UGC Regulations 2018 - Appointment Of Vice-Chancellor Has To Be Made Out Of A 'Panel Of Names' Recommended By Search Committee: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the Vice-Chancellor appointment has to be made out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

Most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University from and amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, the  bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed while upholding the Uttarakhand High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandar as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University.

While considering his appeal, the bench noted that (1) no advertisement was issued before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor (2) His name was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (3) His selection was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and (4) he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee.

The court therefore observed that he appointment cannot be said to be as per the requirement of Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018.

One of the contentions raised was that it was a case of appointment of first Vice-Chancellor and therefore considering proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, the procedure as required for appointment as Vice-Chancellor as provided under Section 10 is not required to be adhered to and it is open for the State Government to appoint the first Vice-Chancellor of the University.

Even while making the appointment of the first ViceChancellor of the University, the procedure required for selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye, the court said while rejecting this contention.

The court also rejected his contention that the period spent by him from 7.10.2017 to 13.08.2020 as a member of the Public Service Commission should be added to his teaching experience. 

The court noticed that only one name was placed before the State Government/the Chief Minister for approval in this case. The bench also dealt with the contention that he was the most meritorious person and looking to his academic career and having been satisfied that he is the suitable and meritorious person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, thereafter he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor by the State Government.

Referring to recent judgments in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242 , State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 831 and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 871, the bench said:

"It may be true that the appellant might have a very good/bright academic career. However, at the same time, it cannot be said that he was the most meritorious person as his case was not compared with other meritorious persons. Therefore, the State Government had no opportunity to compare his case with other eligible meritorious candidates. As observed hereinabove, and as per the requirement of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and even as per Section 10 of the University 22 Act, 2019, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the 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 shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence etc. and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared with other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by the Search Committee. In the present case, such a procedure has not been followed at all. The merit of the appellant has not at all been compared with other eligible meritorious persons who may be more meritorious than the appellant."

Regarding the submission that he is ready and willing to resign as Vice-Chancellor, the bench observed thus, while dismissing the appeal:

"It is ultimately for him to resign as a Vice-Chancellor. However, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirements under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018."

Case details

Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs Ravindra Jugran | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940 | CA 8184 OF 2022 | 10 Nov 2022 | Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh

For Appellant(s) Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Gupta Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kshitiz Singh, Adv. Mr. Kushagra Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mr. Mahipal Khagnwal, Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR 

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Mr. Satwik Parikh, Adv. Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Adv. Ms. Mantika Vohra, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, AOR Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR Mr. Param Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. C. S. Rawat, Adv. Mr. Girish Shanker, Adv.

Headnotes

UGC Regulations 2018 - The post of ViceChancellor of the University is a very important post and therefore the most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University from and amongst the other eligible meritorious candidates out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee - The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and the members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the 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 shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence etc. and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is compared with other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by the Search Committee. (Para 12,17)

UGC Regulations 2018 - Where there is a conflict between the State University Act and the UGC Regulations, 2018 to the extent State legislation is repugnant, the UGC Regulations, 2018 shall prevail - Referred to Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs State of Gujarat  2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242 ,  State of West Bengal vs Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 831  and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs Dr. Rajasree M.S. 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 871 (Para 16)

UGC Regulations 2018 - Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 - Vice Chancellor Appointment - Appeal against Uttarakhand High Court judgment which set aside the appointment of Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandar as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University - Dismissed - (1) no advertisement was issued before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor (2) His name was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee (3) His selection was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and (4) he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee - Even while making the appointment of the first ViceChancellor of the University, the procedure required for selection and appointment of Vice-Chancellor is not required to be given go-bye- Appellant might have a very good/bright academic career, however it cannot be said that he was the most meritorious person as his case was not compared with other meritorious persons - The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirements under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment