Calcutta High Court Reserves Judgment In PIL Against "Unilateral" Appointment Of Interim-VCs By Governor

The Calcutta High Court today reserved its judgment in a PIL filed by a retired professor, questioning the alleged illegality with which the Governor of West Bengal, acting as de facto Chancellor of State Universities, unilaterally appointed interim Vice-Chancellors.

The petitioner said consultation with the relevant State Departments is mandatory under the UGC norms and prayed for issuance of the Writ of quo warranto upon the  Governor.

During the hearing, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnaman and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta orally remarked, "suppose you have sent a list of at least three candidates per vacancy, then consultation can take place…but here you have sent a list of specific candidates for each vacant post….out of which the Governor has selected two."

However, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay appearing for the State of WB argued that the appointments were unilateral, and the appointed VCs were neither recommended by the State, nor a result of any consultatory process. He submitted State has supervisory powers to deal with the administration of “state-aided” universities and claimed that the Governor’s actions have been without any regard for accountability.

Counsels appearing for several Universities questioned the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that the writ petition is immature inasmuch as if there was no consultation with the State while appointing the interim VCs, then the State ought to have agitated and written to the Governor and complained then itself. However, this was not done.

Calling the allegations the “vaguest possible” ones, the respondents argued that the through the writ petition, the authority of the Chancellor is seemingly being diluted and impression given is that what the State says must always be done. They argued that the appointment of interim VCs is crucial in administering a University, since there are various administrative tasks such as admissions, that cannot take place when the office of VC is left vacant. Thus the appointments being temporary it nature, it was submitted that they were within the exclusive authority of the Governor and hence would not be liable to be examined in a writ petition.

Finally, the respondents submitted that in service law jurisprudence, only the aggrieved party may bring a cause of action and that in this case, the petitioner was a third-party-individual who had not shown demonstrated research or redressal such as RTI pertaining to the current matter.

While reserving judgment, the Bench observed the need for a speedy resolution of this matter: “Assuming that this war goes on for Six more years, what shall we do? Shut down all universities and make the registrars carry out only administrative functions?”

Case Title: DR SANAT KUMAR GHOSH VS THE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KALYANI AND ORS WPA(P)/272/2023

Coram: Chief Justice TS Sivagnaman and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta