The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v. The State of Gujarat  on 3 March 2022 held that the Universities in Gujarat are bound by the UGC Regulations 2010 (Superseded by UGC Regulations 2018) since the state adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same.

Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC regulations prescribes the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor, where the person shall have 10 years of work experience as a professor in the University system and, further, that a Search Committee should be constituted consisting of a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman of UGC, a nominee of Syndicate/Executive Council of the University. The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Sardar Patel University (“SPU”), filed a quo warranto writ petition under Article 32 against the appointment of Respondent No.4 (“R4”) as the Vice-Chancellor (“VC”) of the SPU (Respondent No.2). SPU constituted a search committee as per Article Section 10(2)(b) of the SPU Act, 1955, and also issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of VC mentioning the eligibility criteria prescribed by the said search committee. Thereafter, R4 was appointed as the VC of the SPU. R4 was acting as the VC for the second term and has been receiving the fixed pay of Rs.75,000/­ as prescribed under the regulations.

According to the petitioner, the State of Gujarat passed a Resolution dated 11.11.2009 adopting the Scheme. Since the Scheme has been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are binding upon the State of Gujarat including the respondent SP University. That on adoption of the Scheme by the State Government as well as the SP University, the said University is receiving Central financial assistance under the Scheme and is included in the list of State universities receiving Central financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956.

The said appointment was challenged through a Special Civil Application (SCA) in the first term of R4 by the petitioner in front of a division bench of the High Court. The court dismissed the SCA by noting that Section 10 of the SPU Act does not prescribe any eligibility criteria for the appointment and hence the concerned appointment is legal. Further, the bench also noted that Gujarat has not adopted the UGC Regulations. However, the High Court ordered the State of Gujarat to implement the UGC regulations in the state to avoid such controversies in future. The petitioner then approached the SC with the Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed since by that time only one month was left in the first term of R4. The questions of law were left unanswered. Further, the R4 was selected for a second term. Hence, the current writ petition.

It is contented that appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor is by a Search Committee not legally constituted as per the UGC guidelines.

The Petitioner argued that since the state has adopted the UGC Regulations which provide for eligibility criteria for the appointment of the VC of the Universities, the same should be followed by the SPU. The argument was further substantiated by the fact that R4 has been receiving his pay as per the regulations, according to which 80% of the amount comes from Central Government and the rest 20% from the State Government.

The petitioner argued that by constituting a Search Committee without a nominee of the Chairman of UGC, SPU acted contrary to the Regulations. Further, the Committee diluted the eligibility criteria to suit R4 as it states that persons who have remained VC for one term are eligible.

The Petitioner further submits the High Court communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed to   H.E. ordered the Governor of Gujarat to ensure that all the appointments of VCs in the State are made under the provisions laid down in the UGC Regulations/guidelines. This was prior to the constitution of the Search Committee for the second term.

The Respondents (1, 3, and 4) argued that: Firstly, since the Division Bench of the High Court rightly refused to issue a writ of quo warranto, no writ of quo warranto can be issued. Secondly, the petitioner has no locus standi. Thirdly, so far as the appointment of R4 as a VC for the second term is concerned, UGC Regulations, 2010 are not applicable as UGC Regulations, 2010 have been substituted by the UGC Regulations, 2018.

• Maintainability of writ: Addressing the first issue, the court stated various judgements and noted that the writ of quo warranto is maintainable as the post of VC is of holding a public office and hence the appointment can be challenged.
• Vice Chancellor is Kingpin of University: Universities are autonomous and the ViceChancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As per the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician, excellent administrator and also someone who has a high moral stature. The reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee have highlighted the importance of the role of Vice Chancellor in maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in addition to its growth and development, keeping in view, the much needed changes from time to time. Further, these committees have also made suggestions and recommendations for identifying the right person for the said position. At this stage, it is correct to say that a Vice Chancellor is the kingpin of a University’s system and a keeper of the University’s conscience.
• Role of Search Committee: Court held in its view, the Search / Selection Committee plays a vital and significant role in the selection of the Vice Chancellor; yet the selected Vice Chancellor’s performance in the universities vary from university to university. Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are given the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting names for the appointment of Vice Chancellor are directly or indirectly responsible for the achievement of the University. Commitment to the quality and the objectives of the universities in particular and higher education system in general, are of course the deciding factors in selecting the right perso
• Harmonious interpretation of law in light of facts: The court further noted that the State of Gujarat has adopted the UGC regulations, which also state that payment of Central assistance for implementing the scheme is subject to the condition that the entire scheme of revision of pay scales together with all the conditions to be laid down by the UGC by way of regulations and other guidelines shall be implemented by the State Governments and the Universities thereunder without any modification. It was noted that it is undisputed that the SP University is receiving Central financial assistance under the Scheme and it is included in the State universities receiving Central financial assistance as per Section 12(b) of the UGC Act, 1956. The court concluded that having adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and getting Central financial the SPU are bound by the UGC Regulations. Further, regarding the eligibility criteria, the court noted that the SPU Act did not provide for any guidelines on the eligibility criteria to be prescribed by the Search Committee. Moreover, R4 does not even fulfill the criteria prescribed by the Search Committee.

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M R SHAH

Judge Supreme Court of India

HON’BLE MS JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Judge Supreme Court of India