"If there is any conflict between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the submission on behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable and the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State cannot be accepted".

However, in the present case, the Court noticed that the UGC Regulations were adopted by the Government as per order dated 10.12.2010. In the said Government Order, it was stipulated that Universities shall incorporate the UGC regulations in their statutes and rules. In this backdrop, the Court observed: 

"Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/State's Universities. Therefore also, the UGC Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the appointment of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time."

This judgement came in an appeal filed against the Kerala High Court, which had earlier refused to issue a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment. The High Court had relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Kalyanji Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors, which held that the UGC regulations will not be binding on States unless specifically adopted by it. 

The questions that fell for determination were whether the appointment ought to be in compliance with the UGC Regulations or the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act 2015 which had been enacted by the State legislature in 2015, and if the search committee constituted to recommend Rajasree as the Vice-Chancellor was a "duly constituted" one.

Search committee must recommend at least 3 suitable names

While dealing with the second question, the court noted that both the UGC Regulations and the University Act, 2015 required the search committee to recommend at least three suitable persons for the post of Vice-Chancellor, from among whom, the Chancellor would make the selection. However, in the present case, only Rajasree's name had been recommended by the committee, which is why the Chancellor "had no option to consider the names of the other candidates".

 Even as per Section13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before the Visitor/Chancellor.

Assailing the legitimacy of the search committee and its recommendation on this ground, the court held –

"The appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 1 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Search committee, which was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per the UGC Regulations and when only one name was recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable persons as required under Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to be illegal and void ab initio."

Reliance was placed on Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242 in which an "identical question" regarding the applicability of the UGC Regulations vis-à-vis the State legislation was examined by the apex court. In this case, the Court had applied the doctrine of repugnancy to hold that the applicable UGC Regulations would prevail as "education" was a part of the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution.

The Court noted that even the decision in Kalyanji Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. [(2015) 6 SCC 363], on the basis of which a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court had refused to interfere with the appointment, observed that state legislation will be inoperative to the extent it is repugnant with the Central Law.  Reference was also made to a recent decision of the court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. [2022 LiveLaw(SC) 831], which followed the decision in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi.

Therefore, allowing the appeal, the Court held –

"The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set aside."

Background

Professor (Dr) Sreejith P.S. was an applicant for the post of Vice-Chancellor of the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, which was advertised by the State two times. The petitioner was included in the shortlist prepared as per the first notification, but after the search committee was dissolved, a second notification was issued in December 2018. In the second notification, the petitioner did not find his name and he came to know through newspaper reports that the Chancellor on February 19, 2019, had appointed Dr Rajashree M.S. On appreciation of the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner found that there were several vitiating facts which made the selection process invalid. Consequently, the Kerala High Court was moved by the petitioner. However, a Single-Judge Bench refused to quash the appointment of Rajasree M.S. An appeal preferred against this decision before a Division Bench was also dismissed. Finally, the matter travelled in appeal to the Supreme Court.

Case Title

Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors. [CA Nos. 7634-7635/2022 @ SLP (C) Nos. 21108-21109/2021]

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871

UGC Regulations - Appointment of Vice Chancellor must be as per the UGC Regulations, even if they have not been specifically adopted by the State- In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the Central legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail by applying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject "education" is contained in the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution-followed Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 242 - Para 8, 8.4

UGC Regulations - Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio-Para 8.4

UGC Regulations -Appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government has to be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio - Para 8.3 - Followed State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. [2022 LiveLaw(SC) 831]

UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0 - Search Committee for selection of Vice-Chancellor must prepare a panel of 3 to 5 names-when only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 held contrary to Regulations - Para 8.10