Calcutta High Court Seeks State's Response On Plea Alleging 'Overload' Of State Representatives On Search Committee For State Universities VCs

The Calcutta High Court has sought the State's response in a PIL concerning composition of search committees for the selection of Vice-Chancellors for WB State Universities, following the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023, (“2023 amendment”).

The Ordinance increased the strength of the Committee from 3 to 5 to include Chief Minister’s nominee and a representative of the West Bengal State Council of Higher Education.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sivagnaman and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta characterised the issues in the case to be a) whether there need to be multiple nominees by the State Executive on the same committee? b) whether such an inclusion would be outside the boundaries of the Constitution and c) whether this would lead to “governmental dominance of the education system pertaining to selection of VCs?”

The petitioner had earlier challenged the appointment of certain Vice Chancellors in West Bengal State Universities being ultra vires the UGC regulations. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had then directed the State government to strictly adhere to the UGC Regulations 2018 and accordingly instate a UGC nominee in the search committee for selection of VCs.

The petitioner submitted that prior to the Division bench decision, the search committee would comprise of 3 nominees. One nominee of the Chancellor of the University, One nominee of the State Government and One nominee who was an academician possessing determinate pre-existing knowledge and experience as a professor. However, as a result of the Division Bench decision in Anupam Bera v. State of WB, which asked the State Government to follow the 2018 UGC regulations and include a UGC representative on the search committee, the strength of the panel was increased to 5 members by an Amendment.

According to the petitioner, in order to circumvent the Order of the division bench, the larger committee was constituted to comprise of a CM nominee, a UGC nominee, a nominee by the Higher education department of the State, an Academician and a Chancellor’s nominee. Thus, there being multiple nominees of the State Government in the new five-member committee, the petitioner complained of potential bias, favouritism, and nepotism in the selection process.

It was submitted that such a numerical advantage of the State would reduce the governor to a mere “signing authority.” Contending that it would tantamount to “state control and dominance over higher education”, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgement of TMA Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka (2002).

It was the case of the Advocate General for the State that the Ordinance is not contrary to 2018 UGC regulations which stipulates a 3-5 member committee.

The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India contended that such an ordinance could not have been unilaterally passed by the State Government, as it being a matter in the Concurrent list would require presidential assent to be legislated upon.

Upon noting that the search committee in accordance with the 2023 Amendment had not been constituted yet, the Court asked all the respondents to take notice and observed that if the petitioners are wary that a committee is being formed in a rushed manner, under the impugned ordinance, then they would be free to approach the court in order to urgently resolve their grievances.

Case has been listed on 31^st July 2023 for further hearing.

Case Title: Anupam Bera v Union of India WPA(P)/264/2023

Coram: Chief Justice Sivagnaman and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta