REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) No.1525 OF 2019

Gambhirdan K Gadhvi            ..Petitioner (S)

VERSUS

The State of Gujarat & Ors.                     ..Respondent (S)

J U D G M E N T 

M. R. Shah, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of quo warranto

challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice

Chancellor   of   respondent   No.2   –   Sardar   Patel   University

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “SP   University”)   and   to   quash

Signature Not Verified

and   set   aside   the   notification   dated   29.08.2019,   bearing
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.03.03
17:23:30 IST
Reason:
No.GH/SH/76/SPY/122010/2626/   KH­2   passed   by

respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat, appointing respondent

1
 No.4   as   the   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   respondent   ­   SP

University.   The   petitioner   has   also   prayed   for   any   other

appropriate writ, direction and order directing respondent

authorities   to   recover   from   respondent   No.4   all

consequential   benefits   not   limited   to   pay,   with

retrospective   effect,   that   have   been   extended   to   him   by

virtue of his illegal appointment as Vice Chancellor of the

SP University. 

2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the University

Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC”)

framed   UGC   Regulations   on   Minimum   Qualifications   for

Appointment   of   Teachers   and   Other   Academic   Staff   in

Universities   and   Colleges   and   Measures   for   the

Maintenance   of   Standards   in   Higher   Education,   2010

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   “UGC   Regulations,   2010”)

which,   inter   alia,   prescribes   in   Regulation   7.3.0   that   a

person shall have ten years of teaching work experience as

a professor  in  the  University  system. It also provides for

constitution   of   a   Search   Committee   consisting   of   a

nominee   of   the   Visitor/Chancellor,   a   nominee   of   the

2
 Chairman   of   UGC,   a   nominee   of   Syndicate/Executive

Council of the University. That the Search Committee has

to   recommend   the   names   of   suitable   candidates   for

appointment as Vice Chancellor of a University.

2.1 That   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   has   been   substituted

subsequently   vide   UGC   Regulations,   2018   with   slight

modifications which shall be referred to hereinbelow.

2.2 It is the further case on behalf of the petitioner that the

Union   Ministry   of   Human   Resource   Development   laid

down   a   Scheme   of   revision   of   pay   of   teachers   and

equivalent   cadres   in   the   Universities   following   the   6 th

Central   Pay   Commission   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the

“Scheme”).   The   Scheme   provides   a   fixed   pay   of

Rs.75,000/­ along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/­

per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said

Scheme   provides   that   it   is   extended   to   Universities,

Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming

under   the   purview   of   the  State  Legislature,   provided  the

State   Governments   wish   to   adopt   and   implement   the

scheme   with   certain   conditions,   inter   alia,   financial

3
assistance  from the Central Government to the extent of

80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20%

shall be met by the State Government. Payment of Central

assistance for implementing the scheme was 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.

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. It is

the case on behalf of the petitioner that since the Scheme

has been adopted, all regulations framed by the UGC are

4
 binding   upon   the   State   of   Gujarat   including   the   SP

University.

2.3 The   UGC   addressed a communication dated 11.08.2014

to H.E. ­ the Governor of Gujarat seeking compliance with

the UGC Regulations, 2010 with respect to appointment of

Vice Chancellors in the State of Gujarat. That H.E. ­ the

Governor of Gujarat communicated to the Government of

Gujarat vide communication dated 30.08.2014 to comply

with   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   with   respect   to   the

appointment   of   Vice   Chancellors.   At   this   stage,   it   is

required to be noted that H.E. – Governor of Gujarat is the

ex­officio   Chancellor   of   all   the   Universities   in   the   State

including the SP University.

2.4 It   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   that   ignoring

Regulation   7.3.0   of   the   UGC   Regulations,   a   Search

Committee was constituted under Section 10(2)(b) of the

Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to

as the “SPU Act”) on 29.07.2016 with no nominee of the

Chairman of the UGC. According to the petitioner, even as

5
per Section 10(2)(b), the Search Committee has only the

authority   to   recommend   a   panel   of   suitable   candidates.

The Search Committee, in the present case, exceeded its

jurisdiction   and   prescribed  its   own   eligibility   criteria   for

the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor   by   diluting   the   eligibility

criteria   laid   down   in   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010.   That

respondent   No.2   issued   an   advertisement,   inviting

applications   for   the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor,   while

mentioning the aforesaid eligibility criteria prescribed by

the   Search   Committee.   Thereafter   the   State   issued   a

notification   appointing   respondent   No.4   as   the   Vice

Chancellor of the SP University for his first term of three

years.   According   to   the   petitioner   respondent   No.4   was

not having teaching work experience as a professor for a

period of ten years, which is mandatory as per the UGC

Regulations,   2010.   That   respondent   No.4   herein   was

promoted   to   the   post   of   Professor   with   effect   from

08.03.2008.   According   to   the   petitioner   though

respondent No.4  lacked the eligibility, he was appointed

as   the   Vice   Chancellor   at   the   fixed   pay   of   Rs.75,000/­

6
 which   is   as   per   the  revised  Scheme   –  Appendix   I   dated

31.08.2008. 

2.5 That   the   petitioner   challenged   the   said   appointment   of

respondent   No.4   before   the   High   Court   by   way   of   filing

Special   Civil   Application   (SCA)   No.18922   of   2017.   By

judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 the Division Bench

of   the   High   Court  dismissed  the   said  SCA   by   observing

and   holding   that   the   UGC   Regulations   had   not   been

adopted by the State of Gujarat and thus were not binding

upon   respondent   University.   While   dismissing   the   SCA

and upholding the appointment of respondent No.4 to the

post   of   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   University,   the   Division

Bench of the High Court referred to Section 10 of the SPU

Act,   which   does   not   provide   for   any   qualification

whatsoever for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor.

The Division Bench of the High Court observed that such

a position would  leave room for a lot of arbitrariness in

the matter of selection of persons for appointment as Vice

Chancellor.   The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court

observed   that   though   it   is   true   that   UGC   Regulations

7
provides for certain qualifications, however, the same are

not   binding   unless   the   State   legislation   is   appropriately

amended. That the Division Bench of the High Court also

noted the communication dated 11.08.2014 addressed by

the   UGC   to   H.E.   –   Governor   of   Gujarat.   By   the   said

communication   it   was   requested   to   ensure   that   all   the

appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in

accordance   with   the   provisions   laid   down   in   the   UGC

Regulations. The said Regulations, inter alia, provide for

minimum   qualifications   for   the   appointment   of   Vice

Chancellor in Regulation 7.3.0. The High Court noted that

the   Principal   Secretary   to   H.E.   –   the   Chancellor   had

addressed   a   communication   dated   30.08.2014   to   the

Principal   Secretary,   Government   of   Gujarat,   requesting

him   to   take   note   of   the   said   important   communication

and take necessary steps at the Government level but the

same   had   been   ignored   by   the   State   and   no   steps   had

been   taken   pursuant  thereto.   Therefore, the   High  Court

observed that it is high time the State of Gujarat adopts

the   UGC   Regulations   and   amends   the   State   legislation

appropriately so that no room is left for any manipulation,

8
 arbitrariness, nepotism and favouritism. At this stage, it is

required to be noted that despite the above observations

made in para 24 by the High Court, no further steps have

been   taken  by   the   State   Government   to   adopt   the   UGC

Regulations   and   amend   the   State   legislation

appropriately. 

 
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and

order   passed   by   the   High   Court   dismissing   SCA

No.18922/2017,   upholding   the   appointment   of

respondent   No.4   to   the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor   of   SP

University,   petitioner   preferred   a   Special   Leave   Petition

(SLP) before this Court by filing SLP (C) No.21792/2018.

The said SLP came up before this Court for final hearing

on 30.07.2019. However, by the time the said SLP could

be   heard,   only   one month remained in the  first term  of

respondent   No.4,   therefore,   this   Court   did   not   interfere

with the appointment of respondent No.4 and vide order

dated   30.07.2019   disposed   of   the   same;   however,   this

Court   specifically   observed  that   all   questions   of  law   are

left open. 

9
2.7 That   thereafter   an   advertisement   dated   12.06.2019   was

published,   inviting   applications   to   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor of respondent No.2 – SP University. According

to   the   petitioner   again   the   Search   Committee   was   not

constituted as per the UGC Regulations. According to the

petitioner in the said advertisement the Search Committee

has   further   diluted   the   eligibility   criteria   to   suit

respondent No.4, in so far as it states that persons who

have remained Vice Chancellor for one term are eligible.

That thereafter respondent No.4 has been again appointed

as   the   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   SP   University   vide

notification dated 29.08.2019 for a further term of three

years.   It   is   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   that

impugned notification appointing respondent No.4 as the

Vice Chancellor of the SP University is absolutely illegal

and   in   violation   of   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   and   the

UGC   Regulations,   2018.   Therefore,   the   present   writ

petition   has   been   preferred   for   a   writ   of   quo   warranto

challenging   the   appointment   of   respondent   No.4   as   the

Vice Chancellor of the SP University.

10
2.8 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the earlier

decision of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in

Special Civil Application No.18922/2017 may come in the

way   of   the   petitioner   and   if   again   the   petitioner

approaches the High Court by filing a writ petition under

Article 226 of the  Constitution of India. This is because

the petitioner will have to face the decision of the Division

Bench of the High Court passed in SCA No.18922/2017

which though challenged before this Court, the same was

disposed   of   without   considering   the   legality   and/or

correctness   of   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the

Division Bench of the High Court in SCA No.18922/2017.

This was because by the time the matter was heard, only

one   month   of   service   of   respondent   No.4   was   left   and

while disposing of the SLP, it was observed by this Court

that   all   questions   of   law   are   left   open.   Hence,   the

petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 32

of   the   Constitution   of   India.   Therefore,   it   is   prayed   to

entertain the present writ petition and consider the same

11
 on merits in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case.   

3. Shri I.H. Syed learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of   the   petitioner   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the

appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice Chancellor of SP

University   is   absolutely   illegal   and   contrary   to   the

statutory guidelines issued by the UGC. 

3.1 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.

3.2 It   is   submitted   by   Shri   Syed   learned   Senior   Advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant

time   when   his   first   appointment   was   made   as   Vice

Chancellor,   he   was   not   fulfilling   the   eligibility   criteria

required   as   per   the   UGC   guidelines   as   well   as   even   the

eligibility criteria fixed by even the Search Committee. It is

further   submitted   that   at   the   relevant   time   when

respondent   No.4   was   appointed,   he   was   not   having   ten

years of experience as a professor which was mandatorily

12
 required as per the UGC guidelines as well as the eligibility

criteria fixed by the Search Committee.

3.3 It   is   further   contended   by   Shri   Syed,   learned   Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the

present   case   the   Search   Committee   constituted   was   not

legal and valid. It is urged that as per the UGC guidelines

which the State and universities were bound, one of the

members   of   the   Search   Committee   should   be   the

Chairman of the UGC and/or his nominee. It is submitted

that in the present case the Search Committee constituted

did   not   include   the   Chairman   of   the   UGC   and/or   his

nominee.  Hence,   the appointment of respondent No.4 by

such an illegal Search Committee is absolutely illegal and

contrary   to   the   statutory   provisions   and,   therefore,   the

same is required to be quashed and set aside by issuing a

writ of quo warranto.

3.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Syed   learned   Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the

present   case   even   the   Search   Committee   prescribed   the

13
eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor. That the

SPU   Act  as   such   does  not  provide  and/or  prescribe any

eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor which as

such is a very important and prestigious post so far as the

University is concerned. That even the Division Bench of

the   High   Court   in   the   earlier   round   of   litigation   in

paragraph   24   of   the   judgment   specifically   criticised   the

State   for   not   prescribing/providing   the   minimum

qualifications   for   appointment   of   Vice   Chancellor   at   par

with   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010.   It   is   submitted   that

Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   even   noted   the

communication   dated   11.08.2014   addressed   to   H.E.   –

Governor of Gujarat to ensure that all the appointments of

Vice Chancellors in the State are made in accordance with

the   provisions   laid   down   in   the   UGC

Regulations/guidelines   which   provide   for   minimum

qualifications   for   the   appointment   of   Vice   Chancellor   as

per   Regulation   7.3.0   of   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   and

also noted that even H.E. – Governor of Gujarat addressed

a   communication   dated   30.08.2014   to   the   State

Government   to   take   note   of   the   communication   dated

14
 11.08.2014 and to take necessary steps at the Government

level. That thereafter the Division Bench of the High Court

has noted that said communications have been ignored by

the   State   government   and   no   steps   have   been   taken

pursuant   thereto   and   therefore,   it   is   high   time   that   the

State   government   adopts   the   UGC   Regulations   and

amends the State legislation appropriately so that no room

is   left   for   manipulation,   arbitrariness,   nepotism   and

favouritism.   That   despite   the   above   and   even   thereafter

also   no   further   steps   have   been   taken   by   the   State

Government to amend the State legislation. 

3.5 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Syed,   learned   Senior

Advocate,   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   that   by

adopting   the   Scheme   dated   31.12.2008   vide   Resolution

dated 11.11.2009, all regulations framed by the UGC shall

be   binding   on   the   State   Government   including   the   SP

University. That UGC Regulations, 2010 which, inter alia,

prescribe in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten

years   of   teaching   work   experience   as   a   professor   in   the

University system. It also provides for constituting of the

15
 search   committee,   consisting   of   a   nominee   of   the

Visitor/Chancellor,   a   nominee   of   the   Chairman   of   the

UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executing Council of the

University.   That   such   a   search   committee   has   to

recommend the names of the successful candidates. It is

submitted  that in  the present case respondent No.4 was

appointed   as   Vice   Chancellor   for   the   second   term   even

though he did not fulfil the said criteria.

3.6 It is submitted that even respondent No.4 was being paid a

fixed pay of Rs.75,000/­ along with a special allowance of

Rs.5,000/­   per   month   as   per   the   Scheme   dated

31.12.2008.   It   is   submitted  that   once  the  Scheme  dated

31.12.2008   had   been   adopted   by   the   State   government

and   the   SP   University   and   the   said   University   started

receiving   central   financial   assistance   and   even   it   is

included in the list of State universities receiving financial

assistance   as   per   Section   12(b)   of   the   UGC   Act,   1956,

thereafter   it   will   not   be   open   to   the   State   and/or   the

University   not   to   follow   the   UGC   Regulations   and   to

continue   to   appoint   the   Vice   Chancellor   illegally   and

16
 contrary to the  provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010

(now UGC Regulations, 2018). 

3.7 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Syed,   learned   Senior

Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   petitioner   that   the

UGC  Regulations,  2010/2018 are Central legislation and

therefore,   the   State   and/or   the   State   universities   are

bound   by   the   Central   legislation   and   UGC   Regulations,

2010/2018,   the   subject   ‘education’   being   in   the

Concurrent   List   of   the   Seventh   Schedule   of   the

Constitution.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the   decisions   of   this

Court in the cases of  Annamalai University represented

by Registrar Vs. Secretary to Government, Information

and Tourism Department and Ors, (2009) 4 SCC 590 and

Kalyani   Mathivanan   Vs.   K.V.   Jeyaraj   &   Ors,  (2015)   6

SCC 363.

3.8 Shri Syed, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the   petitioner   has   submitted   that   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor   in   a   University   is   a   very   important   and

prestigious post. Post of Vice Chancellor can be said to be

17
 holding of a public office. It is submitted that the future of

the   students   –   next   generation  can   be   said   to   be   in   the

hands   of   the   Vice   Chancellor   who   has   to   run   the

administration   and   management   and   lead   the   University

and guide the students. It is urged that therefore greater

care   and   caution   should   be   taken   while   making   the

appointment of the Vice Chancellor of a University and the

best talent shall have to be appointed as Vice Chancellor.

It is submitted that any appointment as a Vice Chancellor

contrary   to   the   statutory   rules   and   regulations   warrants

issuance of a writ of quo warranto. It is submitted that the

Vice Chancellor, not having the requisite qualifications and

who   does   not   fulfil   the   eligibility   criteria   and/or   who   is

appointed   by   a   search   committee   which   is   not   legally

constituted, cannot hold such an important public office. 

3.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above

decisions,   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the   present   writ   petition

and   to   issue   a   writ   of   quo   warranto   as   prayed   in   the

petition.                  

18
4. Shri   Manoj   Ranjan   Sinha,   learned   counsel   appearing   on

behalf of the UGC – respondent No.3 herein has as such

supported the petitioner. It is submitted that in a search

committee for appointment as Vice Chancellor, one of the

members   of  the   search committee shall be a nominee of

the   Chairman   of   the   UGC.   It   is   submitted   that   UGC

Regulations,   2010   and   2018   were/are   binding   to   all   the

States and the Universities.

4.1 It is further submitted that even as per clause 7.3.0 of the

UGC Regulations, 2010/2018, the members of the Search

cum Selection Committee, can be persons of eminence in

the sphere of higher education. It further provides that one

member   of   the   search   committee   shall   be   nominated   by

the Chairman of the UGC for selection of Vice Chancellors

of the State, Private and Deemed to be universities. That

as   per   the   UGC   Regulations,   Visitor/Chancellor   shall

appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of the names

recommended by the Search cum Selection committee. It is

contended that being a Central legislation all the States,

Private  and  Deemed to be Universities are bound by  the

19
 UGC Regulations and the guidelines issued from time to

time.

5. The   present   petition   is   opposed   by   Shri   Vinay   Navare,

learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2 ­ SP University. 

5.1 Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of respondent No.2 ­ SP University has vehemently

submitted   that   in   the   earlier   round   of   litigation,   the

Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dismissed   the   writ

petition   and   did   not   interfere   with   the   appointment   of

respondent  No.4   as the Vice Chancellor  of  SP University

and   the   SLP   against   the   same   was   dismissed   by   this

Court. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to again

challenge   the   appointment   of   respondent   No.4   as   a   Vice

Chancellor   for   the   second   term.   It   is   submitted   that   as

such   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   and   the   subsequent

Regulations,   2018   have   not   been   adopted   by   the   State

government   and   therefore,   the   UGC   Regulations   are   not

binding to the State and/or universities and in the present

case SP University.

20
5.2 It   is   submitted   that   appointment   of   respondent   No.4   is

governed   under   the   SPU   Act,   1955   and   the   Search

Committee was constituted by the State government under

the SPU Act. That as such Section 10 of the said Act, does

not   provide   for   any   specific   eligibility   criteria/minimum

eligibility criteria for the post of Vice Chancellor, therefore,

the   Search   Committee   itself   prescribed   the   eligibility

criteria.  That  after selecting respondent No.4 and on the

recommendations   made   by   the   Search   Committee,

respondent No.4 has been appointed. 

5.3 It is submitted that in the absence of any statutory breach,

appointment of respondent No.4 has been made as per the

SPU   Act,   1955   and   hence   no   writ   of   quo   warranto   be

issued.   It   is   submitted   that   while   challenging   the

appointment   of   respondent   No.4   in   the   first   term,   the

Division Bench of the High Court rightly refused to issue a

writ   of   quo   warranto.   Therefore,   with   regard   to   the

appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for

21
 the   second   term   also,   no   writ   of   quo   warranto   can   be

issued. 

5.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Navare,   learned   Senior

Advocate,   appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.2   ­   SP

University that even otherwise the petitioner has no locus

standi.   It   is   submitted   that   the   petitioner   is   an   ex­

employee of the respondent ­ University and has a grudge

against   the   University   and   therefore,   the   present   writ

petition has been preferred challenging the appointment of

Vice   Chancellor.     It   is   prayed   not   to   entertain   the   writ

petition at the instance of such a person. 

                   
6. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No.4, while adopting the submissions made

by Shri Navare, has further submitted that so far as the

appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor for

the second term is concerned, UGC Regulations, 2010 are

not   applicable   as   UGC   Regulations,   2010   have   been

substituted by the UGC Regulations, 2018. 

22
7. Ms.   Ruchi   Kohli,   learned counsel appearing  on  behalf of

respondent   No.1   –   State   has   opposed   the   present   writ

petition. 

7.1 When a pointed question was asked to Ms. Kohli, learned

counsel  appearing   on   behalf  of   respondent   No.1  –  State,

whether the State legislation is amended providing for the

minimum   eligibility   criteria   at   par   with   the   UGC

Regulations, as observed by the High Court in the earlier

round of litigation in para 24, she is not in a position to

satisfy and/or point out any such amendment in the State

legislation. 

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length. 

9. By  way  of   this  writ petition filed under  Article 32 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ

of   quo   warranto   by   challenging   the   appointment   of

respondent   No.4   herein   as   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   SP

University – respondent No.2 herein. When a writ of quo

warranto will lie has been dealt with by this Court in the

23
 case of  Rajesh Awasthi Vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors.,

(2013) 1 SCC 501. In para 19, it has been observed and

held as under: ­

“19. A   writ   of   quo   warranto   will   lie   when   the

appointment   is   made   contrary   to   the   statutory
provisions. This Court in Mor Modern Coop. Transport
Society   Ltd. v. Govt.   of   Haryana [(2002)   6   SCC   269]
held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when
appointment   is   contrary   to   the   statutory   provisions.
In B. Srinivasa Reddy [(2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) : (2007)
1  SCC  (L&S)  548  (2)] ,  this  Court  has  reiterated  the
legal position that the jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one which
can only  be issued if the appointment  is contrary to
the   statutory   rules.   The   said   position   has   been
reiterated   by   this   Court   in Hari   Bansh   Lal [(2010)   9
SCC 655 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 771] wherein this Court
has held that for the issuance of writ of quo warranto,
the   High   Court   has   to   satisfy   itself   that   the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.”

9.1 In the case of  Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association

and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731, it

has been observed by this Court that strict rules of locus

standi   are   relaxed   to   some   extent   in   a   quo   warranto

proceedings. It is further observed in the said decision that

broadly   stated,   the quo   warranto proceeding   affords   a

judicial   remedy   by   which   any   person,   who   holds   an

independent   substantive   public   office   or   franchise   or

liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the

24
said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be

duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder

of   the   office   has   no   title,   he   would   be   ousted   from   that

office   by   a   judicial   order.   It   is   further   observed   that   in

other   words,   the   procedure   of quo   warranto gives   the

judiciary  a weapon to control the executive from  making

appointments   to   public   office   against   law   and   to   protect

citizens from being deprived of public office to which they

have   a   right.   These  proceedings   also  tend   to   protect   the

public from usurpers of public office. It is further observed

that   it   will,   thus,   be   seen   that   before   a   person   can

effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy

the court that the office in question is a public office and is

held   by   a   usurper   without   legal   authority,   and   that

inevitably   would   lead   to   an   enquiry,   as   to,   whether,   the

appointment   of   the   alleged   usurper   has   been   made   in

accordance with law or not. Thus, as per the law laid down

in a catena of decisions, the jurisdiction of the High Court

to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can

only be issued when a person is holding the public office

does   not   fulfil   the   eligibility   criteria   prescribed   to   be

25
 appointed   to   such   an   office   or   when   the   appointment   is

contrary to the  statutory rules. Keeping in mind the law

laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions on the

jurisdiction   of   the   Court   while   issuing   a   writ   of   quo

warranto, the factual and legal controversy in the present

petition is required to be considered. 

10. Respondent   No.4   is   holding   the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor.

The post of Vice Chancellor in a University can be said to

be a public office. There cannot be any dispute about the

same.   It   is   nobody’s   case   that   holding   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor cannot be said to be holding a post of public

office. 

11. Now the next question which is posed for consideration of

this   Court   is,   whether,   the   appointment   of   respondent

No.4   as   a   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   SP   University   –

respondent No.2 herein can be said to be contrary to any

statutory   provisions   and   whether,   can   it   be   said   that

respondent No.4 fulfils the eligibility criteria for the post of

Vice Chancellor

26
11.1 While   examining   the   aforesaid   issues   the   relevant

provisions   of   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010   enacted   in

exercise  of  powers  conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of

Sub­section   (1)   of   Section   26   of   the   University   Grants

Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant provisions of the

SPU Act, 1955, are required to be referred to.

11.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for the

co­ordination   and   determination   of   standards   in

Universities and for that purpose, to establish a University

Grants  Commission. Section 12 deals with “Functions of

the   Commission”,   while   Section   14   speaks   of

“Consequences   of   failure   of   Universities   to   comply   with

recommendations   of   the   Commission”.   Section   26   deals

with “Power  to make regulations”. As per Section 28 the

rules   and   regulations   framed   under   the   UGC   Act   are

required   to   be   laid   before   each   House   of   the   Parliament

and   when   both   the   Houses   agree   then   rules   and

regulations can be given effect with such modification as

may be made by the Parliament.  Therefore, any regulation

27
 enacted in exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said

to be subordinate legislation.  

11.3 For the appointment and career advancement of teachers

in the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC by

Regulation   dated   04.04.2000,   enacted   the   University

Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for

the Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in

Universities   and   Institutions   Affiliated   to   it)   Regulations,

2000.   However,   in   the   said   Regulation   of   2000,   no

qualifications   were   prescribed   for   the   post   of   “Pro­

Chancellor” or “Vice Chancellor”. 

Thereafter,   the   Government   of   India,   Ministry   of

Human   Resource   Development   Department   of   Higher

Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 1­32/2006­U.II/U.I(i)

dated   31­12­2008   communicated   to   the   Secretary,

University Grants  Commission, New Delhi the scheme of

revision   of   pay   of   teachers   and   equivalent   cadres   in

universities   and   colleges   following   the   revision   of   pay

scales   of   the   Central   Government   employees   on   the

28
recommendations   of the 6th  Central Pay  Commission. By

the said letter, the Government of India directed that there

shall be only three designations in respect of teachers in

the universities and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,

Associate   Professors   and   Professors.   In   the   said   letter

revised   pay   scales,   service   conditions   and   Career

Advancement   Scheme   for   teachers   and   equivalent

positions   including   the   post   of   Assistant

Professors/Associate  Professors/Professors in  universities

and   colleges   were   intimated.   Pay   scales   of   Pro­Vice­

Chancellor/Vice­Chancellor   were   also   mentioned   therein.

It was intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to

the   universities,   colleges   and   other   higher   educational

institutions   coming   under   the   purview   of   the   State

Legislature, provided the State Governments wish to adopt

and   implement   the   Scheme   subject   to   the   terms   and

conditions   mentioned   therein.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid

Letter No. 1­32/2006­U.II/U.I(i), dated 31­12­2008 issued

by the Government of India and in exercise of the powers

conferred   under   clauses   (e)   and   (g)   of   sub­section   (1)   of

Section   26   of   the   UGC   Act,   1956,   UGC   enacted   the

29
 Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations,

2000.   It  was   published  in   the   Gazette   of  India   on   28­6­

2010 and came into force with immediate effect.

11.3.1 Regulation 7.3.0 deals with the post of Vice Chancellor

which reads as under: ­

“7.3.0. Vice­Chancellor.—(i)   Persons   of   the   highest

level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional
commitment are to be appointed as Vice­Chancellors.
The   Vice­Chancellor   to   be   appointed   should   be   a
distinguished   academician,   with   a   minimum   of   ten
years of experience as Professor in a university system
or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in
a   reputed   research   and/or   academic   administrative
organization.

(ii) The selection of Vice­Chancellor should be through
proper   identification   of   a   panel   of   3­5   names   by   a
Search   Committee   through   a   public   notification   or
nomination   or   a   talent   search   process   or   in
combination.   The   members   of   the   above   Search
Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere
of higher education and shall not be connected in any
manner with the university concerned or its colleges.
While   preparing   the   panel,   the   Search   Committee
must   give   proper   weightage   to   academic   excellence,
exposure   to   the   higher   education   system   in   the
country   and   abroad,   and   adequate   experience   in
academic and administrative governance to be given in
writing   along   with   the   panel   to   be   submitted   to   the
Visitor/Chancellor.   In   respect   of   State   and   Central
universities, the following shall be the constitution of
the Search Committee:

(a)   a   nominee   of   the   Visitor/Chancellor,   who

should be the Chairperson of the Committee.

(b)   a   nominee   of   the   Chairman,   University

Grants Commission.

30
 (c)   a   nominee   of   the   Syndicate/Executive
Council/Board   of   Management   of   the
university.

(iii)   The   Visitor/Chancellor   shall   appoint   the   Vice­

Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by
the Search Committee.

(iv)   The   conditions   of   service   of   the   Vice­Chancellor

shall be prescribed in the statutes of the universities
concerned in conformity with these Regulations.

(v) The term of office of the Vice­Chancellor shall form
part of the service period of the incumbent concerned
making   him/her   eligible   for   all   service   related
benefits.”

11.3.2 Regulation   7.4.0   mandates   that   the   universities/State

Governments   shall   modify   or   amend   the   relevant

Acts/Statutes   of   the   universities   concerned   within   six

months of adoption of these Regulations. 

 
11.3.3 Thus,   UGC   Regulations,   2010,   inter­alia,   prescribes   in

Regulation   7.3.0   that  a person  shall have ten  years of

teaching work experience as a professor in a university

system.   It   also   provides   for   constitution   of   a   search

committee   consisting   of   a   nominee   of   the

Visitor/Chancellor,   a   nominee   of   the   Chairman   of   the

UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of

the   University   and   the   search   committee   has   to

recommend the names of the successful candidates. 

31
11.4 Prior to enactment of UGC Regulations, 2010, the Union

Ministry   of   Human   Resource   Development   laid   down   a

scheme of revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres

in   the   Universities   following   the   6th  Central   Pay

Commission.   The   Scheme   provides   a   fixed   pay   of

Rs.75,000/­ along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/­

per month to the Vice Chancellor. Para 8(p)(v) of the said

scheme   provides   that   it   is   extended   to   Universities,

Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming

under   the   purview   of   the   State   Legislature   provided   the

State   Governments   wish   to   adopt   and   implement   the

scheme   with   certain   conditions,   inter   alia,   financial

assistance  from the Central Government to the extent of

80% of the maintenance expenditure and remaining 20%

shall be met by the State Government. It further provides

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.

32
In the present case, State of Gujarat has adopted the said

Scheme   dated   31.12.2008   by   a   Resolution   dated

11.11.2009   with   effect   from   01.01.2006   subject   to   the

conditions  mentioned in the said resolution. Even in the

said   resolution,   condition   No.13   provides   that   the   State

Government will publish the educational qualifications as

per the UGC instructions published from time to time and

quality yardstick, teaching work days, norms, instructions,

resolutions   will   have   to   be   implemented.   It   is   not   in

dispute 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. Therefore, having

adopted the UGC Scheme and implemented the same and

getting Central financial assistance to the extent of 80% of

the  maintenance expenditure, the State Government and

the   SP   University   are   bound   by   the   UGC   Regulations,

2010. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are superseded by the

UGC Regulations, 2018.  However, the eligibility criteria for

the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor   and   the   constitution   of   the

search   committee   for   appointment   of   a   Vice   Chancellor

33
 remains the same. Therefore, the State of Gujarat and the

universities   thereunder   including   the   SP   University   are

bound   to   follow   UGC   Regulations,   2010   and   UGC

Regulations, 2018.

12. Respondent   No.4   herein   has   been   appointed   as   a   Vice

Chancellor of the SP University under the SPU Act, 1955.

Section   10   of   the   said   Act   relates   to   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor which reads as under: ­

“[10. (1) The Vice­Chancellor shall be appointed by the
State   Government   from   amongst   three   persons
recommended   under   sub­section   (3)   by   a
committee appointed for the purpose under sub­
section (2). 

(2)   (a)   for   the   purpose   of   sub­section   (1)   the

Chancellor   shall   appoint   a   Committee   which
shall consist of the following members, namely:
— 

(i)   two   members   (not   being   persons

connected with the University or with any
affiliated college or recognised institution)
out   of   whom   one   shall   be   a   person
nominated   in   the   manner   prescribed   by
Statutes   by   the   Syndicate   and   the
Academic   Council   jointly   and   the   other
shall   be   a   person   nominated   in   the
manner   prescribed   by   Statutes   by   the
Vice­Chancellor   of   all   the   Universities
established by law in the State of Gujarat;
  (ii)   one   member   to   be   nominated   by   the
Chancellor.

34
 (b) The Chancellor shall appoint one of three
members of the Committee as its chairman.

(3)   The   Committee   so   appointed   shall,   within

such   time   and   in   such   manner   as   may   be
prescribed   by   Statutes,   select   three   persons
whom it considers fit for being appointed Vice­
Chancellor   and   shall   recommend   to   the   State
Government   the   names   of   the   persons   so
selected together with such other particulars as
may be prescribed by the Statutes. 

(4)   The   Vice­Chancellor   shall   hold   office   for   a

term of three years and he shall be eligible for
being appointed to that office for a further term
of three years only. 

(5)   The   emoluments   to   be   paid   to   the   Vice­

Chancellor,   and   the   terms   and   conditions
subject to which he shall hold office, 1 [shall be
determined by the State Government]: 

Provided   that   such   emoluments   or   such   terms

and conditions shall not, during the currency of
the term of the holder of that office, be varied to
his disadvantage without his consent. 

(6) (a) During the leave or absence of the Vice­
Chancellor, or 

(b) in the event of a permanent vacancy in the
office   of   the   Vice­Chancellor,   until   an
appointment   is   made   under   sub­section   (1)   to
that office, 
the   Pro­Vice­Chancellor,   and   in   the   absence   of
the Pro­Chancellor, one of the Deans nominated
by  3  [the   State   Government],   for   that   purpose
shall carry on the current duties of the office of
the Vice­Chancellor.”

12.1 As per Section 10 of the Act, 1955 the search committee

shall consist of two members (not being persons connected

with   the   respondent   ­   University   or   with   any   affiliated

35
college or recognised institution) out of whom, one shall be

a person nominated in the manner prescribed by Statutes

by the Syndicate and the Academic Council jointly and the

other   shall   be   a   person   nominated   in   the   manner

prescribed   by   Statutes   by   the   Vice­Chancellor   of   all   the

Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat and

the third member to be nominated by the Chancellor. 

Section   10   of   the   SPU   Act   does   not   provide   any

qualification   whatsoever   for   appointment   to   the   post   of

Vice   Chancellor.   Even   the   eligibility   criteria   to   be

prescribed is left to the Search Committee. There are no

guidelines   whatsoever   on   the   eligibility   criteria   to   be

prescribed by the Search Committee. On the other hand,

the   UGC   Regulations,   2010/2018   specifically   prescribes

the   qualification   /   eligibility   criteria   for   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor.   It   also   provides   for   the   constitution   of   the

Search   Committee.   As   observed   hereinabove   as   per

Regulation 7.3.0 a person shall have ten years of teaching

work   experience   as   a   professor   in   the   university   system

and it also provides for constitution of a search committee

36
 consisting   of   a   nominee   of   the   Visitor/Chancellor,   a

nominee   of   the   Chairman  of the  UGC, a nominee of  the

Syndicate/Executive   Council   of   the   University.     But

respondent   No.4   did   not/   does   not   fulfil   the   eligibility

criteria   prescribed   under   the   UGC   Regulations,

2010/2018.   He   was/is   not   having   ten   years   of   teaching

work   experience  as  a professor  in the university system.

Moreover, his name was not recommended by the legally

constituted search committee, constituted as per the UGC

Regulations,  2010/2018. Also, the search committee has

prescribed   the   eligibility   criteria   for   the   post   of   Vice

Chancellor by diluting the eligibility criteria laid down in

the UGC Regulations, 2010/2018.   

  
12.2 Thus,   the   provisions   of   the   SPU   Act,   1955/provisions

under   the   State   legislation are just  contrary  to  the UGC

Regulations, 2010/2018, which, as observed hereinabove,

are binding on the State Government and the universities

thereunder. Even the State Government has not bothered

to amend the State legislation – to put at par with the UGC

Regulations,   2010/2018   and   has   continued   the

37
 appointment   in   the   universities   dehors   the   UGC

Regulations. 

13. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present

case   the   UGC   vide   communication   dated   11.08.2014

addressed to the H.E. – Governor of Gujarat, who is also

the Chancellor of the University has drawn the attention of

H.E.   –   Governor   of   Gujarat   to   ensure   that   all   the

appointments of Vice Chancellors in the State are made in

accordance   with   the   provisions   laid   down   in   the

Regulations   of   UGC.   The   letter/communication   dated

11.08.2014 reads as under: ­

“University Grants Commission
Prof. Dr. Jaspal S. Sandhu
Secretary

D.O.No.F.1­1/2014(Secy) 11th August, 2014

At   the   outset   kindly   allow   me   to   apologise   for

encroaching   upon   your   precious   time.   But   it   is   the
criticality   of   the   subject   which   has   compelled   me   to
draw your kind attention to it. 

The appointment of Vice­Chancellors in our University
system has become a subject of widespread criticism.
We need visionary leadership to give proper direction
to higher education in today’s competitive world. It is
possible   only   when   we   have   persons   of   the   highest
competence   &   integrity,   in   the   position   of   the   Vice­
Chancellor. In this connection, the University Grants
Commission   had   brought   out   a   Regulations   titled
"Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges

38
 and   Measures   for   the   Maintenance   of   Standards   in
Higher Education, 2010. The UGC has prescribed the
minimum   qualifications   for   the   appointment   of   the
Vice­Chancellor   in   this   Regulation,   which   reads   as
under:

"Persons   of   the   highest   level   of   competence,

integrity, morals and institutional commitment are
to   be   appointed   as   Vice­Chancellors.   The   Vice­
Chancellor   to   be   appointed   should   be   a
distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten
years   of   experience   as   Professor   in   a   University
system or ten years of experience in an equivalent
position   in   a   reputed   research   and/or   academic
administrative organization."

It   hardly   needs   any   mention   that   the   notifications

published in The Gazette of India are mandatory. May
I, therefore, request your Excellency to use your good
offices   to   ensure   that   all   the   appointments   of   Vice­
Chancellors in your State are made in accordance with
the   provisions   laid   down   in   the   aforementioned
Regulations of the UGC. 

I  am certain that your guidance and support in this
regard will make a huge difference in the governance
of higher education in the country.

Yours faithfully
Jaspal S.Sandhu

Shri O.P. Kohli
Hon’ble Governor of Gujarat, Raj Bhawan
Gandhinagar 382 020 Gujarat”

   
13.1 That thereafter H.E. – Governor of Gujarat – Chancellor of

the  Universities communicated to the Principal Secretary

to  the  Government of Gujarat vide communication dated

30.08.2014   and   emphasized   and   requested   him   to   take

note   of   the   UGC   communication   dated   11.08.2014   and

take   necessary   steps   at   the   Government   level.   The

39
communication dated 30.08.2014 issued by the Principal

Secretary   to   the   H.E.   –   Governor   of   Gujarat,   reads   as

under: ­

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO 
THE GOVERNER OF GUJARAT 
Raj Bhavan Ghandhinagar­382020. 
Date: 30 AUG 2014 

Important:

To, 

The Principal Secretary to the
Government of Gujarat
Education Department,
Block No.5, 7th Floor,
New Sachivalay, Gandhinagar

Sub:  Appointment of Vice Chancellors

Ref: A   Communication   from   the   Secretary,

University   Grant   Commission,   Government   of
India, New Delhi dated 11th August, 2014. 

Sir, 

With reference to the above subject, it is
stated   that   recently   we   have   received   a
communication   from   Prof.   (Dr.)   Jaspal   S.
Sandhu,   Secretary,   University   Grant
Commission,   New   Delhi   reading   the
appointment   of   the   vice   chancellors   in   the
universities.   It   has   been   emphasized   that   the
order   to   ensure   maintenance   of   standards   in
Higher   Education,   the   UGC   has   prescribed
certain   minimum   qualifications   for   the
appointment   of   the   Vice   Chancellors.   Hon.
Governor  has been  requested to  ensure  the  all
the   appointment   of   the   Vice   Chancellors   in
Gujarat   are   made   in   accordance   with   the
provisions   laid   down   in   the   UGC   Regulation.
(Copy   of   the   communication   is   enclosed
herewith for ready reference)

40
 You   are   requested   to   note   the   above
pertinent   communication   and   take   necessary
steps at the Government level.   
Regards,
Yours faithfully,
sd/­
(Arvind Joshi)
Principal Secretary to Hon. Governor  

13.2 Despite the above clear instructions from the office of H.E.

– Governor of Gujarat, who is also the Chancellor of all the

universities,   it   is   unfortunate   that   till   date   the   State

legislation has not been amended by the State Government

and the appointments to the post of Vice Chancellor in the

Universities in the said State are being made just contrary

to the UGC guidelines and Regulations. At this stage, it is

required   to   be   noted   that   even   in   the   earlier   round   of

litigation being SCA No.18922 of 2017 in which this very

petitioner   challenged   the   appointment   of   this   very

respondent No.4 as a Vice Chancellor of SPU made in the

year   2016,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   made

certain   observations   against   the   State   Government   not

adopting the UGC Regulations and not amending the State

legislation   appropriately.   The   relevant   observations   made

by the High Court in para 24 are as under: ­ 

41
 “24.  Even   while   upholding   the   appointment   of   the
sixth respondent to the post of Vice Chancellor of the
respondent University, this court cannot shut its eyes
to   the   fact   that   section   10   of   the   SPU   Act   does   not
provide   for   any   qualification   whatsoever   for
appointment   to   the   post   of   Vice   Chancellor   which
would   leave   room   for   a   lot   of   arbitrariness   in   the
matter of selection of persons for appointment as Vice
Chancellor.   The   UGC   Regulations   provide   for   certain
qualifications.   However,   the   same   are   not   binding
unless the State legislation is appropriately amended.
The   UGC,   by   a   communication   dated   11 th  August
2014,   addressed   to   His   Excellency   the   Governor   of
Gujarat, has requested him to use his good offices to
ensure that all the appointments of Vice Chancellors
in   the   State   are   made   in   accordance   with   the
provisions   laid   down   in   the   UGC   Regulations,   which
provide   for   minimum   qualifications   for   the
appointment   of   Vice   Chancellor   with   reference   to
regulation   7.3.0   of   the   UGC   Regulations,   2010.
Pursuant   thereto,   the   Principal   Secretary   to   His
Excellency   the   Governor   of   Gujarat   addressed   a
communication   dated   30th  August   2014   to   the
Principal Secretary, Government of Gujarat, requesting
him   to   note   the   said   important   communication   and
take   necessary   steps   at   the   Government   level.
However,   it   appears   that   such   communication   has
been ignored and no steps have been taken pursuant
thereto.   It   is,   therefore,   high   time   that   the   State   of
Gujarat adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the
State legislation appropriately so that no room is left
for   any   manipulation,   arbitrariness,   nepotism   and
favouritism.”      

Even the aforesaid observations made in para 24 were

taken note of by this Court while disposing of the SLP (C)

No.21792   of   2018   in   which   the   decision   of   the   Division

Bench of the High Court was under challenge.    

42
13.3 Thus,   despite   the   communication   by   the   UGC   dated

11.08.2014 and thereafter, the communication by the H.E.

–   Governor   of   Gujarat   dated   30.08.2014   and   even   the

observations   made   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High

Court   in   paragraph   24   in   its   judgment   and   order   dated

05.07.2018   in   SCA   No.18922   of   2017,   reproduced

hereinabove, it is unfortunate that as on today, no further

steps have been taken by the State Government, to amend

the State legislation and to put the same at par with the

UGC   Regulations,   and   the   State   and   the   universities

thereunder  have   continued to make the appointments of

Vice   Chancellors   just   contrary   to   the   UGC   Regulations,

which as observed hereinabove are binding. 

13.4 At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section

9 of the SPU Act, 1955, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat is the

Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue of his

office, be the head of the University and the President of

the Senate. Therefore, even as the head of the University,

his   advice   was/is   binding   upon   the   University   and

therefore,   the   State   ought   to   have   taken   the   necessary

43
 steps   at   the   Government   level   as   requested   in   the

communication dated 30.08.2014. Even the request made

by   the   H.E.   –   Governor   of   Gujarat,   who   is   also   the

Chancellor of the University, ought not to have taken very

lightly.   The   State   ought   to   have   taken   the   corrective

measures   by   suitably   amending   the   State   legislation   on

par with the UGC Regulations. 

14. The   submissions   made   by   Shri   Navare,   learned   Senior

Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.2   –   SP

University   that   as   the   earlier   writ   petition   filed   by   the

petitioner herein, in which the appointment of respondent

No.4 herein as the Vice Chancellor, was under challenge

came to be dismissed and the High Court refused to issue

a writ of quo warranto and the judgment and order passed

by   the   High   Court   in   SCA   No.18922   of   2017   was   not

disturbed   by   this   Court   and   therefore,   the   controversy

stands concluded and it is not open for the petitioner to

raise   the   same   issue   again   is   concerned,   the   aforesaid

submissions is  noted only to be rejected. This Court did

not   opine   anything   on   the   merits   of   the   judgment   and

44
 order   passed   by   the   High   Court.   This   Court   refused   to

entertain the Special Leave Petition solely on the ground

that by the time the same was taken up for hearing the

tenure of respondent No.4 herein as a Vice Chancellor was

coming to an end. Even while dismissing the same on the

aforesaid   ground   alone,   this   Court   specifically   observed

that all the questions of law are left open. 

15. Thus, we find that the appointment of respondent No.4 is

contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Also, respondent

No.4   has   been   appointed   by   a   search   committee,   not

constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018. Moreover,

respondent No.4 does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as per

the  UGC Regulations, 2018, namely, having ten years of

teaching work experience as a professor in the university

system. As observed hereinabove, by adopting the Scheme

and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure

from the Central government and when respondent No.4 is

paid   a   fixed   pay   of   Rs.75,000/­   along   with   a   special

allowance of Rs.5,000/­ per month, which is prescribed as

per   the   Scheme   of   2008,   the   State   and   the   universities

45
thereunder are bound by the UGC Regulations, including

the   UGC   Regulations,   2018.   The   appointment   of

respondent No.4 is even otherwise not as per the eligibility

criteria prescribed by the Search Committee, which is as

under: ­ 

“1.  Persons   of   the   highest   level   of   competence,

integrity, morals and institutional commitment. 

2. Persons should be a distinguished academician
with   proven   leadership   qualities   shall   be
satisfying anyone of the following: 
 10   years’   experience   of   teaching
and research. As professor or

 Vice   Chancellor   /   Pro   Vice

Chancellor   of   any   University
including   former   Vice   Chancellor   /
Pro Vice Chancellor or

 Director   /   Principal   of   a   college   /

institution   /   Research   Organization
with   15   years   of   teaching   /
research / administration.” 

In fact, in the instant case, H.E. – Governor of Gujarat

who   is  also  the   Chancellor   of   all   the   Universities   in   the

said   State   had   through   his   Principal   Secretary   directed

that   the   communication   from   the   Secretary,   University

Grants   Commission,   Government   of   India,   New   Delhi

dated 11th August, 2014 be complied and appropriate steps

be taken in that regard. We have referred to the aforesaid

46
letter dated 30th  August, 2014. The letter of the Secretary

of the UGC dated 11th August, 2014 to H.E. – Governor of

Gujarat informing about the regulations titled “Minimum

qualifications   for   appointment   of   teachers   and   other

academic staff in Universities and Colleges and measures

for   the   maintenance   of   standards   in   higher   education,

2010” has also been extracted above in the said letter. It

has   been   clearly   stated   that   the   UGC   has   prescribed

minimum   qualifications   for   the   appointment   of   a   Vice­

Chancellor and therefore, such an appointment must be in

accordance   with   the   provisions   laid   down   in   the   afore­

mentioned   regulations   of   the   UGC.   It   is   clear   that   the

respondent­State of Gujarat has failed to take note of the

communication from the UGC and instead the respondent­

University   has   left   to   the   sweet   will   of   the   search

committee   to   prescribe   eligibility   criteria   for   the

appointment of the Vice­Chancellor of the University. The

eligibility   criteria  when   once  fixed  by   the   UGC   under   its

regulations would in our view apply to all the universities

which   are   aided   by   the   UGC   to   be   bound   by   the   said

regulations   even   in   the   absence   of   the   same   being

47
 incorporated   under   the   respective   universities   Act   of   the

respective   States.  Therefore,   when   the   appointment   of

respondent   No.4   is   found   to   be   contrary   to   the   UGC

Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the

statutory force, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case

to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside

the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Vice Chancellor

of the SP University. 

16. It   cannot   be   disputed   that   the   UGC   Regulations   are

enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Section

26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the

UGC  Act  every  rule and regulation made under the said

Act,   shall   be   laid   before   each   House   of   the   Parliament.

Therefore,   being   a   subordinate   legislation,   UGC

Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict

between   State   legislation  and  Central  legislation,  Central

legislation   shall   prevail   by   applying   the   rule/principle   of

repugnancy   as   enunciated   in   Article   254   of   the

Constitution   as   the   subject   ‘education’   is   in   the

Concurrent   List   (List   III)   of   the   Seventh   Schedule   of   the

Constitution.   Therefore,   any   appointment   as   a   Vice

48
 Chancellor   contrary   to   the   provisions   of   the   UGC

Regulations can be said to be in violation of the statutory

provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.               

17. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated

above,   the   appointment   of   respondent   No.4   as   a   Vice

Chancellor of the SP University – respondent No.2 herein,

is   contrary   to   the   UGC   provisions,   namely,   UGC

Regulations,   2018.   We   hence   allow   the   present   writ

petition   and   issue   a   writ   of   quo   warranto   quashing   and

setting  aside  the  appointment of respondent No.4 as the

Vice   Chancellor   of   SP   University.   The  present   petition   is

accordingly, Allowed. 

17.1 Before parting we may hope and trust that wiser counsel

will   now   prevail   and   the   State   Government   shall   amend

the   State   legislation   accordingly   on   par   with   the   UGC

Regulations, which as such was recommended by the H.E.

– Governor of Gujarat as far as back in the year 2014 and

even thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court had

made observations  in para 24 of its judgment and order

dated 05.07.2018 in SCA No.18922 of 2017, in which, the

49
 High   Court   observed   that   it   is   high   time   that   the   State

Government adopts the UGC Regulations and amends the

State legislation appropriately so that no room is left for

any   manipulation,   arbitrariness,   nepotism   and

favouritism,   before   any   fresh   appointment   as   a   Vice

Chancellor in the State and the universities thereunder are

made.  As observed hereinabove, prescribing the eligibility

criteria   shall   not   be   left   to   the   sweet   will   of   the   search

committee.   It   may   lead   to   arbitrariness   and   different

search committees in absence of any statutory guidelines

and/or   prescription,   may   prescribe   different   eligibility

criteria. 

17.2 It   is   to   be   noted   that   the  post   of   Vice   Chancellor   of   the

University is a very important post so far as the University

is concerned. Being a leader and head of the institution,

the   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   University   has   to   play   very

important   role.   While   academic   qualifications,

administrative experience, research credentials and track

record   could   be   considered   as   basic   eligibility

requirements,   the   greater   qualities   of   a   Vice   Chancellor

50
would   be   one   who   is   a   true   leader   and   a   passionate

visionary.   A   Vice   Chancellor   needs   to   be   one   who

understands and handles the affairs of the University as

ethical business and maintains a pellucidity in his conduct

towards   the   betterment   of   the   University   as   well   as   the

students therein. A Vice Chancellor should be one who can

inspire   students   and   guarantee   entry   of   high­quality

teachers   into   the   University   system.   A   Vice   Chancellor

functions as a bridge between the executive and academic

wings of a university as he is the head of both a ‘teacher’

and an ‘administrator’. 

We   may   refer   to   some   of   the   significant   commission

reports   concerning   the   personality   and   role   of   a   Vice­

Chancellor of a university as under: 

a) The  1949  Radhakrishnan Commission  stated that

originally,   the   Vice­Chancellorship   of   an   Indian

University   was   regarded   as  an   honorary   post  to   be

filled   by   a   prominent   man   in   his   leisure   time.   But

now the position has changed, there is enough work

to justify a full­time appointment and the Universities

51
 should   have   full   time   paid   Vice­Chancellors.   While

discussing   the   duties   of   a   Vice­Chancellor,   the

Commission   stated   that   a   Vice­Chancellor   must   be

the   chief   liaison   between   the   University   and   the

public   and   must   be   a   keeper   of   the   university’s

conscience,   both   setting   the   highest   standard   by

example   and   dealing   firmly   and   promptly   with

indiscipline   and   malpractice   of   any   kind.   He/she

must   have   the   strength   of   character   to   resist

unflinchingly   the   many   forms   of   pressure.   Being   a

full­time   task,   it   needs   an   exceptional   man   (or

woman) to undertake it. The Commission rejected the

proposal   of   selecting   the   Vice­Chancellor   by   an

external body and recommended that the Chancellor

should   appoint   the   Vice­Chancellor   upon   the

recommendation of the Executive. 

b) The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governance

of   Universities   and   Colleges  by   the   University

Grants   Commission   chaired   by   Dr.   P.B.

Gajendragadkar,   former   Chief   Justice   of   India

52
while   reiterating   the   recommendations   and

observations made by the aforesaid commissions also

stated that the selection of a Vice­Chancellor is the

single   most   important   decision   that   the   governing

body of the university may be called upon to make.

While the Chancellor of a University may be a high

dignitary of the State of Union of India or an eminent

scholar or eminent person in public life of the State,

the   appointment   of   Vice­Chancellor,   being   the

important   functionary   of   the   University   is   most

strategic.   The   powers   of   proper   maintenance   of

discipline   and   a   healthy   environment   for   both

teachers and students in the university is vested with

the  Vice­Chancellor along with all the other powers

vested in him/her by various Statutes, Ordinances or

Regulations.   The   Commission   also   stated   that

appointment of a Vice­Chancellor is made in most of

the Universities out of a panel of at least three names

by the Chancellor in case of State Universities and by

the Visitor in case of Central Universities. The panel

of   names   is   prepared   by   a   Search   Committee

53
 constituted   in   accordance   with   the   provision   of

Act/Statute. Since it was difficult to have a uniform

system of forming a committee in all the States, the

alternatives to constitute the Search Committee were

also provided in the report.

c) The  1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards

New   Educational   Management   by   Professor   A.

Gnanam   (also   called   as   the   Gnanam   Committee

Report,   1990)  accentuated   the   role   of   a   Vice­

Chancellor,   stating   that   the   Vice­Chancellor   should

be   a   person   with   vision   and   qualities   of   academic

leadership and with a flair for administration because

what the universities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair

and bold administrator. The Vice­Chancellor should

be   a   distinguished   educationist   from   the   higher

education system having highest level of competence,

integrity, morals and self­respect.

d) The  Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993  accented that

the   universities   need   distinguished   and   dignified

persons   as   Vice­Chancellors   and   it   is   necessary   to

54
 ensure that they are treated with dignity and regard,

which the office merits.

e) The   University   Grants   Commission   in   its   hand

book   titled   Governance   in   Higher   Education:

Hand Book for Vice­Chancellors published in 2019

has   penned   down   the   role   of   Vice­Chancellor   of

Indian   Universities   having   gained   a   paramount

importance in the recent times. In the words of the

Prof.   D.P.   Singh,   the   then   Chairman   of   University

Grants Commission and Former Director of National

Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC): ­

“As Chief Executives and Academic Heads
of   Universities,   the   Vice   Chancellors   are
expected   to   be   efficient   and   effective   in
terms of: ­
a. Implementation   of   National   Higher
Education Policy and programmes,
b. Institutional   change   in   tune   with   the
national reforms package,
c. Quality   and   innovation   enhancement
and their sustainability,
d. Productive   engagement   with
‘communities   of   scholars’   from   within
their   universities   and   from   national
and international domains,
e. Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation
Ecosystem’   and   translation   of
deliverables to society and economy
f. Adoption of international best practices
of ‘Good Governance.”

55
 ‘The Vice Chancellor has to evolve as the
leader   of   a   symphony   of   orchestra   with
the attributes of: ­
a. Developing   teams   and   teamwork,
building   partnerships   and
collaborations   delicately   interwoven
by   collegiality,   friendship   and
intellectual engagement; 
b. devising   a   strategy   and   action   plan
with   defined   milestones   and
deliverables; 
c. ensuring   primary   accountabilities   of
self   and   the   above­mentioned
university governing bodies; and 
d. steering   an   institutional   monitoring
and   evaluation   mechanism   on
university   performance   built   on
principles of transparency.’

Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle of

governance   as   quoted   by   Chanakya   in   his   Nitishastra­

‘Yatha Raja Tatha Praja’, the sense of morality must begin

from the door of the leader who preaches it.

Thus,   universities   are   autonomous   and   the   Vice­

Chancellor 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 aforesaid reports of the Radhakrishnan

Commission, Kothari Commission, Gnanam Committee and

Ramlal Parikh Committee have highlighted the importance

of the role of Vice­Chancellor in maintaining the quality and

56
relevance   of   universities,   in   addition   to   its   growth   and

development,   keeping   in   view,   the   much­needed   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   Vice­Chancellor   is   the   king­pin   of   a

University’s   system   and   a   keeper   of   the   University’s

conscience. 

Further, in our 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 person.

57
 We are sure and we hope and trust that while making

afresh appointment of Vice Chancellor in the State and the

universities thereunder, the aforesaid aspects shall be kept

in mind by the State and the concerned universities. With

this hope and trust we leave the matter there. 

…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi                                         …………………………………J.
March, 03 2022.                                  (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

58