'Not Keen On Letting Interim V-Cs Continue, Regular Appointments Needed': Supreme Court On WB Universities Row

The apex court's stance comes as a response to the ongoing dispute between the West Bengal government and Governor CV Anand Bose(Chancellor of Universities) regarding the appointment of interim vice-chancellors.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was hearing a special leave petition by the state government challenging a June 2023 judgment of the Calcutta High Court upholding the interim vice-chancellor appointments made by Governor Bose in 13 universities, in his capacity as the chancellor of the institutions.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the State of West Bengal complained that the interim appointees, who have been in office since December, were sanctioning transformations in the university structure.

However, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, representing the Governor, objected to this submission, emphasising that the initial matter pertained to the composition of the selection committee.

“The issue before this court was the composition of the selection committee. Unfortunately, we have strayed into many other peripheral areas," Attorney-General R Venkataramani argued, before adding that he was going to have a meeting with the Chancellor tomorrow in Kolkata to discuss the situation.

“I am going to travel to Kolkata to meet with the governor and a few other people," AG Venkataramani said.

To this, Justice Kant suggested, “Mr Attorney, if you can talk to him and persuade him, this issue will be resolved. He should also realise...”

“The only thing is there are some small impediments in the functioning of the vice-chancellors as an interim arrangement. Let them continue to function while Your Lordships decide who should replace them. In the meantime, let me find out if some other issues may be sorted. The state government is saying that they can't do this, they can't do that. I don't think this should be the case," the Attorney-General replied.

Senior Advocate Gupta, at this juncture, reminded the court that under the law, an interim vice-chancellor's tenure should not exceed six months. Justice Kant echoed this sentiment, highlighting the court's reluctance to allow acting vice-chancellors to continue without a competitive selection process. He also stressed the need for the process for regular appointments to be initiated at the earliest –

“Function or not function...We are not very keen on allowing acting vice-chancellors to continue. They have not been selected through a competitive process. The interim arrangement can continue provided that the process of regular appointments is initiated. The problem is that we are stalled. The regular appointments are not happening.”

“I agree,” AG Venkataramani concurred, requesting the court to adjourn the hearing for two weeks to provide a report on his meeting with the Governor.

“If you can have clear instructions from the chancellor...” Justice Kant prompted. Then, the bench directed the hearing to be adjourned for two weeks, allowing time for the attorney-general to provide an update following his discussions with Governor Bose.

The dispute traces back to a June 28 judgment by the Calcutta High Court, which upheld the interim vice-chancellor appointments made by the Chancellor (Governor) in 13 state-run universities. The Supreme Court, recognising the escalating tension between the state governor and the governor, emphasised the importance of reconciliation for the benefit of educational institutions and students' future careers.

Efforts to break the deadlock led the court to constitute a search-cum-selection committee for appointing vice-chancellors. However, the court faced challenges in forming the committee as neither the governor nor the University Grants Commission (UGC) responded with nominees, as alleged by the state government. The court sought five names each from the UGC, the West Bengal Government, and the Governor to determine the committee's composition. During a subsequent hearing, the court also called upon intervenors to propose names of renowned scientists, technocrats, administrators, educationists, and other eminent individuals.

In October last year, the court issued notice in response to an interim application filed by the state government challenging appointments made by Governor Bose since August. The court, taking note of the ongoing appointments, stayed the additional financial emoluments of interim vice-chancellors appointed by Governor Bose during the pendency of this plea.

Once again in December, the apex court stressed the importance of dialogue and cooperation to resolve the impasse, asking the Attorney General Venkataramani to organise a joint meeting with all stakeholders to break the logjam.