Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Supreme Court Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Kumar, in an appeal challenging the appointment of Dr. Rajasree M.S., Vice Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, and further seeking directions to hold it as void ab initio, has set aside the appointment, and thus the order of the High Court. 

In the instant matter it was alleged that the appointment of the respondent was in contravention of the provisions of the UGC Regulations, where the grounds of objections to the appointment were:

1. that the composition of the Search Committee was not in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; 

2. the recommendation and appointment of the Vice Chancellor was not in accordance with the UGC Guidelines;

3. the Search Committee was required to recommend a panel of three to five names to the Chancellor, however, in the present case, only one name was recommended to the Chancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations;

4. the provisions of the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations shall not be binding and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall prevail over the said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with the UGC Regulations.

While the respondents had claimed that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the State legislation shall prevail.

The question before the Court to decide upon was, whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)? and whether the committee so constituted was a duly constituted committee?

The Court while deciding on the questions and referring to the earlier binding decisions of the Court was of the opinion that any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search Committee,  contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio.  And considering the primacy of Union legislation over State in case of a conflict, the submission that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable and the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State cannot be accepted.

The Bench noted, "...it is required to be noted that even as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before the Visitor/Chancellor". "...Therefore, when only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015."

Case Title: Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors.