Rajasthan High Court Quashes Dr Dev Swaroop's Appointment As Vice-Chancellor Of Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar Law University

While quashing the appointment order of February 2022, the division bench of Chief Justice (Acting) Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani observed:

“The person to be appointed even as first Vice-Chancellor has to be a person connected and associated with academics and experience in the field of legal education. If a Health Science University is to be manned, the Vice-Chancellor of that University has to be from the field of medical science, the Vice-Chancellor of a Technical University is an expert in technical education, the Vice-Chancellor of an Agricultural University is an expert of that specific field, it does not stand to logic and reasoning that the Vice-Chancellor a Law University need not be a distinguished academician in the field of legal education.”

Prof. K. B. Agarwal had challenged the validity of Section 11(2) of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur Act, 2019 and prayed that the provision be declared as ultra vires, non est and void ab initio insofar as it enables an academician from any discipline to become Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Law University.

It was also prayed that Section 11, sub-section (2) of the Act of 2019 be read down to mean that only distinguished academician/person belonging to the field of law are eligible to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the Law University.

The petitioner also challenged section 11(17) of the Act of 2019 as being violative of Article 14 and Article 254 of the Constitution of India as it empowered the Chancellor to appoint first Vice-Chancellor of the Law University at variance and in utter disregard of mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 11(3) to Section 11(6) of the Act as well as Regulation 7.3(ii) and (iii) of the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018.

The court observed that under the scheme of the 2019 Act, the post of vice-chancellor has not only been assigned administrative and executive functions of Law University, but he is also the academic officer of the University.

The court further pointed that an overview of the provisions contained in Section 13 of 2019 Act, leaves no manner of doubt that apart from exercising administrative and executive powers, the Vice-Chancellor exercises general control over the affairs of the University which necessarily includes the affairs relating to academic matters and the Vice-Chancellor is responsible for close coordination and integration of teaching, research and other work.

“Having a Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No. 3-Law University with no background of academic qualifications and work experience in the field of legal education would frustrate and subvert the object of establishment of a dedicated single discipline law university as enshrined in Section 5 of the Act of 2019,” said the court.

The court highlighted that the eligibility criteria as provided in Section 11(2) of the Act of 2019 does not whisper even a word concerning legal education.

“In the absence of any prescription in the eligibility clause that the person has to be a distinguished academician having minimum ten years experience as Professor in a university or college or ten experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation in the field of legal education, though he may be a good administrator with vast experience in other branches of education, we fail to understand how such a person can efficiently and competently perform the duties and functions of Respondent No. 3- Law University as Vice-Chancellor, the highest authority in the university.”

The court held that the eligibility criteria provided under the Act enables appointment of a person with no background of legal education as Vice-Chancellor, therefore, the provision is clearly unreasonable, irrational and suffers from “manifest arbitrariness” and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

However, the court said that the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellor as provided under Section 11(3) to Section 11(6) of the Act of 2019 and the procedure laid down in Regulation 7.3(ii) and 7.3(iii) of the Regulations of 2018 are not violated insofar as appointment of first Vice-Chancellor is concerned.

“In order to save the constitutionality of the provision, the eligibility criteria as contained in Section 11(2) of the Act of 2019 is read down to mean that no person shall be eligible to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor unless he is a distinguished academician in the field of legal education with other experiences also in the field of legal education and/or research in the field of legal education,” it added.

The court further said that the eligibility criteria, as it stands, frustrates the very objective and purpose of having established the Law University as a single discipline university and an institution of excellence in the field of legal education.

Accordingly, the court set aside the appointment of Dr. Dev Swaroop as Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur.

Case Title: Prof. K. B. Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 11

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment