Supervising Ph.D. scholars not to be counted as teaching experience as Professor: SC sets aside Vice Chancellor’s appointment

The Supreme Court on Thursday while agreeing with the High Court’s order, setting aside the appointment of Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari, Vice Chancellor, Soban Singh Jeena University, dismissed the appeal for finding no ground to interfere.

“We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University is just contrary to Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w 23 Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which has been specifically adopted by the State Government”, a bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Justice MM Sundresh opined.

In the present matter the appeal arose out of an impugned judgment and order by the High Court of Uttarakhand, where the Court had set aside the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the University on finding irregularities in the said appointment. It was alleged that the appellant (Vice Chancellor) worked as a professor in the University from 23-5-2009 to 7-10-2017, till he was appointed as Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Pursuant to which he was appointed by the State Government as Vice Chancellor of the University by an order dated 11-08-2020. Therefore, the grounds of challenge to the appointment were:

1. That the minimum requirement of 10 years as professor to be eligible for the post was not complied with.

2. That his name was not recommended by the Search Committee and only one name was placed before the Chief Minister and without even any advertisement he was selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor.

The Court thus after considering the factual matrix, the manner of selection by the Committee appointed, and the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018, gave a brief note on each of the submission made by the appellant.

After a conjoint reading of the Section 10 of the University Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the bench was of the opinion that the provisions mandates 10 years experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. And that it should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee, out of the names recommended by the panel. “The name of the appellant was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The selection of the appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor was not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and therefore he was not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee”, the bench urged.

On the submission that the while serving as a member of the Public Service Commission, the appellant was on a long leave and his lien, therefore the period should be considered for the 10 years experience, the bench opined, “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. Even considering Article 319 of the Constitution of India, while working as a member of the Public Service Commission, he could not have rendered any other work on any other post. “…Merely because such lien is held, the period of lien, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated and/or considered as teaching experience”, bench further added.

When the appellant contended that while serving as a member of the Public Service Commission, he supervised the Ph.D scholars and therefore the period should be counted for the purpose of experience, the bench noted “Supervising the Ph.D. scholars cannot be said to be having a teaching experience as a Professor in the University, which is the requirement. Thus, as rightly observed by the High Court, the appellant was not having the required/requisite minimum 10 years’ teaching experience as a Professor in the University, which is the requirement under the UGC Regulations, 2018”.

On the argument that the appellant was the most meritorious, and his academic career substantiates the merit, the bench opined,“…it may be true that the appellant might have a very good/bright academic career. However, at the same time, it cannot be said that he was the most meritorious person as his case was not compared with other meritorious persons. Therefore, the State Government had no opportunity to compare his case with other eligible meritorious candidates”.

Case Title: Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran and Others