. (Para 56)

Interpretation of Statutes - A government cannot misuse the "removal of difficulty clause" to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions. Allowing such actions would be antithetical to the rule of law. Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation - Where there is a specific provision, it is not open to the State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties. (Para 48- 49)

Interpretation of Statutes - A statute must be read to avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or terms meaningless or redundant. (Para 41)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment