[Vice-Chancellor Appointment] SC: Lien continued on the post of a Professor cannot be considered as teaching experience

 

On 10^th November 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that appointment of Vice-chancellor de hors the statutory requirements u/s Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, to be illegal.  (Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari Vs. Ravindra Jugran and Others)

Facts of the Case:

The appellant herein was appointed as Professor and worked as such for the period between 23.5.2009 to 7.10.2017 till he was appointed as Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. That thereafter he was appointed by the State Government as Vice-Chancellor of the University by order dated 11.08.2020. He assumed the charge as Vice-Chancellor on 13.08.2020. The appointment of the appellant was challenged before the High Court by way of present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that at the time when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, he was not having the requisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which was required as per the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 adopted by the state govt. The original writ petitioner said that his name was not recommended by the Search Committee and only one name was placed before the Chief Minister and thereafter without any advertisement he was selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Same was opposed by appellant and was said that as per the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 there was no such requirement of having minimum 10 years’ experience as Professor. He has been a professor for more than more than 8 years and 5 months. While he continued as Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, he was on long leave as Professor and his lien on the post of Professor was continued. He was supervising PhD scholars and therefore the same was required to be counted for considering the minimum 10 years’ experience. The HC allowed the said writ petition and quashed the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. Hence, present appeal was filed.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The counsel for the appellants submitted that “Regulation 7.3.0 was adopted by the State, subject to modification. Therefore, there was no requirement of having minimum 10 years’ experience as a professor for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University. As per proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, it was open and permissible for the State Government to appoint a Vice-Chancellor of his choice and as it was a case of appointment of first Vice-chancellor, it was not required to have the name recommended by the Search Committee. It cannot be said that the appellant was not having requisite minimum 10 years’ experience as a professor. The appellant had rendered 8 years and 5 months service as a professor. That thereafter when he was appointed as a member of the Public Service Commission, he was on long leave and his lien continued on the post of professor on which he was working earlier. He was supervising the PhD scholars. He was appointed as Vice-Chancellor after complete satisfaction of the State Government regarding the eligibility. Considering his academic career, he was found to be most meritorious.” Cases of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, and State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Others were referred. 

 

Contentions of the Respondent:

The counsel for the respondents submitted that “neither there was any advertisement given nor the applications were invited from eligible and meritorious candidates nor the name of the appellant was recommended by the Search Committee as the Search Committee was not constituted at all and therefore the name of the appellant was not recommended by the Search Committee. As per Article 319 of the Constitution of India, the appellant could not have worked on any other post in any other institution while continuing as a member of the Public Service Commission. UGC Regulations, 2018 including Regulation 7.3.0 for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor have been specifically adopted by the State Government except the requirement of consideration of the Search Committee. Proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019 does not give any unfettered powers to the State Government to appoint Vice-Chancellor of the University de hors Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 and UGC Regulations, 2018.” Cases of Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others, Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi and Anindya Sundar Das were refereed.

Observations and Judgment of the Court: 

The hon’ble court observed that “a Vice-Chancellor should have a minimum teaching experience of 10 years as a Professor in the University and his name should be recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is to be made out of the panel recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even as per Section 10(3) of the University Act, 2019, based on the qualification and eligibility prescribe in the regulations of the University Grant Commission, the committee shall prepare a panel of three persons who shall be suitable for the post of the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, even as per Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, the qualification and eligibility prescribed in the UGC Regulations shall have to be considered by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. Merely because his lien was continued on the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teach and/or he was having the teaching experience during the period of lien. While working as a member of the Public Service Commission, he could not have rendered any other work on any other post. The appointment of the appellant as Vice-chancellor of the University was just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. The State Government had no opportunity to compare his case with other eligible meritorious candidates as only one name was placed before them.”

The appeal stands dismissed and the appointment was held to be illegal and de hors the statutory requirements under Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. 

 

Case: Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari Vs. Ravindra Jugran and Others

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8184 Of 2022

Bench: Justice M.R.

Date: November 10, 2022.

Read Judgment ;

Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh 

Read Judgment;

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure