Holding

Appointments of Vice‑Chancellors and Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors made by the Chancellor without effective, transparent consultation with the State Government are void and must be made only after a fair, merit‑based selection process as required by the BSU Act, PU Act and Article 14.

Summary

The Governor‑cum‑Chancellor of Bihar appointed several Vice‑Chancellors and Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors without adhering to the statutory requirement of meaningful consultation with the State Government under the Bihar State Universities Act and the Patna University Act. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh, a professor, challenged these appointments, arguing that the Chancellor ignored the need for a transparent, merit‑based selection process and appointed persons facing criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "consultation" and held that it requires a meeting of minds, full disclosure of material facts, and genuine deliberation, and that appointments must satisfy the qualifications of academic excellence and integrity mandated by the statutes and Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court found the Chancellor's process to be arbitrary, lacking transparency, and in violation of the Acts, thereby rendering the notifications void. Consequently, the Court quashed the appointments, modified the High Court's direction, and ordered the Chancellor to prepare a panel of suitable candidates and to consult the State Government meaningfully before making any appointments.

Issues considered

The statutory requirement of consultation with the State Government for appointment of Vice‑Chancellors and Pro‑Vice‑Chancellors under the BSU Act and PU Act.
The proper meaning and scope of "consultation" in the context of these statutes.
Whether the Chancellor's appointments, made without a transparent selection method and involving candidates with pending criminal cases, violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The locus standi of a professor who is not a candidate for the posts to challenge the appointments.
The maintainability of the State Government's appeal against the High Court's order.

Legislation cited

Bihar State Universities Act, 1976s. 10(1), s. 10(2), s. 12(1)
Constitution of Indias. Art. 14
Nalanda Open University Act, 1995s. 11, s. 13(a)
Patna University Act, 1976s. 11(1), s. 11(2), s. 14(1)
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. Sec. 26

Subjects

Vice‑Chancellor appointmentconsultationState GovernmentUniversity governanceArticle 14transparencypublic interest litigationlocus standiUGC regulations

Judgment

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 117

DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH A
v.
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6831 of 2013)
AUGUST 19, 2013
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.)

UNIVERSITIES:

Appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice- c
Chancellors - 'Consultation with State Government' -
Expression 'consultation' - Connotation of - Explained - Held:
Though, the final decision is with the consulter, he cannot
generally ignore the advice of the consultee except for good
reasons -- There should be meeting of minds between the D
parties involved in the process of consultation on the material
facts and points involved -- Consultation is not complete or
effective unless the parties thereto make their respective
. points of view known to the other and discuss and examine
the relative merit of their views.
E
Appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice
Chancellors - Notifications dated 9.2.2013, 19.2.2013 and
14.3.2013 issued for appointment of candidates as Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different
Universities in State of Bihar - Held: As regards the instant F
matters, Chancellor has been consistently flouting the
mandate of law and making appointments completely
disregarding the requirement of academic excellence and
experience and without effectively consulting the State
Government -- He neither adopted any transparent method G
of making selection nor did he keep in view the qualifications
enumerated in the relevant statutory provisions -- He also
acted in contemptuous disregard of the pronouncements

117 H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A made by the High Court in two rounds of litigation, that
appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors
must precede meaningful and effective consultation with State
Government - He selected for appointment some persons who
were facing prosecution under various criminal laws and/or
B involved in financial irregularities -- The mechanism adopted
by Chancellor in making appointments is blatantly violative
of the scheme of the BSU Act and the PU Act and also Art.
14 of the Constitution - Impugned Notifications are quashed
- Consequential directions issued - Bihar State Universities
c Act, 1976 -ss.10 and 12 - Patna University Act, 1976 - ss. 11
and 14 - Nalanda Open University Act, 1995 - ss. 11 and 13
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14.

Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors -
Appointment to the offices of - Held: Position of Vice
D Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor is extremely important
in every University - They are responsible for maintaining the
academic standard and discipline of the University and also
ensure that all the bodies and authorities conduct themselves
in conformity with the statutory provisions -- Relevant statutory
E provisions prescribe the qualification of academic excellence
as a condition precedent for appointment to these posts -
Even if the language of the relevant provisions may not
postulate selection of Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor
by inviting application through open advertisement, the
F candidate must be a person reputed for his scholarship and
academic interest or eminent educationist having experience
of administering the affairs of any University, and selection
of such a person is possible only if a transparent method is
adopted and efforts are made to reach out to people across ·
G the country -- Art. 14 of the Constitution which mandates that
every action of the State authority must be transparent and
fair has to be read in the language of these provisions -- The
UGC Regulations, which provide for constitution of a Search
Committee consisting of eminent educationists . ·
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 119

academicians are intended to fill up an apparent lacuna in A
the provisions - Bihar Acts No. 1212013, 1312013 and 1412013
have subsequently amended the relevant provisions in
consonance with the relevant UGC Regulations.

LOCUS STAND/: B
Appointment of Vice Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors - Writ petition by a Professor and Head of
Department in a University, in the State, challenging the
appointments, though he was not a candidate for such
appointments - Held: Maintainable - Further, even assuming C
that the writ petitioner does not have any direct personal
interest in such appointments, High Court could have suo
motu taken cognizance of the issues raised by him and
treated his petition as one filed in public interest and decided
the same on merits - Public interest litigation. D

CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:

Art. 136 - Appeal by State Government challenging order
of High Court after the Chancellor initiated process of making
appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors E
pursuant to order of High Court - Maintainability of -
Discussed.

Appointments of two persons as Vice-Chancellors of
Magadh and Veer Kunwar Singh Universities in terms of F
Notifications dated 9.4.2010 and 15.4.2010 were
challenged by the appellant and another on the ground
that the Chancellor had not consulted the State
Government as per the requirement of s. 10(2) of the Bihar
State Universities Act, 1976 ('the BSU Act'). The Single G
Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and
quashed the notifications issued by the Chancellor.
Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 822 and 824 of 2011 filed by
the appointees were dismissed by the Division Bench of
the High Court and their special leave petitions were
H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.9.2011. During the
pendency of the Letters Patent Appeals, the Chancellor ~
issued Notifications dated 1.8.2011 and 3.8.2011 for
appointment of ten persons as Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors of different Universities in the State. The
B said appointments were challenged in another writ
petition filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that
the Chancellor had not consulted the State Government
as per the mandate of s. 10(2) of the BSU Act and s. 11 (2)
of the Patna University Act, 1976. The Division Bench of
c the High Court quashed the appointments and directed
that the Chancellor would propose names for
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors in the named Universities to the State
Government with the relevant materials and the latter
would forward its opinion in respect of all such names
0
to the Chancellor.

The appellant filed C.A. No. 6831 of 2013 challenging
the direction given by the High Court. He has also
questioned the direction given by the High Court virtually
E debarring him from being considered for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor. The State of
Bihar and others filed C.A. No. 6830 of 2013 challenging
the order of the High Court on the ground that the view
taken by it on the scope of ss.10(2) and 12(1) of the BSU
F Act and ss.11(2) and 14(1) of the PU Act was contrary to
the one expressed by the coordinate Bench in LPA Nos.
822 and 824 of 2011. After the order dated 7 .12.2012
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the
Governor-cum-Chancellor, Bihar issued notifications
G dated 9.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 for appointment of certain
persons as Vice Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors
of different Universities. This was challenged by the
appellant in Writ Petition No. 158 of 2013. On 18.3.2013,
the Supreme Court stayed the operation of Notifications
H dated 9.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 and directed that the senior
•,

DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 121

most Deans in the Universities would discharge the A
function of the Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors. Meanwhile, the Governor-cum-Chancellor
issued yet another order dated 14.3.2013 appointing one
person as Vice-Chancellor and two as Pro Vice-
Chancellors. B

It was contended for the writ petitioner and
appellants that the direction given by the Division Bench
of the High Court to the Chancellor to propose names for
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice- C
Chancellors was liable to be set aside and the
appointments made by him were liable to be quashed
because by taking advantage of the direction contained
in the'" impugned order, the Chancellor arbitrarily
prepared the list of the persons to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors without making D
any selection whatsoever and without following any
transparent method for making a choice from amongst
the persons of academic excellence;· unquestionable
integrity and institutional commitment and without
effectively consulting the State Government. It was E
pointed out that the said list issued by the Chancellor
included some persons against whom criminal cases
were registered with the police and/or were pending in
the court(s). It was submitted that even though the BSU
Act and the PU Act were not suitably amended for F
incorporating the UGC regulations dated 30.6.2010, the
Chancellor was duty bound to keep in mind the
parameters laid down by the UGC for selecting the
candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors. G

Allowing the appeals and the writ petition, the Court.

HELD: 1.1 Section 10 of the BSU Act and s.11 of the
PU Act make it clear that the position of Vice-Chancellor
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A is extremely important in every University. The Pro-Vice
Chancellor appointed in terms of s.12 of BSU Act and
s.14 of P.U. Act is also a whole time offieer of the
University and is entitled to exercise such powers and
perform such duties which may be prescribed or which
B may be conferred or imposed on him by the Vice-
Chancellor. He is responsible for admission and conduct
of examination upto Bachelor course and also the
student welfare. The Vice-Chancellor and the Pro Vice-
Chancellor are responsible for maintaining the academic
c standard and discipline of the University and also ensure
that all the bodies and authorities conduct themselves in
conformity with the statutory provisions. This is the
precise reason why s.10(1) of the BSU Act and s.11 (1) of
the PU Act are couched in negative form and prescribe
the qualification of academic excellence as a condition
0
precedent for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. [para 12-
14] [181-G-H; 182-G-H; 183-A-B]

1.2 The word 'consultation' used in ss.10(2) and 12(1)
of the BSU Act and s.11 (2) and 14(1) of the PU Act is of
E crucial importance. Consultation is a process which
requires meeting of minds between the parties involved
in the process. Though, the final decision is with the
consultor, but he cannot generally ignore the advice of
the consultee except for good reasons. In order for two
F minds to be able to confer and produce a mutual impact,
it is essential that each must have for its consideration
full and identical facts, which can constitute both the
source and foundation of the final decision. There should
be meeting of minds between the parties involved in the
G process of consultation on the material facts and points
involved. Consultation is not complete or effective unless
the parties thereto make their respective points of view
known to the other and discuss and examine the relative
merit of their views. [para 15-16] [183-G-H; 184-A-E]
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 123

Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court (1970) A
2 SCR 666, .Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth
and Another (1977) 4 SCC 193; Union of India vs. Sankar
Chand Himatlal Sheth and Another 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 419
= 1996 (10) SCC 469; S.P Gupta vs. Union of India 1982 SCR
365 = 1981 Suppl. sec 87; Gauhati High Court and another B
vs. Kuladhar Phukan 2002 (2) SCR 808 = 2002 (4) SCC 524
- referred to.

Rollo v. Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948)
1 All ER 13, Fletcher v. Minister of Town and Country Planning C
(1947) 2 All ER 946 - referred to.

Words and Phrases (Permanent Edn. 1960, Vol.9),
Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol.16A, 1956 Edn.) - referred to.

1.3 As regards the instant matters, the Chancellor has o
been consistently flouting the mandate of law and making
appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors without effectively consulting the State
Government and completely disregarding the
requirement of academic excellence and experience. He E
did not adopt any transpa'rent method of making
selection nor did he keep in view the qualifications
enumerated in s.10(1) of the BSU Act and s.11(1) of the
PU Act. Further, the extraordinary haste exhibited by the
Chancellor in getting the notifications issued on 9.2.2013
F
speaks volume of his intention to prevent the State
Government from bringing to the fore, the facts relating
to criminal cases pending against some of his nominees.
[para 19,20 and 22] [187-D; 188-C-D; 190-D-E]

1.4 The entire exercise undertaken by the Chancellor G
was ex-facie against the mandate of ss. 10(1), 10(2) and
12(1) of the BSU Act and ss. 11(1), 11(2) and 14(1) of the
PU Act, because he made every possible effort to prevent
the State Government from providing inputs about the
candidates and conveying its opinion on their suitability H
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors. He also acted in contemptuous disregard of
the pronouncements made by the High Court in two
rounds of litigation, that the appointments of the Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors must precede
B meaningful and effective consultation with the State
Government. What is most shocking is that the
Chancellor selected some persons for appointment as
Vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice-Chancellor despite the fact
that they are facing prosecution under various criminal
c laws and/or are involved in financial irregularities. The
mechanism adopted by the Chancellor in making
appointments is blatantly violative of the scheme of the
BSU Act and the PU Act and also Art. 14 of the
Constitution. [para 23) [191-8-E, G]
D 2.1 For the last many years the Chancellors have been
appointing Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors
without adopting any transparent and fair method of
selection. Even though the language of ss.10(1) and 12(1)
of the BSU Act and ss.11 (1) and 14(1) of the PU Act does .
E not postulate selection of Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-
C h an cello r by inviting application through open
advertisement, a wholesome reading of these sections
makes it clear that Vice-Chancellor must be a person
reputed for his scholarship and academic interest or
F eminent educationist having experience of administering
the affairs of any University and selection of such a person
is possible only if a transparent method is adopted and
efforts are made to reach out to people across the country.
Art. 14 of the Constitution which mandates that every
G action of the State authority must be transparent and fair
has to be read in the language of these provisions and if
that is done, it becomes clear that the Chancellor has to
follow some mechanism whereby he can prepare panel
by considering persons of eminence in the field of
H education, integrity, high moral standard and character
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 125

who may enhance the image of the particular University. A
[para 23-24] [191-E-F, H; 192-A-D]
2.2 The UGC regulations, which provide for
constitution of a Search Committee consisting of eminent
educationists I academicians are intended to fill up an
B
apparent lacuna in the provisions like s.10(1) of the BSU
Act and s. 11 (1) of the PU Act. If the UGC regulations had
been engrafted in the two Acts, an unseemly controversy
relating to appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors could have been avoided. However, it has
been brought to the notice of the Court that C
subsequently, by Bihar Acts Nos. 14/2003, 13/2013 and
12/2013, ss.10 and 12 of the BSU Act, ss.11 and 14 of the
PU Act and ss.11 and 13(a) of the Nalanda Open
University Act, 1995 respectively, have been amended in
consonance with the UGC Regulations. [para 25-26] [192- D
E-F; 193-8-D]
3.1 Challenge to the locus standi of the appellant (in
CA No. 6831 of 2013) was rightly rejected by the High
Court. It is not in dispute that he is a Professor and Head
of the Department of Chemistry in Veer Kunwar Singh
E .
University, Ara. Therefore, the mere fact that he did not
project himself as a candidate for the office of Vice-
Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor is not sufficient to
deny him the right to question the appointments made by
F
the Chancellor. His anxiety to ensure that eminent
educationists are appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors In the State can very well be
appreciated. Even if it may be possible to say that the
appellant does not have any direct personal interest in
the appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice- G
Chancellors in the State Universities, the High Court
could have suo motu taken cognizance of the issues
raised by him and treated his petition as one filed in
public interest and decided the same on merits. [para 28-
29] [195-C-G] H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav
Gosavi 1987 (1) SCR 458 = (1987) 1 sec 227- relied on.

3.2 It is true that the State Government moved this
Court only after the Chancellor initiated the process of
making appointments and an apparently incorrect
8
statement was made before the Court on 18.3.2005 in the
context of the Governor's refusal to approve the
amendments made in the two Acts but these factors are
not sufficient to negate the State Government's challenge
C to the direction given by the High Court which, gave free
hand to the Chancellor to manipulate the appointment of
the persons of his choice, some of whom are embroiled
in criminal cases, without getting a selection made keeping
in view the requirements of s.10(1) of the BSU Act and
D s.12 (1) of the PU Act. [p~ra 30] [196-G-H; 197-A-B]

4(i) In the result, Notifications dated 9.2.2013,
19.2.2013 and 14.3.2013 issued for appointment of the
private respondents as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors of different Universities are declared illegal
E and quashed.

(ii) The direction given by the High Court to the
Chancellor to propose names for appointment of Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors is modified and it
is directed that the Chancellor shall prepare a panel of
F suitable persons for appointment to the offices of Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors keeping in view
the provisions of ss. 10(1), 10(2) and 12 of the BSU Act
and ss. 11 (1 ), 11 (2) and 14 of the PU Act as amended by
Bihar Act No.14/2013 and 13/2013 respectively and by
G following a transparent and fair method of selection.

(iii) The Chancellor shall make appointments after
effective and meaningful consultation with the State
Government, as indicated in the orders passed by the
H Single Judge in CWJC No. 8141/2010 and the Division
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 127

Bench of the High Court in LP.A. Nos. 822 and 824 of A
2011. [para 31) [197-C-H]

Case Law Reference:
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 419 referred to para 3.2
B
1982 SCR 365 referred to para 3.2
2002 (2) SCR 808 referred to para 3.2
(1970) 2 SCR 666 referred to para 17
(1977) 4 sec 193 referred to para 18 c
(1948) 1 All ER 13 referred to para 18
(1947) 2 All ER 946 referred to para 18
1987 (1) SCR 458 relied on para 29 D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal NO.
6831 of 2013.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.12.2012 of the
High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 15123 of 2011. E
WITH
C.A. Nos. 6830 of 2013 & W.P. (C) No. 158 of 2013.

Ranjit Kumar, Ram Jethmalani, Manan Kumar Mishra, L.
Nageshwara Rao, Vijay Hansaria, Rudreshwar Singh, Abhinav F
Mukerji, Kumar Ranjan, Gopal Jha, Sishir Pinaki, Sanjay Jain,
Ravi Shankar Kumar, Birenara Kumar Chaudhary, Arun Kumar,
D.K. Thakur, Priyambica Jha, Dr. V.P. Appan, Ashish Dixit,
Karan Kalia, Pranav Dinesh, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Amit Pawan,
Rajiv Kumar, Hareesh Ahmad Minhaaj, Sudhanshu Saran, G
Tarkeshwar Nath, B.K. Pandey, Nirmal Singh, T.G. Narayanan
Nair, Rohit Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Prem Prakash,
V.V. Gautam, Rikesh Singh, Sanjay Kapur, Anmol Chandan,
Priyanka Das, Shubhra Kapur, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, D.K .
. Sinha, Shantanu Sagar, Smarhar Singh, Abhishek Kr. Singh, H
. 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.

A Gopi Raman, Mohd. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rehan, Minhajul
Rashid, Navin Gupta, Neeraj Shekhar, Kunal Verma,
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, lrshad Ahmad, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Tayenjam Momo Singh for the appearing
parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted in the special leave
retitions.
2. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh, who had filed writ petition
C before the Patna High Court for quashing the appointments of
Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different
Universities in the State of Bihar, has questioned the directions
contained in order dated 7.12.2012 passed by the Division
Bench of that Court. The State of Bihar and two others have
D also filed an appeal against the order of the High Court and
simultaneously questioned the notifications issued by the
Chancellor for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh has filed Writ Petition
No.158/2013 for quashing the appointments of the private
E respondents as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice,-Chancellors.
The background facts
3.1 By Notifications dated 9.4.2010 and 15.4.2010, the
Chancellor appointed Dr. Arvind Kumar and Dr. Subhash
F Prasad Sinha as Vice-Chancellor of Magadh and Veer Kunwar
Singh Universities, respectively. The same were challenged by
Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh and Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh in
CWJC No.8141/2010 on the ground that the Chancellor had
not consulted the State Government as per the requirement of
G Section 10(2) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (for
short, 'the BSU Act'). The learned Single Judge of the Patna
.High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the
notifications issued by the Chancellor. He referred to the
affidavits filed by the parties, the documents produced by them
H as also the documents summoned by the Court and observed:
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 129
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"23. From the various averments as well as the relevant A
extract of the notings of the file annexed with the
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State
there is sufficiency of material to show that the stand of the
State is un-ambiguous that there was no consultation of
any kind on the issue of appointment of Vice Chancellors B
including the two Vice Chancellors whose appointments
are under challenge in the present writ application. The
Court opines that if there was any consultation, there would
not have been occasion for the Minister or the State to take
such clear and categorical stand on the issue of c
consultation and to annex all those notings of the file to
show that there was actually no consultation, so far as the
State was concerned.

24. Now, let us take notice of the stand taken by the office
of the Chancellor on whose behalf counter affidavit dated D
23.03.2011 was initially filed. This counter affidavit has
been sworn by one Kumar Braj Kishore Sahani, who is
stated to be the Joint Secretary in the Governor's
Secretariat and he has stated that he was well acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case. The affidavit E
also states that he has been authorized to swear affidavit
in this case on behalf of respondent no. 2 i.e. Chancellor
of Universities, Raj Bhawan, Patna. What is relevant in this
affidavit is paragraph 5 which is being reproduced for
ready reference :- F

"That the Vice Chancellor of V.K.S. University, Ara and the
Vice Chancellor of Magadh University, Bodh Gaya have
been appointed by the Hon?ble Chancellor in consultation
with the State Government on 29th March, 2010, and G
Notifications of appointments of Vice Chancellors as per
provisions of Section 10(2) of the B.S.U. Act, 1976 were
issued from the Chancellor's Secretariat on 9.4.2010 (Ann.
7 of the I.A.) and on 15.4.2010 (Ann. 8 of the I.A.). It is
wrong to allege that there had been no consultation with
H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A the State Government."

25. A stand has been taken on behalf of the Chancellor
that since the notification itself talks in terms of consultation
with the State Government on 29.03.2010, then it is a
complete answer to the controversy which have been
B
created in the matter of appointment of two Vice
Chancellors because nothing more is required to be seen
beyond the notification.

26. Court was not satisfied with such a sweeping stand
c taken on behalf of the Chancellor, in view of other over-
whelming evidence which have been brought on record not
only by the petitioners but also by the State Government.

27. In this background, the Court directed production of the
D file relating to consultation which supposedly took place
with the State Government on 29.03.2010.

28. Learned Senior Counsel representing the Chancellor,
namely, Mr. Y. V. Giri tendered a file for perusal by the
Court to show that there was consultation with the then H.
E R.D. Minister on the issue, based on which the Chancellor
made the appointments of the two Vice Chancellors. The
file in question is file No. ACT -. 01/10 which has an
endorsement "Bihar State Universities Tribunal Act."
Reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel
F representing the Chancellor to pages 51, 52 and 53 of the
said file. The Court observed that since the file in question
did not relate to appointment of Vice Chancellors but with
regard to constitution of a University Tribunal and the
objections of the Governor to ratification of the said bill.
G The relevant pages, namely, page nos. 51, 52 and 53 of
the said file was ordered to be brought on record by way
of an affidavit so that all the parties to the dispute including
the Court had the benefit of looking into the same closely
on the question of consultation with the State.
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 131
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
29. A counter affidavit again on behalf of respondent no. 'A ·
2 i.e. the Chancellor duly sworn by Kumar Brij Kishore
Sahani, Joint Secretary in the Governor's Secretariat dated
18.04.2011 was filed annexing the said pages as
Annexure R-2/1 ~ This is supposed to be the portion of the
file in which the so called consultation for appointment of B
Vice Chancellors took place or its evidence is reflected
though the main minutes in the file deals with constitution
of Bihar Universities Tribunal.

30. Since the noting on the question of consultation is in C
the purported hand of the Chancellor which speaks for
itself, therefore, the Court feels that all the pages itself
should be reproduced as part of this order. Annexure- R-
2/1, therefore, is duly scanned and forms part of this order.

The note of the Chancellor is not fully legible. D
32. The Court has meticulously gone through the said note
of the Chancellor which has been purportedly made in his
own pen. The first thing which the Court notices is that the
note does not have any initiai of the Minister and it has
E
been incorporated in a file not even related to the question
of appointment of Vice Chancellors to the Universities of
Bihar muchless the Universities in question. There is
obvious evidence that the visit of the Minister to the Raj
Bhawan and the discussion he had with the Chancellor.
primarily. related to the objections the Governor had in F
giving his assent to the Universities Tribunal Bill. which was
pending approval of His Excellency for many a months. if
not more than a year. Another significant aspect which
emerges from the noting is that no separate Minutes came
to be drawn up on a separate file or piece of paper as if G
Chancellor's Secretariat lacks stationery or Secretarial
assistance. It was not even sent to the Minister for his
signature or acknowledgment of what was recorded. It
also shows that even a file was not opened on the issue
H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A of appointment to such important posts of Vice
Chancellors. What was the compelling circumstance under
which such a noting was done remains a mystery wrapped
in an enigma. A reading of the said note. even if it is
accepted as evidence of the so called consultation. it does
B not show that the two names were even mentioned for
appointment as Vice Chancellors to the two Universities.
namely, Magadh University or Veer Kunwar Singh
Universitv. in the so called discussion. There is generality
of discussion that vacancies are existing in the Universities
c and there was some urgency of filling up those vacancies
on due priority. But that by itself did not mean by giving a
go bye to the law.

33. It is also not further understood or explained as to why
the so called "Minutes", if at all, could not be drawn up
D subsequently and referred to the concerned Minister of
H.R.D. for obtaining his signature as a proof of his
agreeing of what was recorded therein. The Court is not
aware of any Minutes being drawn up unilaterally without
any endorsement or acknowledgment thereto of the parties
E to such consultation or deliberations. It is also not
understood as to what was the occasion for the Chancellor
to make such endorsement on a file and on a Minute which
dealt through and through with regard to objections His
Excellency had to give assent to a Bill relating to
F constitution of a Tribunal for the Universities.

34. Court has serious reservation whether the above
exercise amounts to consultation on behalf of the State,
based on which the Chancellor could go ahead and make
unilateral appointments of Vice Chancellors, without even
G
basic materials or subject of consultation existing before
the two authorities. How did the Chancellor zero down on
these two names still stands a mystery and unexplained .
......
35. No further comments on the issue as well as the so
H called material of consultation is required to be offered by
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 133
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the Court. Inferences are obvious. The Court can now well A
appreciate 'the background to the H.R.D. Minister?s
notings and letters denying any consultation on the issue
of appointment of Vice Chancellors. Though he does
accept that his visit to Raj Bhawan related to discussion
on the Tribunal Bill and that alone, the stand of the Minister B
stands corroborated and seems more closer to the actual
state of affairs, as noting by the Chancellor is in the file
relating to the University Tribunal Bill and that too on the
page of the Minutes dealing with the Tribunal Bill.

36. The Court, therefore, has serious reservation or doubt C
whether this evidence or proof can be taken as the ultimate
answer or material showing consultation between the State
and the Chancellor, meeting the requirement of
consultation undern section 10(2) of the Act, vesting him
with the authority to make appointments at his level on the D
post of Vice Chancellors to the two Universities."

(emphasis supplied)

3.2 The learned Single Judge then adverted to the E
judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Sankat Chand
Himatlal Sheth and Another AIR 1977 SC 2328, S.P. Gupta
v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149, Gauhati High Court and
Another v. Kuladhar Phukan (2002) 4 SCC 524 and held:

"51. There could be an arguable case that even the F
Chancellor has some flexibility with regard to suggesting
names which may come within his knowledge or domain
but those details and opinion must be shared and
deliberated between the State Government and the
Chancellor and some kind of opinion reached, before it G
can be said that there was consultation with regard to the
persons who are fit or otherwise deserving to be
appointed as Vice Chancellors. Obviously, the manner
and the way appointments to the two posts have been
made, in the opinion of this Court, does not satisfy the H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A requirement of consultation and there is much a-miss with
regard to the way the whole exercise has been carried out
at the office of the Chancellor and in the manner in which
Chancellor has gone about making appointments to the
post.
B
52. Consultation with the State is a must. Consultation with
the State must be effective. Consultation also means
1.2lacing of materials between the consulting and the
consulted 1.2artv. There has to be 1.2ro1.2er deliberations by
1.2roducing all materials duly recorded to show that such
c exercise was carried out and there was a1.21.2lication of mind
with regard to all those 1.2ersons who may be otherwise
eligible. If all these elements are missing and there is no
evidence in this regard in existence, then the Court will
have no hesitation in recording that any a1.21.2ointment
D made, may be at the behest or at the level of the
Chancellor, would be in clear breach of the reguirements
of Section 10(2} of the Act. There is no absolute 1.2ower of
the Chancellor to make am;~ointment on the 1.2ost of Vice
Chancellor or Pro Vice Chancellor at his level without the
E consultation with the State within the meaning of law
enunciated by Courts and as mandated and that alone
would satisfv the reguirement of consultation under section ·
10(2} of the Act.

F 53. In this case there are 1.2redominant materials to show
that there was never any consultation with any State
authorities and the Chancellor on the guestion of
a1.21.2ointment of two Vice Chancellors. If the two Vice
Chancellors came to be a1.21.2ointed in breach of Section
10(2} of the Act, then the a1.21.2ointment will have to be
G
interfered with and the issue cannot be allowed to rest."

(emphasis supplied)

3.3 Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 822 and 824 of 2011 filed
H by Dr.Subhash Prasad Sinha and Dr. Arvind Kumar,
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 135
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
respectively were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High A
Court vide judgment dated 8.9.2011, paragraphs 18 and 19 of
which are extracted below:

"18 The word "shall" is only indicative. The need of
consultation is between two constitutional authorities, one
B
is the Chancellor whose rule has been noticed above and
the other is the State Government which has a high stake
in ensuring that standard of higher education in the State
is maintained and the hundreds of crores of rupees
allocated to the Universities every year are well utilized by
appointment of suitable persons who are not only reputed C
for their scholarship and academic interest but can also
be good administrators, capable of safeguarding the
finances and interests of the Universities. The Governor as
Chancellor does not have the elaborate requisite machinery
to enable him to form the appropriate opinion for D
appointing persons as Vice Chancellors and this is
adequately taken care of by providing consultation with the
State Government. The nature of duty of both the
Constitutional authorities in this context is to promote
public interest and interest of higher education by selecting E
and appointing best persons avai!able out of eligible
candidates. To achieve this object the stipulated
consultation has to be effective. It is not only desirable but
clearly a must, before selection and appointment.
F
19. Though the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Indian Administrative Service (SGS) Association v.
Union of/ndia (1993 1 Supp. 22 SCC 731) has been cited
on behalf of the appellants, a careful perusal shows that
the settled principles as to what shall constitute consultation G
and when it is mandatory do not support the case of the
appellants. The judgment approves that prior consultation
is mandatory and moreso if its violation would affect
fundamental rights or fair procedure. In the present case,
the dispute whether 9pinion or advice of the State H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A Government will bind the Chancellor or not is not at all in
issue. The controversy is in respect of earlier stage as to
whether the State Government should have adequate
opportunity to give its opinion or advice in respect of the
appointees. The procedure and details as to who shall be
B taken into consideration on account of eligibility and who
shall be selected out of eligible persons has rightly not
been prescribed by the Act because the appointment and
consultation process has been left in the hand of high
Constitutional functionaries. Nonetheless. like any
c selection process it must be fair. Consultation with the
State Government has been introduced by the Legislature
with the obvious aim of making the selection procedure
wider in ambit. deeper in contents. transparent and fair.
The State Government has the means to render intensive
and extensive information and input in course of
D
consultation. The consultation in such important matter and
at such high level needs to be effective so that after the
Chancellor has made tentative choice on considering the
entire information and input given by the State
Government. the latter may provide further relevant
E information. if available. in respect of tentatively selected
persons. in order to avoid the risk of Universities being
placed in the hands of wrong persons or unsuitable
persons."

F (emphasis supplied)

3.4 The special leave petitions filed by the two appointees,
which were registered as SLP (C) Nos. 27644/2011 and
27725/2011, were dismissed by this Court on 29.9.2011.

G 3.5 During the pendency of the letters patent appeals
before the High Court, the Chancellor issued Notifications
dated 1.8.2011 and 3.8.2011 for appointment of as many as
'ten persons as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of
different Universities of the State. The details of these
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 137
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

appointments are as under: A

SI Notifica- Memo No. Name Appointed as
No. tion date
1 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Shambhu Vice-Chancellor
1789(GS (I) Nath Singh of Patna B
University,
Patna
2 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Bimal Vice-Chancellor
1834(GS (I) Kumar of B.R.A.
University, c
Muzafar
3 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Ram Vice-Chancellor
1864(GS (I) Vinod Sinha of J.P.
University,
Chapra D
.4 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Arun Vice-Chancellor
1819(GS (I) Kumar of B.N.Mandal
University,
Madhepura
5 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Arvind Vice-Chancellor E
1849(GS (I) Kumar of K.S.D.
Pandey Sanskrit
University,
Darbhanga.
6 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Md. Vice-Chancellor F
1804(GS (I) Shamsuzzoha of Maulana
Maharul Haque
Arabic &
Persian
University,
Patna G
7 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Pushpen- Pro Vice-
1924(GS (I) dra Kumar Chancellor of
Verma B.N. Manda!
University,
Madhepura H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.

A 8 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Kumaresh Pro Vice-
1894(GS (I) Prasad Singh Chancellor of
L.N. Mithila
University,
Darbhanga
B 9 01/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Sultana Pro Vice-
1879(GS (I) Khushood Chancellor of
Jabeen Maulana
Mazharul Haque
Arabic &
c Persian
University,
Patna
10 03/08/11 BSU-13/2011- Dr. Lal Pro Vice-
1941(GS (I) Keshwar Chancellor of
D Prasad Patna
Singh University

3.6 The afore-mentioned appointments also became
subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No.15123 of 2011 filed
E by Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh mainly on the ground that the
Chancellor had not consulted the State Government as per the
mandate of Section 10(2) of the BSU Act and Section 11 (2)
of the Patna University Act, 1976 (for short, 'the PU Act').

3.7 In the counter affidavits filed by the appointees an
F objection was taken to the locus standi of Dr. Ram Tawakya
Singh on the premise that he was not eligible to be appointed
as Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor. The Division Bench
of the High Court rejected the objection by observing that being
a member of the teaching faculty of a University in the State,
G the petitioner was legitimately entitled to see that appointments
to the offices of Vice-Chancellor and Pro Vice-Chancellor are
made in accordance with law from amongst those who are
.qualified and are meritorious. The Division Bench then
'considered the question whether the Chancellor had made
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 139
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
appointments in consultation with the State Government and A
answered the same in negative by recording the following
observations:

"It is evident that the Chancellor had the meeting with the
Chief Minister, and that both the Chancellor and the Chief
B
Minister were aware of the subject matter of discussion.
The Chief Minister being the representative of the State
Government, we cannot say that the Chancellor did not
consult the State Government or that the State Government
was not aware of the names selected by the Chancellor.
c
But, in our opinion, it is not enough that the State
Government was aware of the subject matter. If the State
Government were satisfied by mere discussion, we would
say that the State Government failed in discharge of its duty
or abdicated its power. D
A proper consultation would be when the Chancellor
forwards the names selected by him with the relevant
materials and the State Government considers such
names and scrutinizes the materials, the State Government
E
may have or may collect further materials from its own
resources and records its own opinion in respect of each
such name. The matter of appointment of Vice-Chancellors
or Pro Vice-Chancellors cannot be taken lightly. It would
be the duty of the Chancellor and the State Government
F
to select the best person or at least not to select a wrong
person'

We do not propose to enter into the eligibility, academic
qualifications, general reputation, integrity or moral
standards of any of the respondents Vice-Chancellors or G
Pro Vice-Chancellors. It is the function of the Chancellor
to examine the materials on hand and to consider the
opinion of the State Government and the materials
forwarded by t.he State Government, if any. Once, the
H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A Chancellor has examined the materials and is satisfied,
that would be sufficient compliance with the statutory
provisions.

We do not propose to say that the Chancellor is required
B to ;eceive recommendations from the State Government
or that the opinion of the State Government is binding upon
the Chancellor. No, that is not what the Legislature has
intended. All that the Legislature has intended is that the
Chancellor should obtain opinion of the State Government
before he makes the appointment of Vice-Chancellors or
c Pro Vice-Chancellors selected by him. The opinion of the
State Government may or may not be accepted by the
Chancellor. The Chancellor being the supreme authority,
it is the decision of the Chancellor which shall prevail, but
not without obtaining the opinion of the State Government
D on the proposed names.

As recorded hereinabove. at no point of time before the
Chancellor discussed the matter with the Chief Minister.
the names proposed by the Chancellor were disClosed to
E the State Governent. In absence of the disclosure of the
names. the State government could not have applied its
mind or formed an opinion. A mere discussion without
application of mind or forming an opinion. in our view. is
not the "Consultation" envisaged by the above referred
F Acts of 1976."

(emphasis supplied)

3.8 In view of the findings recorded by it, the Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed
G the appointments of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors and directed that fresh appointments be made in
consultation with the State Government. The operative portion
of order dated 7.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench reads
thus:
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 141
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the appointment A
of the respondent nos. 20 to 29 as Vice-Chancellors or
Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the concerned Universities have
been made without "Consultation" as envisaged by
Sections 10(2) and 12 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976
and by Sections 11 and 14 of the Patna University Act, B
1976. All the ten appointments are, therefore, vitiated and
are void ab initio.

For the aforesaid reasons, CWJC No. 15123 of 2011 is
allowed. The impugned notifications dated 1st August, C
2011 and 3rd August, 2011 are quashed and set aside.
The appointment of the respondent nos. 20 to 29 is held
to be illegal and contrary to the Bihar Universities Act,
1976 or the Patna University Act, 1976, as the case may
be, and are set aside.
D
The Chancellor will, within one month from today, propose
names for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors in the above referred Universities to the State
Government with the relevant materials. The State
Government will, within 30 days therefrom, forward its E
opinion in respect of all such names to the Chancellor. After
receipt of such opinion, the Chancellor will make the
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors in the respondents Universities.
F
We make it clear that the petitioner will have no right to
submit his candidature or a right to be considered for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor in
any of the respondents Universities."

4. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh has challenged the direction G
given by the High Court mainly on the ground that the selection
of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors cannot be left
in the hands of the Chancellor without any mechanism for
preparation of panel of candidates by a Search Committee
H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A consisting of academicians and educationists. He has also
questioned the direction given by the High Court virtually
debarring him from being considered for appointment as Vice-
Ctiancellor or Pro Vice-Chancellor. The State of Bihar and
others have challenged the order of the High Court on the
B ground that the view taken by it on the scope of Sections 10(2)
and 12(1) of the BSU Act and Sections 11 (2) and 14(1) of the
PU Act is contrary to the one expressed by the coordinate
Bench in LPA Nos. 822 and 824 of 2011.

5. On 18.3.2013, this Court heard the arguments of
C learned counsel for the State and some of the private
respondents who had appeared on caveat and stayed the
operation of Notifications dated 9.2.2013 and 19.2.2013
issued by the Chancellor appointing the private respondents as
Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors. That order is
D being reproduced below because one of the contentions urged
by the counsel for the private respondents is that the appellants
had misled the Court in passing an interim order:

"Delay condoned.
E
This petition is directed against order dated 7.12.2012
passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15123 of 2011, whereby
certain directions were given in the mater of appointments
of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors in various
F universities of the State. The operative portion of the High
Court's order reads thus:

"For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the
appointment of the respondent nos. 20 to 29 as
G Vice-Chancellors or Pro Vice-Chancellors in the
concerned Universities have been made without
"Consultation" as envisaged by Section 10(2) and
12 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 and by
Sections 11 and 14 of the Patna University Act,
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 143
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
1976. All the ten appointments are, therefore, A
vitiated and are void ab initio.
'
For the aforesaid reasons, CWJC No. 15123 of
2011 is allowed. The impugned Notifications dated
1st August 2011 and 3rd August, 2011 are quashed 8
and set aside. The appointment of the respondent
nos. 20 to 29 is held to be illegal and contrary to
the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 or the Patna
University Act, 1976, as the case may be, and are
set aside.
c
The Chancellor will, within one month from today,
propose names for appointment of Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors in the above
referred Universities to the State Government with
the relevant materials. The State Government will, D
within 30 days therefrom, forward its opinion in
respect of all such names to the Chancellor. After
receipt of such opinion, the Chancellor will make the
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice- ·
Chancellors in the respondents Universities. E

We make it clear that the petitioner will have no
right to submit his candidature or a right to be
considered for appointment as Vice-chancellor or
Pro Vice-Chancellor in any of the respondents
Universities." ·
F

(Copied from the SLP Paper book)

The petitioners have also questioned the
consequential actions taken by the Chancellor for G
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice
Chancellors in various Universities of the State.

We have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned senior
counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 9 S.C.R.

A Issue notice, returnable on 16.04.2013. Dasti, in
addition, is permitted.

Shri Amit Pawan, learned counsel instructing Dr.
Rajeev Dhawan, Shri Amrendra Sharan and Shri Uday U
Lalit, learned senior counsel accepts notice on behalf of
B
respondent nos. 20, 21 and 22.

Shri Harish Salve strongly pressed for stay not only
of the order passed by the High Court, but also of
notifications dated 9.2.2013 and 19.02.2013 issued by the
c Governor-cum-Chancellor, Bihar for appointment of the
private respondents as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors of different Universities. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,
S/Shri Amrendra Sharan and Uday U Lalit vehemently
opposed the prayer made by Shri Salve. Dr. Dhawan
D submitted that the exercise undertaken by the Chancellor
and the Government for appointment of Vice-Chancellors
and Pro Vice-Chancellors cannot be questioned in the
special leave petition which is essentially directed against
order dated 7.12.2012 of the High Court and if any person
E feels aggrieved by the appointments made in furtherance
of the directions given by the High Court, then he can avail
appropriate legal remedy. Learned senior counsel
submitted that this Court can examine the legality of
notifications dated 9.2.2013 and 19.02.2013 only if an
F independent writ petition is filed for that purpose. Dr.
Dhawan was joined by Shri Sharan and Shri Lalit in
making a submission that the prayer made by Shri Salve
should not be accepted because only few of the
candidates mentioned in the list annexed with
communication dated 5.1.2013 sent by the Secretary to
G
the Governor are shown to be facing criminal cases and
any defi<;:iency in their candidature cannot be used against
the other respondents, who are fully qualified and have
been found suitable for the posts of Vice-Chancellors and
Pro Vice Chancellors. Learned counsel then submitted that
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 145
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
it will not be desirable to create vacuum in the positions A
of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors because
that would adversely affect the functioning of the
Universities and the students community.

In his rejoinder submissions, Shri Salve invited the B
Court's attention to the regulations framed by the University
Grants Commission, which were circulated on 30.06.2010
for selection of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors
of the Universities and claimed that even though
Legislature of the State of Bihar had made appropriate C
amendments in the relevant enactments and forwarded the
same to the Governor in the month of March, 2011, the
latter has neither approved nor returned the same to the
State Legislature.

We have considered the respective submissions. D

The record of the case shows that in the purported
compliance of the direction given by the High Court on
7.12.2012, the Secretary to the Governor sent letter No.
2C/GS/GB dated 5.1.2013 to the Principal Secretary to the E
Chief Minister, Government of Bihar stating therein that in
exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 10(1)
and (2) and Section 12(1) of the Bihar State Universities
Act, 1976 (as amended up to date) as well as Sections
11 and 14 of the Patna University Act, 1976 (as amended
F
up to date) and Sections 11 (1) and (2) of the Nalanda
Open University Act, 1995 (as amended up to date), the
Chancellor proposes to appoint the persons named in
Annexure-A and Annexure-B as Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors against the vacancies existing in the G
Universities and sought the Chief Minister's view on the
names. In the last column of the lists enclosed with letter
dated 5.1.2013, few lines were recorded about the
capabilities of the candidates to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors.
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A In response to the aforesaid letter, the Principal
Secretary to the Chief Minister of Bihar sent
communication dated 21.1.2013 to the Special Secretary
to the Governor, paragraphs 1 to 3 and last paragraph of
which read as under:
B
"1. In compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order
in the CWJC No. 10569 of 2011, the envisaged
"Consultation" process has to be meaningful and
based on substantive material. The order clearly
mentions that "the legislature has cast a duty upon
c the State Government to scrutinize the names
proposed by the Chancellor for appointment of
Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-Chancellors for
their academic qualifications, experience, integrity
and moral standards".
D
It is to bring to your notice that the list sent by you
contains only qualifications and experience and that
too in a very brief and inadequate manner. The~~
is no record of their vigilance clearance or integrity
E and moral standards. Hence it is not possible for
us to scrutinize the names as envisaged in the
Hon'ble High Court order.

2. Further prima facie, this is to point out that the
proposed list contains name of one such person
F
who has the criminal proceedings pending against
him i.e. SI. No.4 of the proposed Vice Chancellors'
List. Please refer page no.16 of the Hon'ble High
Court order wherein it has been admitted by the
advocate of the person referred above.
G
3. The list also do not mention the name of the
University against which proposed names are
contemplated for consideration.

You are therefore requested to kindly arrange for
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 147
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the required information with details in your A
possession so that an effective consultation takes
place between the consulting parties."

(copied from the SLP paper book)

Thereafter, the Secretary to the Governor sent letter B
dated 28.1.2013 to the Principal Secretary to the Chief
Minister mentioning therein that if the latter is in
possession of substantive and credible materials as to the
integrity and moral standards of the persons named in the
communication sent by the Governor's Secretariat, then c
the same may be forwarded for being placed before the
Chancellor. The Secretary to the Governor also wrote that
if the Chief Minister has any record of judicial conviction,
instead of merely criminal proceedings pending, against
the name at serial no.4 in the list, then he may send the D
same for being considered by the Chancellor.

After 12 days, the Principal Secretary to the Chief
Minister sent letter da~ed 9.2.2013 to the Special
Secretary to the Governor enclosing therewith summary
E
of the report received from the Department of Education
on various candidates mentioned in the list forwarded by
the office of the Chancellor. On the same date, the
Governor-cum-Chancellor issued notification dated
9.2.2013 appointing the private respondents as Vice-
F
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different
Universities.

In response to the Court's query, the learned senior
counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 20 to 22 gave out
that they are not in a position to say whether or not the G
amendments made by the State Legislature have been
approved by the Governor. The question whether the
Governor had kept pending for two years, the Bill passed
by the State Legislature and whether there was any
H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 9 S.C.R.

A , justification will require serious consideration by the Court
at the time of final adjudication of the matter. However, at
this stage, we are prima facie satisfied that the selection
of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors has not
been made by following the procedure laid down in the
B UGC Regulations because no such Committee was
constituted by the Chancellor for preparing panel of the
candidates who could be considered for such
appointments. We may also observe that even in the
absence of UGC Regulations, appointment to the posts of
c Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors could have
been made by the Chancellor in consultation with the
competent authority only after following some procedure
consistent with the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article
14 of the Constitution so as to enable all eligible persons
to compete for selection.
D
In a somewhat similar case, this Court had an
opportunity to consider the legality of the appointment of
Director of the Indian Statistical Institute and it was held
that selection made without following the procedure laid
E down in the bye-laws of the society and issuing public
notice was contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. (See
B. S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute and Others
(1983) 4 sec 582).

F De hors the above observations, we are of the view
that even though the special leave petition is primarily
directed against the order of the High Court, this Court can
take cognizance of the subsequent events including
notifications dated 9.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 issued by the
Chancellor and pass appropriate order in the matter.
G
A reading of the letter sent by the Principal Secretary
to the Chief Minister to the Special Secretary to the
Governor on 9.2.2013 shows that criminal complaints are
pending against some of the candidates who were
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 149
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
proposed by the Chancellor to be appointed as Vice- A
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors and were actually
appointed against those posts on 9.2.2013. Against two
of them charge sheets have already been filed in the
competent Court. Against one of the candidates, charge
sheet has been filed under Sections 341/342/506 and B
other provisions of IPC read with Section 3(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Against another candidate, a case
has been registered under Section 420/409/467/468/471
and other· provisions of 1PC read with Sections 13 and 14 c
of Prevention of Corruption Act. One more case is said to
have registered against him under Sections 420/409/467
and other provisions of IPC. ·

All this, prima facie, indicate that the Chancellor did
not at all apply his mind on the question of suitability and D
desirability of appointing the- particular candidates as
Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors. Why this was
done would require serious scrutiny by the Court which is .
possible only after giving opportunity of hearing to the ·
private respondents and the Chancellor. However, the E
manner in which the Chancellor has made appointments
albeit in the guise of adhering to the time schedule fixed
by the Division Bench of the High Court leaves much to
be desired. The High Court had not fixed any time limit for
the Chancellor to take final decision after receiving the F
opinion of the State Government. One month's time was
fixed by the Court for the Chancellor to propose the names
for appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors in various Universities and forward the same
to the Government with relevant materials. The State G
Government was required to forward its opinion within next
30 days. However, there was no time limit for Chancellor
to take final decision in the matter. Notwithstanding this,
the Chancellor exhibited undue haste and ensured that the
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A notifications appointing the particular candidates are
issued in less than 24 hours of the receipt of the opinion
of the Chief Minister. It is a matter of serious concern that
candidates facing criminal prosecution have been
appointed as Vice-Chancellors/Pro Vice-Chancellors.·
B
In the premise aforesaid, we are convinced that it is
a fit case in which an interim order should be passed by
the Court.

Accordingly, the operation of notifications dated
c 9.2.2013 and 19.2.2013 issued by the Governor-cum-
Chancellor, Bihar appointing the private respondents as
Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors of different
Universities is stayed and they are restrained from
functioning as Vice Chancellors and Chancellors of the
D concerned Universities.

With a view to ensure that functioning of the various
Universities is not jeopardized, we direct that as a purely
stop gap arrangement, the senior most Deans in the
Universities shall discharge the function of the Vice-
E
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors.

It shall be the duty of the petitioners to serve the
remaining respondents well before 16.04.2013.

F A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary to the
Governor of Bihar by fax. He shall ensure that the entire
record relating to the selection of Vice-Chancellors and
Pro Vice-Chancellors be sent to this Court in sealed
envelopes through a messenger and deposited with the
G Secretary General of this Court on or before 10.04.2013.

Copies of this order be also sent to the Registrars
of all the Universities by fax. They should place the order
before the senior most Dean in the concerned University
so as to enable him to discharge the function of Vice-
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 151
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Chancellor till the next date of hearing i.e. 16.4.2013." A

6. In compliance of the direction given by the Court, Shri
Sudhir Srivastava, Special Secretary to the Governor-cum-
Chancellor sent the relevant file in a sealed envelope along with
letter dated 27.3.2013. The sealed cover was opened in the
B
Court and the papers contained in the file were perused.
Subsequently, the file was made available to the learned
counsel for the parties for their perusal and all of them availed
the opportunity. The counsel representing State of Bihar also
produced File No.15/M 1-02/12 (part), Computer No. 7058/13 C
maintained by the Education Department of the State.

7: A careful scrutiny of these files reveal the following facts:

i. The order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court was placed before the Governor-cum-Chancellor on 0
12.12.2012.
ii. On 5.1.2013, the Governor-cum-Chancellor passed an
order proposing appointments of Prof. (Dr.) Bimal Kumar, Dr.
(Prof.) Arun Kumar, Dr. Ram Vinod Sinha, Dr. Kumaresh
Prasad Singh, Dr. Sheo Shankar Singh, Dr. Samrendra Pratap E
Singh, Dr. Tapan Kumar Shandilya as Vice Chancellors and Dr.
Ramayan Prasad, Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Dr. Dharma
Nand Mishra, Dr. Sultana Khushood Jabeen, Prof. (Dr.)
Shailendra Kumar Singh, Dr. Padmasha Jha, Dr. Anwar Imam,
Prof. (Dr.) Chakradhar Prasad Singh and Prof. (Dr.) Raja Ram F
Prasad as Pro Vice Chancellors. On the same day, Special
Secretary to the Governor sent letter No. 2C/GS/GB dated
5.1.2013 to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Bihar
conveying the Chancellor's proposal to appoint the persons
whose names were mentioned in Annexure-A and Annexure- G
B attached to the letter as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors of different Universities. The details contained in
the two charts are quite significant and, therefore, the same are
reproduced below:
H
(j) ,, m o 0 )>
ANNEXURE'A'

Sl.No. Names Remarks
1. Prof. (Dr) Bimal Comprehensively
(/)
Kumar considered most suitable. c
Not a word as to his/her ""CJ
qualification, eligibility & :;;o
m
suitability in the judgement. s::
m
0
2. Dr. Prof. Arun !W-A Professor, I~ Comprehensively 0
c
Kumar (E~~omics), Of Econoii'.iics, considered most suitable.
Ph.D. PriiIC" al, MM College, Not a word as to his/her ~
~~ at present Vice qualification, eligibility &
:;;o
mo~.\- BN Mandal suitability in the judgement.
m
""CJ
·"umv.¢rlllt)i>'- Madhepura. 0
Additioal charge
.- . ,ChB!lC!;:Jlqr,., ...,,
Vice
Magadh ~
' · Umveis1tyf'Bodh Gaya and
Nalanda Open University, t3
0
Patna. ......
3 Dr. Ram Binod M.A. Ph.D. Professor & HoD, Deptt. of Comprehensively ~
Sinha Hindi and at present Vice considered most suitable. <O
Chancellor, JP University, Not a word as to his/her (/)
Chapra qualification, eligibility & (')
suitabili in the ·ud ement. :;;o
Comprehensively considered
most suitable. Not a word as
to his/her qualification, eligi-
bility & suitability in the
judgement.

(Dr) Md. Sham- :M~A.. (Arabic), Comprehensively considered
suzzoha
Ph.D. in Hwnani- Patna University, most suitable. Not a word as
ties (Arabic) · d at present Vice to his/her qualification, eligi-
_. __ J~}1MH Arabic & bility & suitability in the
'·--.; -~P~i!liifliiY'ersity, Patna judgement.

Prof. Shambhu Nath PG Diploma ·Ill--' 't>li-eCtor~ and· Professor, IG- Comprehensively considered
Singh Journalism, NOU and at present Vice · most suitable. Not a word as
Ph.D. (Mass Chancellor, Patna University, to his/her qualification, eligi-
Communication) Patna bility & suitability in the
judgement.

"Tl· m 0 )>'
::c (j) m c (") tD )>

7 Dr. Kwnaresh Prasad M.A. Comprehensively
Singh LL.B. considered most suitable.
CJ)
Not a word as to his/her c
qualification, eligibility & "'1J
suitabili in the ·u ent. ;;a
m
8 Comprehensively s::
considered most suitable. m
Not a word as to his/her (")
qualification, eligibility & 0
c
suitabili in the ·ud ement. ;;a
9 Dr. Sheo Shankar V). ··. , Maharaja Co~, Considered duly qualified -I
Singh (Economics), University, Ara) and best suitable for the job ;;a'
Ph.D.
m
"'1J
10 Dr. Samrendra M.B.B.S., M.Dp., "'j!Retd), DMCH, Considered duly qualified 0
;;a
Pratap Singh Ph.D. 1._,7 :. . ef,~)md at present, and best suitable for the job -I
···-- ':Vi'ce::Chan€ellor, L.N. Mithila CJ)

Universi , Darbhan
11 Dr. Tapan Kumar M.A. . ... ,..iµsis~t. ~fessor, Principal, Considered duly qualified
Shandilya (Economics), " U RLS-Ooilege;iManjhaul and at and best suitable for the job
Ph.D. present Pro Vice Chancellor,
TM. Bhagalpur University,
Bha I ur
ANNEXURE'B'
CJ
SI.No. Names Remarks ::a
l. Dr. Ramayan Prasad Considered best suitable for
the job.

2. Dr. Birendra Kumar Considered best suitable for
Singh , the job.

3 Dr. Dhanna Nand ~~-· M.Com., Considered best suitable for
Mishra LL~B., Ph.D. the job.

4 Dr. Sultana M.A. (UrduK~ . . cFIIoD, Urdu and Considered best suitable for
Khushood Jabeen Ph.D.(PU) 'Yersiaif/~ University, Ara the job.
and former Pro Vice
. Chancellor, M.M.H. Arabic &
' -Peciiaii'Um~ersi Patna
s Prof.(Dr.) Shailendra M.A., Ph.D. Principal, College of Considered best suitable for
Kumar Singh Commerce, Patna University the job.
and presently Registrar,
Nalanda Open University,
Patna
6 Dr. Padmasha Jha M.A., Ph.D. University Professor History Considered best suitable for
Retd Former Pro Vice the ·ob. ~

CJ1
CJ1

m CJ () )>
I ,, m Cl OJ )>

Chancellor, BRA Bihar (JJ
Uajx.s:r~ity, . Muzaffarpur and c
"C
-~ 79@.~." ; l l!nclwge
,,. .'t;P~:;:: ;:;, Vice j:;
::0
m
~.,, ;eb.ancello~ § ff LNMU, s:::
m
Darbhan a ()
7 Dr. Anwar Imam 0
c
::0
-I
::0
8 Prof(Dr.) U.iji~tl(sifiProf & HoD c(:gp Considered best suitable for m
"C
Chakradhar Prasad in Brigµsn, Magadh Univer~ity; the job. · 0
::0
Singh · Bo,dl.i!r;iya. J~ -I
Dei\fi~-E~culty of Humanitles, (JJ

MU '.Bodh Ga a.
9 Prof.(Dr.) Raja Ram M.A., Ph.D., _prii[~dW PJ;2fessor & HoD of Most OBC Candidate.
Prasad (Maithili) { 1vfaitllilf;;/:<) B.N.M.U., Considered best suitable for
·MidhepuriF" Dean of the job.
Humanities, B.N.M.U.,
. Madh ura , _-,-,
: ':_ : : : < •• ~ " ; \~ :
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 157
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"To, A
Shri Sudhir Shrivastava,
1 Special Secretary,
Governor Secretariat,
Governor House, Patna.
Patna, dated 21 January, 2013. B
Sub : Appointment of Vice Chancellors and Pro- Vice
Chancellors.

Sir,
c
With reference to your letter no. 20/GS/GB dated 5.1.2013,
it seems necessary to raise some of the required and
essential points to enable the Government to render its
opinion for meaningful and effective Consultation with the
Chancellor of the universities of State of Bihar. D

1. In compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order in the
CWJC No. 10569 of 2011, the envisaged "Consultation"
process has to be meaningful and based on substantive
material. The order clearly mentions that "the legislature
has cast a duty upon the State Government to scrutinize E
the names proposed by the Chancellor for appointment of
Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice Chancellors for their
academic qualifications, experience, integrity and moral
standards."
F
It is to bring to your notice that the list sent by you
contains only qualifications and experience and that too in
a verv brief and inadequate manner. There is no record
of their vigilance clearance or integrity and moral
standards. Hence it is not possible for us to scrutinize the G
names as envisaged in the Hon'ble High Court order.

2. Further prima-facie, this is to point out that the proposed
list contains name of one such person who has the criminal
proceedings pending against him i.e. SI. No. 4 of the
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A proposed Vice Chancellors' list. Please refer page no. 16
of the Hon'ble High Court order wherein it has been
admitted by the advocate of the person referred above.

3. The list also do not mention the name of the University
against which proposed names are contemplated for
B
consideration.

In these circumstances it is nearly impossible to
properly scrutinize the names and form an opinion for a
valid consultation as envisaged in the statutes and Hon'ble
c High Court's order.

You are therefore requested to kindly arrange for the
required information with details in your possession so that
an effective consultation takes place between the
D consulting parties."

(emphasis supplied)

iv. The Secretary to the Governor then sent letter dated
28.1.2013 to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister and
E . asked him to forward substantive and credible materials as to
the integrity and moral standards of the persons named in letter
dated 5.1.2013. It was also mentioned in the letter that record
of judicial conviction, instead of merely criminal proceedings
pending against the person named at serial no.4 in the list, may
F be sent for consideration of the Chancellor.

v. The letter of the Secretary to the Governor was sent by
the Chief Minister's Secretariat to the Principal Secretary,
Education, who wrote D.0.No.29/C/2013 dated 1.2.2013 to the
G Principal Secretary (Vigilance Department) with the request to
provide update on vigilance matters with regard to the
candidates. The Vigilance Department got conducted the
necessary enquiries and submitted the required information to
the Principle Secretary, Education.

H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 159
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
vi. In the meanwhile, the Principal Secretary to the Chief A
Minister sent letter to the Special Secretary to the Governor
pointing outthat the matter has been referred to the Vigilance
Department and the information is likely to become available
in a few days. That letter reads as under:

"Government of Bihar B
Chief Minister Secretariat

Letter No.4610032/CMS 4 February 2013

From, c
Secretary to the Chief Minister,
Government of Bihar,
Patna.

To, D
The Special Secretary,
Governor's Secretariat,
Raj Bhawan, Patna.

Subject: Appointment of Vice Chancellors and Pro Vice E
Chancellors

Reference: Your letter no. 63, dated 28th January 2013.

Sir,
F
This has reference to letter no. 144/PSC/CMS dated 21
January, 2013 and your letter no. 63/GS(l)/GB dated 28
January, 2013.

In letter dated 21st January, 2013 it was categorically G
mentioned that for valid, effective and meaningful
consultation in regard to appointment of Vice-Chancellor/
Pro Vice Chancellor in the State Universities it would be
essential to have full and complete input in possession of
Hon'ble Chancellor. A list containing names of prospective H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A candidates has been forwarded by you. However, very
sk€1tchy information in regard to each of the candidates
has been made available. No information regarding which
of the candidate is proposed for appointment to which
University has been provided.
B It is to be noted that the list of name has been finalized by
the Hon'ble Chancellor and therefore it has to be presumed
that he is in possession of all relevant materials, such as
document in support of eligibility /qualification, experience,
moral character/integrity. Appointment in each University
c is an independent decision which has to be preceded by
effective and meaningful consultation. In the absence of
requisite materials, any exercise would appear as mere
formality. As ordained by Hon'ble Court's order, the State
Government is required to give it opinion. As·the names
D have been short listed by Hon'ble Chancellor, it is
considered imperative that State Government before
tendering opinion should have full materials with specific
detail as to which candidate is being considered for which
University.
E
However, instead of responding to the Government's
request, you have asked us to make available substantive
and credible materials as to integrity and moral standards
of persons included in the list. You have also mentioned
to make available pending proceeding against the person
F
at SI. No. 4.

Vice Chancellor/Pro Vice-Chancellor of University is
expected to possess basic eligibility as prescribed by the
Universities Grants Commission. Besides, the candidate
G is required to have credible experience of a high position
and should be perceived to have good reputation. Serious
allegation of misconduct as holder of the post for any
omission or commission being investigated by State
Vigilance/Police is sufficient reason not to recommend
H such a person.
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 161
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Since the State Government has not been provided the A
grounds on which the candidates have been
recommended or at least the due diligence that was
undertaken before suggesting the names, it is impossible
for the State Government to engage in a meaningful
consultation. The State Government has requested the B
Vigilance Department for information based on simply the
names of the candidates recommended. without any other
information or bio data. It is likely that such information will
be available in a few days.

The orders of the Hon'ble Court have been absolutely clear
c
regarding the consultation process. Any hasty decision
without conforming to the basic framework for consultation
as outlined by the Hon'ble Court. will amount to a
contravention of the Court's orders. The State Government
would like to request that appointments should only be D
made after the process of consultation. as outlined in the
Court's orders, are fully complied with."

(emphasis supplied)
E
vii. On 8.2.2013, the Special Secretary to the Governor-
cum-Chancellor recorded a note, which reads as under:

"As per order of the Hon'ble Chancellor dated 05.01.2013,
a list of names for appointment as Vice Chancellors and
Pro-Vice Chancellors was sent to the Principal Secretary F
to Chief Minister vide this Secretariat letter No.20/GS/GB
dated 5th January, 2013.

The Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Bihar vide his
letter No. 144/PSC/CMS dated 21 January, 2013 sought G
some clarifications against one person named in the list.

Thereafter, as directed by H.E. a reply was sent to the
Principal Secretary to Chief Minister vide this Secretariat
letter No.63 GS/GB dated 28 January, 2013 conveying him
H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 9 S.C.R.

A that in case he is in possession of substantive and
credible materials as to integrity and moraJ standards of
the persons named in the list, he was requested to forward
the same to this Secretariat. It was also mentioned that
similarly, if he has any record of judicial conviction, instead
8 of merely criminal proceedings pending, against person
in serial No. 4 in the list, he was also requested to send it
for consideration of the Hon'ble Chancellor.

In response to our letter dated 28 January, 2013, the
Secretary to Chief Minister, Bihar has sent his reply vide
c his letter No. 4610032/CMS dated 4th February, 2013 that
State Govt. has requested the Vigilance Department for
information regarding candidates proposed.

Today is 8/2/2013 and the State Government has not given
D any specific objection or opinion against the individual
persons named in the list proposed by the Hon'ble
Chancellor on 5/1 /2013 to the State Government.

H.E. to take decision please."
E viii. On the same day, the Governor-cum-Chancellor
recorded the following note:

"As discussed with you, please prepare draft Notifications
for appointment of VCs and Pro VCs as per relevant
F provisions of the Acts and in consonance "With ratio
decidendi I ratiocination of the High Court judgment for
immediate issuance."

The Governor-cum-Chancellor also approved the draft format
G of the notifications to be issued for appointing Vice-Chancellors
and Pro Vice-Chancellors and directed that the same be
issued when ordered by him. Below that note the Special
Secretary recorded the following:

"Notification formats ready. H.E. may like to indicate
H names of VCs and date of issue of notifications."
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 163
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
ix. On the next day, i.e., 9.2.2013, Governor-cum- A
Chancellor recorded the following noting:

"Notifications in the approved format appointing the
following persons as Vice-Chancellors may be issued on
9th February, 2013, at the Universities shown against their B
names. The order is to take immediate effect.

"Name of VC University

1. Prof Shambhu Nath Patna University, Patna.
Singh, interim Vice- c
Chancellor, Patna
University, Patna

2. Prof.(Dr.) MMH Arabic and Persian
Md.Shamsusuzzha, University, Patna.
D
interim Vice-Chancellor,
MMH Arabic and Persian
University, Patna

3. Prof.(Dr.) Arun Kumar, Magadh University, Bodh
interim Vice-Chancellor, Gaya. E
B.N.Mandal University,
Madhepura

4. Prof.(Dr.) Bimal Kumar, J.P. University, Chapra.
interim Vice-Chancellor, F
BRA Bihar University,
Muzaffarpur

5. Dr. Ram Binod Sinha, B.N. Mandal University,
interim Vice-Chancellor, Madhepura.
J.P. University, Chapra G

6. Dr. Sheo Shankar Singh, V.K.S. University, Ara.
Principal, Maharaja
College, Ara
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.

A 7. Dr. Kumaresh Prasad BRA Bihar University,
Singh, In-Charge Vice- Muzzaffarpur.
Chancellor, V.K.S.
University, Ara
8. Dr. Arvind Kumar KSD Sanskrit University,
B Pandey, interim Vice- Darbhanga.
Chancellor, KSD Sanskrit
University, Darbhanga

Thereafter, the Special Secretary to Governor-cum-Chancellor
c made a recording that all the eight notifications have been sent
to the concerned Universities by fax.

x. On 9.2.2013, the Principal Secretary to the Chief
Minister, Bihar sent a report received from the Education
Department, which got conducted enquiry through the Vigilance
D Department, to the Special Secretary to the Governor. The
relevant portions of that report are as under:

"In the category of Vice-Chancellors

1. Prof. (Or.) Bimal Kumar
E
Vigilance Department of the State Government is enquiring
charges against him regarding financial irregularities,
appointment of lecturers illegally and corrupt misuse of post
when he was posted as Registrar, Magadh University.
F Complaint Case No. 13/12. 14/12 and 35/12 have been
filed against Dr. Bimal Kumar in the Special Vigilance
Court, Muzaffarpur and the same has been forwarded to
the Vigilance Investigation Bureau for further enquiry. These
relate to financial irregularity. The Vidhan Parishad has
G also discussed a Call Attention Motion regarding financial
irregularity and corruption again$t Dr. Bimal Kumar which
has been referred by the Education Department to the
Vigilance Department for enquiry. From Bhagalpur also
charges regarding corruption in Bhagalpur University
H against Dr. Bimal Kumar has been leveled which is
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 165
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
currently under enquiry in the Vigilance Department. A

As per information from Sr. S.P., Muzaffarpur charge sheet
has been filed in University Police Station Case No. 21/
11 dated 24.9.11 under Section 3411342/506/509/386/
834 of IPC and 3(x) SC/ST Act. B

These clearly indicate that the moral character and the
integrity of Dr. Bimal Kumar is not good enough to be
considered for appointment as the Vice Chancellor and
enquiries and investigations are currently going on in the
Vigilance Department. C

2. Dr. Prof. Arun Kumar

Complaint has been received by the Vigilance Department
against Prof. Kumar regarding irregularies in evaluation of D
answer books, irregular financial drawal, illegal gratification
from contractors and having investment beyond his known
source of income. The Vigilance Department is currently
enquiring into these. These charges are of financial nature
and clearly shows that his appointment as the Vice
Chancellor will not be in the interest of good goverance in E
the University.

3. Dr. Ram Binod Sinha

Charges have been leveled in the Bihar Vidhan Parishad F
in Nivedan No. 278/12 regarding not following reservation
rule in recruitment, irregular drawal in the name of medical
bill, illegal payment for court cases etc. As per information
available in the Education Department his age does not
make him eligible to become a Vice Chancellor under the G
regulation of University Grants Commission.

4. Dr. Arvind Kumar Pandey

As per information available from Sr. S.P. Darbhanga
Case No. 126/10 dated 29.6.10 under Section 420/409/ H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A 467/468/471/197/218/120(8) IPC and Sections 13/14 of
Prevention of Corruption Act and Case No. 150/10 dated
23.8.10 under Sections 420/409/467/488/471/120(8) of
IPV have been registered and are currently under
investigation.
B
As per information available from Sr. S.P. Gaya, Case
against Dr. Arvind Kumar Pandey have been filed in Bodh
Gaya Police Station Case No.135/10 dated 30.6.2010
under Sections 197/208/409/420/468 and 120(8) of IPC
and the same is under investigation. Snaskrit Chetna
c Parishad has made serious charges of financial
irregularieis against Dr. Pandey which has been sent to
the Governor Secretariat as well. The Governor Secretariat
vide letter no. 3950 dated 1.10.2007 forwarded complaint
against Dr. Pandey to Vigilance Department for further
D enquiry. The charge against him at that time was that in
the year 2006 he took money from students for awarding
Shastri and Upshastri. The Governor Secretariat vide
letter no. 916 dated 9.6.2003 forwarded other complaint
against Dr. Pandey to the Vigilance Department for further
E enquiry.

Based on the details mentioned above Dr. Pandey should
not be considered for appointment as Vice Chancellor as
he lacks moral character and integrity. Details regarding
F his educational qualification also need to be examined very
carefully whether he has basic qualification for appointment
to the post of Vice-Chancellor as per the regulation of
U.G.C.

6. Prof. Shambhu Nath Singh
G
As per information available complaint against him has
been forwarded by the Education Department to the
Vigilance Department for enquiry. A complaint case no. 43/
12 has been filed against Prof. Singh in the Vigilance
H Court, Patna and the same has been forwarded to the
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 167
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Vigilance Investigation Bureau for further enquiry. These A
pertain to financial irregularity which include irregular
drawal of TAIDA, unnecessary expenditure on legal case
etc. The audit conducted by the Principal Accountant
General has also pointed out major financial irregularities
in the Patna University some of which directly at the level B
of the Vice Chancellor. Audit report of the Pr. Accountant
General was sent to the Vice Chancellor, Patna University
for commends and comments received was sent against
to the Pr. Accountant General for his response to the
comments. Report has been received from the Pr. c
Accountant General where they have not accepted the
explanation in a few serious financial irregularities pointed
out by the audit. These reports have also been forwarded
to the Vigilance Department for thorough enquiry and
appropriate action. Beside these many other complaints D
have been received from time to time against Sri Singh
including the issue whether his qualifications are good
enough to be appointed as Vice Chancellor under Patna
University Act. The Department of Education has
forwarded serious complaints and Pr. Accountant
General's final report to the Vigilance Department and also E
to the Governor Secretariat for necessary action.

Based on the facts mentioned above Dr. Singh is not fit
to be appointed as Vice Chancellor.
F
9. Dr. Sheo Shankar Singh

Complaints have been received from one Sri
Ramashankar Yadav, Viii. Jaitpur, P.O. Asani, P.S.
Udwantnagar, Bhojpur regarding financial irregularity
against Sri Singh. These have to be further enquired into.
Without further details about his academic qualifications,
G
•
quality to publications and experience it is difficult to
suggest Dr. Singh's name as appointment of Vice-
Chancellor.
H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A In the category of Pro Vice-Chancellors

6. Dr. Padmasha Jha

As per information available from Sr. S.P. Muzaffarpur
charge sheet has been submitted against her in case no.
B 10/11 dated 23.5.11 under Sections 342/3411323/504/507
of IPC on 30.06.2011. Charge sheet has also been
submitted against her in case nol. 21/11 dated 24.9.2011
under sections 341/342/506/504/386/34 and under
section 3(x) under SC/ST Act. In the light of these she is
c not suited for appointment as pro Vice-Chancellor.

9. Prof.(Dr.) Raja Ram Prasad

While no complaint has been received more detail
regarding educational qualification, quality of publications
D and work experience is required before commending on
the candidature.

As the brief summary above will clearly indicate
investigations and enquiry are currently going on against
E a number of candidates whose names have been
forwarded. In many cases details of educational
qualification, quality of publications and work experience
etc. have not been forwarded. In the circumstances it is
considered view of the State Govt. That a Search
F Committee as suggested in para-1 should be constituted
immediately for short listing candidates for the post of Vice
Chancellor and Pro-Vice Chancellor and appointment by
the Chancellor should only be made from the list of short
listed candidates."

,.. G (The letter sent by the Principal Secretary is said to have been
received in the Governor's Secretariat on 12.2.2013)

xi. On 13.2.2013, the Principal Secretary to Governor-cum-
Chancellor recorded the following note:
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 169
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
''The Principal Secretary to Chief Minister, Bihar, Patna A
vide letter No.4610034/2013 dated 09/02/2013 (72-78/C)
alongwith the Education Deptt summary individual report
about the persons whose names were proposed for the
appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice-
Chancellors in Annexure-A and Annexure-B, received in B
this Secretariat on 12/02/2013, may kindly be perused.

In this connection, it is submitted that on the orders of
Hon'ble Chancellor dated 09/02/2013, notifications with
regard to appointment of 8 (eight) Vice-Chancellors for C
different Universities have already been issued and
communicated to them on 09/02/2013 and the incumbents
have already joined their notified posts and sent their
joining report to this Secretariat which are placed on the
filed."
D
xii. On 19.2.2013, Governor-cum-Chancellor recorded the
following order:-

"Secretary

Pl issue Notifications, in continuation to my order E
dated 09/02/2013, today itself appointing Dr. Tapan Kumar
Shandilya, as V.C. of Nalanda Open University, Patna, with
immediate effect.

Also issue Notifications appointing the following F
persons as Pro-Vice-Chancellors in the Universities shown
against their names:

1. Dr. Ramayan Prasad Magadh University, Bodh
Gaya.
G
2. Dr. Birendra Kumar KSD Sanskrit University,
Singh Darbhanga.

3. Dr. Dharma Nand B.N. Mandal University,
Mishra Madhepura. H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R

A 4. Dr. Sultana Khushood MMH Arabic and Persian
Jabeen University, Patna.

5. Prof.(Dr.) Shailendra J.P. University, Chapra.
Kumar Singh
B 6. Dr. Anwar Imam VKS University, Ara.
Pl issue another Notification appotnting temporarily Dr.
Arun Kumar, V.C., Magadh University, to assume and hold
charge of the office of Vice-Chancellor, T.M. Bhagalpur
University, and perform all its duties and functions in
c addition to his own existing duties as V.C. of M.U. with
immediate E'~ffect and until the appointment of a regular
Vice-Chancellor of T.M. Bhagalpur University within a short
span of timE~."

D Thereupon, the Special Secretary communicated the orders to
the concerned Universities.

xiii. After about one month, the Governor-cum-Vice-
Chancellor issued order dated 1.4.3.2013 for appointment of
Dr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, Prof. and HOD of Botany Deptt. B.N.
E Mandal Universit1J, Madhepura, as the Vice-Chancellor of T.M.
Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, with immediate effect. He also
directed that two notifications may be issued appointing
Prof.(Dr.) Raja Ram Prasad, Pro1f. and HOD of Maithili Deptt.,
B.N. Mandal University, Madhepu1ra, as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of
F Patna University, Patna, and Dr. 1Padmasha Jha, ex-Pro-Vice-
Chancellor of L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga, as Pro-Vice-
Chancellor of B.R.A. Bihar Uni'versity, Muzaffarpur, with
immediate effect.

G 8. Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh challenged the appointments
made by the Chancellor in C.W.J . C. No.15123 of 2011, which
as mentioned hereinabove, was allowed by the Division Bench
of the High Court and directions; were given for making the
appointments of Vice Chancellors and Pro Vice Chancellors
H afresh.
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 171
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
9. Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing A··
for the State and Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel
appearing for Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh referred to the
provisions of the BSU Act and PU Act as also the regulations
framed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) under
Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 for B
selection of Pro Vice-Chancellors I Vice-Chancellors and
argued that the direction given by the Division Bench of the High
Court to the Chancellor to propose names for appointment of
Vice~Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors is liable to be set
aside and the appointments made by him are liable to be c
quashed because by taking advantage of the direction
contained in the impugned order,' the Chancellor arbitrarily
prepared the list of the persons to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors without making any
selection whatsoever and without following any transparent D
method for making a choice from amongst the persons of
academic excellence, unquestionable integrity and institutional
commitment and without effectively consulting the State
Government. Both, Shri Salve and Shri Prashant Bhushan
emphasised that the Chancellor did not even try to find out
whether persons of academic excellence are available in the E
country and prepared the list which included some persons
against whom criminal cases are registered with the police
and/or are pending in the Court(s). Learned counsel relied upon
UGC regulations dated 30.6.2010 and argued that even though
the BSU Act and the PU Act were not suitably amended for F
incorporating the regulations, the Chancellor was duty bound
to keep in mind the parameters laid down by the UGC for
selecting the candidates for appointment as Vice-Chancellors
and Pro Vice-Chancellors and prepared list of eligible persons
having highest level of competence, integrity, morals and G
institutional commitment and this could have been possible only
if he had made a holistic selection by extending zone of
selection beyond the frontiers of the State. Learned counsel
submitted that instead of making a fair selection, the Chancellor
maoipulated re-appointment of those who were ousted by virtue H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A of the High Court's order. Shri Prashant Bhushan submitted that
the Chancellor had shown his scant respect to the law laid down
by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High
Court and made appointments without effective consultation
with the State Government. He submitted that the haste with
B which the Chancellor ensured the issue of Notifications dated
9.2.2013 is a proof of t'1e oblique motive with which he pushed
the appointments of even those who are facing trial for criminal
offences. Shri Salve submitted that after having learnt about the
vigilance inquiries being conducted into the antecedents of the
c candidates proposed by him, the Chancellor should have
waited for the vigilance reports and then only he could have
made appointments.

10. Shri Ram Jethmalani, Shri Anil 8.Divan, senior
advocates and other learned counsel appearing for the private
D respondents defended the appointments of their clients and
argued that the methodology adopted by the Chancellor cannot
be dubbed as arbitrary because he had consulted the State
Government before ordering the issue of Notifications dated
9.2.2013. Learned senior counsel submitted that the UGC
E regulations cannot be invoked for quashing the appointments
of the private respondents because the State legislature has
not engrafted the same in the BSU Act and the PU Act by
making appropriate amendments. Shri Jethmalani argued that
the regulations framed by the UGC are in the nature of
F subordinate legislation and they cannot override the plenary
legislation, i.e., the State Acts. In support of this argument, he
relied upon judgments of this Court in State of U.P. v.
Manbodhan Lal Srivastava AIR 1957 SC 912 and Prem
Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner AIR 1963 SC 996.
G Learned senior counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398
and argued that Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh does not have the
locus standi to challenge the appointments of Vice-Chancellors
and Pro Vice-Chancellors because he was not a competitor
H for any of the posts. Shri Jethmalani and Shri Divan submitted
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 173
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
that the appeal filed by the State and its functionaries should A
be dismissed because they not only waited till the issue of
notifications for fresh appointments but also made misleading
statement about the so called delay on the Governor's part in
approving the amendments made by the State legislature
purporting to incorporate the UGC regulations. Shri Anil Divan B
strongly criticised the State Government for delibe;ately not
amending the relevant enactments to bring them in tune with
the UGC regulations and submitted that the Governor cannot
be blamed for not approving the Bill passed by the legislature
because composition of the Search Committee proposed in c
the amendment made by the State legislature was loaded with
bureaucrats, who would have never allowed others to play their
role in selecting suitable persons and this would have effectively
frustrated the object of appointing Vice-Chancellors and Pro
Vice-Chancellors from amongst distinguished academicians. D
Learned counsel pointed out that majority of the appointees are
having excellent academic record and vast experience of
teaching in different Universities/Colleges and argued that their
appointment should not be quashed simply because some of
the candidates are facing prosecution. In the end, Shri Anil
E
Divan submitted that even if this Court comes to the conclusion
that the appointments made by the Chancellor are contrary to
the scheme of the BSU Act and the PU Act, the private
respondents who have clean record should be allowed to hold
the posts and discharge the functions of Vice-Chancellors and
Pro Vice-Chancellors till fresh appointments are made so that F
their image and integrity may not be adversely affected.

11. We have considered the respective arguments !
submissions. For deciding the main question arising in the
appeals and the writ petition it will be useful to notice the G
relevant statutory provisions. The same are as under:

BSU Act

"10. The Vice-Chancellor. - (1) No person shall be
deemed to be qualified to hold the office of Vice- H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A Chancellor unless such person is, in the opinion ofthe ·
Chancellor, reputed for his scholarship and academic
interest, and no person shall be deemed to be qualified
to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor of the Kameshwar
Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University unless such person
8 is, in the opinion of the Chancellor, reputed for his
scholarship in Sanskrit or has made notable contribution
to Sanskrit education.

(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor in consultation with the State Government.
c
(3)(a) The Vice-Chancellor shall be wholetime officer and
shall hold office during the pleasure of the Chancellor.

(b) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section the
D Vice-Chancellor shall ordinarily hold office for a term of
three years and on the expiry of the said term he may be
reappointed by the Chancellor in consultation with the State
Government and he shall hold office at the pleasure of the
Chancellor for a term not exceeding three years.
E (5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive
and academic officer of the University, the Chairman of the
Syndicate and of the Academic Council and shall be
entitled to be present and speak at any meeting of any
authority or other body of the University and shall in the
F absence of the Chancellor preside· over meetings of the
Senate and of any convocation of the University:

Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall not vote in the first
instance but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the
G case of an equality of votes.

(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall subject to the provisions of
this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances have power to
make appointment to posts within the sanctioned grades
and scales of pay and within the sanctioned strength of the
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 175
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
ministerial staff and other servants of the University not A
being teachers and officers of the University and have
control and full disciplinary powers over such staff and
servants.

(7) ................. .
B
(8) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the powers to visit and
inspect the Colleges and buildings, laboratories,
workshops and equipments thereof and any other
institution associated with the University, and he shall have
the right of making an inquiry or causing an inquiry to be C
made, in like manner in respect of any matter connected
with such Colleges and institutions.

(9) The Vice-Chancellor shall address the Principal of such
College with reference to the result of such inspection or o
inquiry and, thereupon, it shall be the duty of such Principal
to communicate the views of the Vice-Chancellor to the
governing body of the College and to report to the Vice-
Chancellor such action, if any, taken or proposed to be
taken upon the result of such inspection or inquiry. E

(10) It shall be lawful for the Vice-Chancellor to issue, from
time to time, any direction to the Principal of a College in
which post-graduate teaching conducted under clause (16)
of section 4 and such Principal shall comply with all such
directions accordingly. F

(11) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise general control
over the educational arrangement of University and shall
be responsible for the discipline of the University. It shall
be lawful for the Vice-Chancellor to take all steps which G
are necessary for maintaining the academic standard and
administrative discipline of the University.

(12) If at any time, except when the Syndicate or the
Academic Council is in session, the Vice-Chancellor is
satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to H
176 SU.PREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A take such immediate action involving the exercise of any
power vested in the Syndicate or Academic Council by or
under this Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action
as he deems fit, and shall report the action taken by him
to such authority which may either confirm the action so
B taken or disapprove of it.

(13) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see
whether the proceeding of the University are carried on in
accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Statutes,
the Ordinance, the Regulations and the Rules or not and
c the Vice-Chancellor shall report to the Chancellor every
proceeding which is not in conformity with such provisions.

For so long as the orders of the Chancellor are not
received on the report of the Vice-Chancellor that the
D providing of the University is not in accordance with this
Act, the Statutes, the Ordinance, the Regulation and the
Rules, the Vice-Chancellor shall have the powers to stay
the proceeding reported against.

(14) .......... .
E
Illustration- 'equivalent post' means Reader and Principal
in the pay-scale of Reader, Professor and Principal in the
pay-scale or Professor.

F (15) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers
and perform such other duties as are conferred or
imposed on him by this Act, the Statutes, the Regulations
or the Rules.

(16) The Vice-Chancellor shall have overall responsibility
G in maintaining good academic standard and promoting the
efficiency and good order of the University.

(17) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, or the Statutes
the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint officer (other than the
H Pro-Vice-Chancellor) with the approval of the Chancellor,
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 177
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

and teachers and shall define their duties; A

(18) The Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to take
disciplinary action against all employees of the University
including officers and teachers of the University;

(19) An appeal shall lie to the Chancellor against the order B
of the Vice-Chancellor imposing the penalty of dismissal,
removal from service or reduction in rank.

12. Pro-Vice-Chancellor~( 1) The Chancellor shall appoint
the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, in consultation with the State c
Government.

(2) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time officer
of the University. He shall hold office, on such conditions
as may be determined, by the Chancellor, in consultation
0
with the State Government, for a period not exceeding
three years during the pleasure of the Chancellor.

(3) Where the person appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor
gets pension from the Central or the State Government or
any University or from any other source, the amount of E
pension due to him from such source shall be deemed to
be the part of his salary as Pro-Vice-Chancellor.

(4) Subject to the provisions of t:1is Act, the Pro-Vice-
Chancellor shall exercise such powers and perform such F
duties as may be prescribed or as may be conferred or
imposed on him, from time to time, by the Vice-Chancellor.

(5) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for
admission and conduct of the examination up to Bachelor
course and the publication of the result of the examination G
conducted by the University up to Bachelor course and
shall be responsible for student welfare."

H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A PU Act
"11. The Vice-Chancellor.-(1) No person shall be deemed
to be qualified to hold the office of the Vice-Chancellor,
unless he-
B (i) is an educationist having experience of administering
the affairs of any University of India for not less than six
years, or
(ii) is or has been Principal or Head of the Department of
any University or College, and has a teaching experience
c of not less than 10 years in the University or in any other
University or in any college.
(2) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by Chancellor,
in consultation with the State Government from amongst
persons having qualification as mentioned in sub-section
D
(1) and he shall hold office during the pleasure of the
Chancellor.
(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be whole-time officer and
shall hold office for a period of three years with effect from
E the date on which he assumed charge. On the expiry of
the said period, he may be re-appointed for another term
not exceeding three years.
(4)(i) Other terms and conditions of his appointment shall
be determined by the Chancellor in consultation with the
F State Government.
(ii) Where the person appointed as Vice-Chancellor gets
pension from the Central or the State Government or any
University or from any other source, the amount of pension
G due to him from such source shall be deemed to be the
part of his salary as Vice-Chancellor.
(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive
and academic officer of the University, Chairman of the
Syndicate and of the Academic Council, and shall be
H entitled to be present and speak at any meeting of any
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 179
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
authority or other body of the University and shall, in the . A ·
absence of the Chancellor, preside at meetings of the
Senate and any convocation of the University;

Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall not vote in the first
instance, but shall have and exercise a casting vote in the
8
case of an equality of votes.

(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall, subject to the provisions of
this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, made
thereunder, have power to make appointment to posts
within the sanctioned grades and scales of pay and within C
the sanctioned strength of the ministerial staff and other
servant of the University, not being teachers and officers
of the University, and have control and full disciplinary
powers over such staff and servants.
D
(7) ................. .

(8) The Chancellor shall have the right to visit and inspect
the Colleges and building, laboratories, workshops, and
equipments thereof and any other institutions associated
with the University. E

(9) The Vice-Chancellor shall carry out the orders of the
Syndicate in respect of appointment, transfer, discharge
or suspension of officers and teachers of the University,
and shall exercise general control over the educational F
arrangement of the University, and shall be responsible for
the discipline of the University.

(10) If any time, except when the Syndicate or the
Academic Council is in session, the Vice-Chancellor is
satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring him to G
take immediate action involving the exercise of any power
vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council by or
under this Act, the Vice-Chancellor shall take such action
_as he deems fit, and shall report the action taken by him
H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A to such authority which may either confirm the action so
taken or disapprove of it.

(11) Subject to the provision of this Act, it shall be the duty
of the Vice-Chancellor to see whether the proceedings of
the University are carried out in accordance with the
B
provisions of this Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the
Regulations and the Rules or not, and the Vice-Chancellor
shall report to the Chancellor every such proceeding which
is not in confirmity with such provisions.

c Till such time as the orders of the Chancellor are not
received on the report of the Vice-Chancellor that the
proceedings of the University is not in accordance with this
Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the Regulation and the
Rules, the I Vice-Chancellor shall have the powers to stay
D the proceeding reported against.

(12) ............ .

(13) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers
and perform such other duties as are conferred or
E imposed on him by this Act, the Statutes, the Regulations
or the Rules.

(14) The Vice-Chancellor shall have overall responsibility
in maintaining good academic standard and promoting the
F efficiency and good order of the University.·

(15) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, or the Statutes
the Vice-Chancellor shall appoint officers (other than the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor) with the approval of the Chancellor,
and teachers and shall define their duties.
G
(16) The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to take
disciplinary action against officers, teachers and all
employees of the University.

H (17) An appeal shall lie to the Chancellor against the order
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 181
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
of the Vice-Chancellor imposing the penalty of dismissal, A
removal from service or reduction in rank."

(Most of the remaining provisions contained in this section
are identical to those contained in Section 10 of the Bihar
State Universities Act.) 13
"14. Pro-Vice-Chancellor.-(1) The Chancellor shall
appoint the Pro-Vice Chancellor in consultation with the
State Government.

(2) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer C
of the University. He shall hold office for a period not
exceeding three years during the pleasure of the
Chancellor on such conditions as may be determined by
the Chancellor in consultation with the State Government.

(3) Where the person appointed as Pro-Vice-Chancellor D
gets pension from the Central or the State Government or
any University or from any other source, the amount of
pension due to him from such source shall be deemed to
be the part of this salary as Pro-Vice-Chancellor.
E
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Pro-Chancellor
shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as
may be prescribed or as may be conferred or imposed
on him from time to time by the Vice-Chancellor.
F
(5) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for
admission and conduct of examination up to Bachelor
course and the publication of the result of the examination
conducted by the University up to Bachelor Course and he
shall be responsible for student welfare also."
G
12. An analysis of the above quoted provisions makes it
clear that the position of Vice-Chancellor is extremely important
in every University established under the BSU Act and the PU
Act. He is the heart and soul of the functional apparatus of the
University. He is the principal executive and academic officer H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 9 S.C.R.

A of the University, Chairman of the Syndicate and the Academic
Council and is entitled, as of right, to remain present and speak
in any meeting of any other authority I body of the University. If
the Chancellor is not available, the Vice-Chancellor is entitled
to preside over the meetings of the Senate and Convocation
B of the University. He has the power to make appointments of
ministerial staff and other servants of the University except the
teachers and officers and exercise disciplinary control over
such staff and servants. The Vice-Chancellor is entitled to visit
and inspect the Colleges and also make an inquiry or cause
c an inquiry to be made in respect of any matter connected with
such Colleges and institutions. He is required to inform the
concerned College about the result of inspection and/or inquiry
and also seek report about the action taken or proposed to be
taken on the result of inspection or inquiry. The Vice-Chancellor
is empowered to issue any direction to the Principal of a
0
College in which post-graduate teaching is conducted under
Section 4(16) and the Principal is bound to comply with such
direction. The Vice-Chancellor is required to exercise general
control over the educational arrangement of the University and
E is responsible for the discipline of the University. He is also
entitled to take all the steps necessary for maintaining the
academic standard and administrative discipline of the
University. In case of emergency, the Vice-Chancellor can
exercise any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic
Council. The Vice-Chancellor is duty bound to ensure that the
F proceedings of the University are carried on in accordance with
the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, the Ordinances, the
Regulations and the Rules. He is to report to the Chancellor
every proceeding which is not in consonance with the
provisions of the plenary as well as the delegated legislations.
G
13. The Pro Vice-Chancellor is also a whole time officer
of the University and is entitled to exercise such powers and
perform such duties which may be prescribed or which may be
conferred or imposed on him by the Vice-Chancellor. He is
H responsible for admission and conduct of examination up to
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 183
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Bachelor course and also the student welfare. A

14. It is thus evident that the Vice-Chancellor and the Pro
Vice-Chancellor are responsible for maintaining the academic
standard and discipline of the University and also ensure that
all the bodies and authorities conduct themselves in conformity
8
with the statutory provisions. This is the precise reason why
Section 10(1) of the BSU Act and Section 11 (1) of the PU Act
are couched in negative form and prescribes the qualification
of academic excellence as a condition precedent for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Section 10(1) of the BSU Act C
declares that no person shall be qualified to hold the office of
Vice-Chancellor unless such person, in the opinion of the
Chancellor, is reputed for scholarship and academic interest.
In case of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University,
the person must be reputed for his scholarship in Sanskrit or
must have made notable contribution in the field of Sanskrit D
education. Section 11 (1) of the PU Act declares that no person
shall be deemed to be qualified to hold the office of the Vice- .
Chancellor unless he is an educationist having experience of
administering affairs of any University of India for not less than
six years or he is or has been Principal or Head of the E
Department of any University or College, and has teaching
experience of not less than 1O years in any University or any
College. Sub-section (2) of both the sections makes the
consultation with the State Government mandatory for
appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. Similarly, Section 12(1) of F
the BSU Act and 14(1) of the PU Act makes consultation with
the State Government sine qua non for appointment of Pro
Vice-Chancellor.

15. The word 'consultation' used in Sections 10(2) and G
12(1) of the BSU Act and Section 11 (2) and 14(1) of the PU
Act is of crucial importance. The word 'consult' implies a
conference of two or more persons or impact of two or more
minds in respect of a topic/subject. Consultation is a process
which requires meeting of minds between the parties involved
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A in the process Consultation on the material facts and points to
evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solutions. Consultation
may be between an uninformed person and an expert or
between two experts. In either case, the final decision is with
the consultor, but he will not be generally ignoring the advice
B of the consultee except for good reasons.

16. In order for two minds to be able to confer and produce
a mutual impact, it is essential that each must have for its
consideration fully and identical facts, which can at once
constitute both the source and foundation of the final decision.
C Such a consultation may take place at a conference table or
through correspondence. The form is not material but the
substance is important. If there is more than one person to be
consulted, all the persons to be consulted should know the
subject with reference to which they are consulted. Each one
D should know the views of the other on the subject. There should
be meeting of minds between the parties involved in the
process of consultation on the material facts and points
involved. The consultor cannot keep one consultee in dark about
the views of the other consultee. Consultation is not complete
E or effective before the parties thereto make their respective
points of view known to the other and discuss and examine the
relative merit of their views.

17. In Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court
F (1970) 2 SCR 666, this Court considered the question whether
there was due compliance with Article 233(1) of the
Constitution which provides that appointments of persons to be,
and the posting and promotion of District Judges in any State
shall be made by the Governor of the State "in consultation with
G the High Court" exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State.
While holding that a Government notification appointing the
petitioner as an officiating DisMct and Sessions Judge was in
violation of Article 233, a Constitution Bench of this Court
observed:

H "Consultation or deliberation is not complete or effective
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 185
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
before the parties thereto make their respective points of A
view known to the other or others and discuss and examine
the relative merits of their views. If one party makes a
proposal to the other who has a counter proposal in his
mind which is not communicated to the proposer the
direction to give effect to the counter proposal without B
anything more, cannot be said to have been issued after
consultation."

18. In Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth and
Another (1977) 4 SCC 193, a Constitution of Bench of this C
Court interpreted the word 'consultation' ap

earing in Article 222(1) of the Constitution. Y.V.
Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) referred to Words and
Phrases (Permanent Edn. 1960, Vol.9), Corpus Juris
Secundum (Vol.16A, 1956 Edn.), the judgments in Rollo v. D
Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) 1 All ER 13,
Fletcher v. Minister of Town and Country Planning (1947) 2
All ER 946 and observed:

"Thus, deliberation is the quintessence of consultation. E
That implies that each individual case must be considered
separately on the basis of its own facts. Policy transfers
on a wholesale basis which leave no scope for
considering the facts of each particular case and which are
influenced by one-sided governmental considerations are
F
outside the contemplation of our Constitution."

In the same judgment, Krishna Iyer, J. expressed his views in
the following words:

"The key words in this Article are "consultation" and G
''transfer". What is consultation, dictionary-wise and popular
parlance-wise? It implies taking counsel, seeking advice.
An element of deliberation together is also read into the
concept. "To consult" is to apply to for guidance, direction
or authentic information, to ask the advice of - as to consult H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A a lawyer; to discuss something together; to deliberate.
(Hewey v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.). The word "consult"
means to seek the opinion or advice of another; to take
counsel; to deliberate togetheF; to confer; to apply for
information or instruction. (CIR v. John A. Wathen Distillery
8 Co.). "Consult" means to seek opinion or advice of
another; to take counsel; to deliberate together; to confers;
to deliberate on; to discuss; to take counsel to bring about;
devise; contrives to ask advice of; to seek the information
of; to apply to for information or instruction; to refer to.
c Teplitsky v. City of New York. Stroud's Law Lexicon defines
"consultation" thus:

"Consultation. [New towns Act, 1946 (9 & 10 Geo. 6, c.
68), Section 1(1)]. "Consultation with any local authorities".
"Consultation means that, on the one side, the Minister
D must supply sufficient information to the local authority to
enable them to tender advice, and, on the other hand, a
sufficient opportunity must be given to the local authority
to tender advice" per Bucknill, L.J., in Rollo v. Minister of
town and Country Planning. See also Fletcher v. Minister
E of town and Country Planning."

We consult a physician or a lawyer, an engineer or an
architect, and thereby we mean not casual but serious,
deliberate seeking of informed advice, competent
F guidance and considered opinion. Necessarily, all the
materials in the possession of one who consults must be
unreservedly placed before the consultee. Further, a
reasonable opportunity for getting information, taking other
steps and getting prepared for tendering effective and
meaningful advice must be given to him. The consultant,
G
in turn, must take the matter seriously since the subject is
of grave importance. The parties affected are high-level
functionaries and the impact of erroneous judgment can
be calamitous. Therefore, it follows that the President must
communicate to the Chief Justice all the material he has
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 187
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
and the course he proposes. The Chief Justice, in turn, A
must collect necessary information through responsible
channels or directly, acquaint himself with the requisite
data, deliberate on the information he possesses and
proceed in the interests of the administration of justice to
give the President such counsel of action as he thinks will B
further the public interest, especially the cause of the justice
system. However, consultation is different from
consentaneity. They may discuss but may disagree; they
may confer but may not concur. And in any case the
consent of the Judge involved is not a factor specifically c
within the range of Article 222."

19. The facts encapsulated in the earlier part of this
judgment shows that the Chancellor has been consistently
flouting the mandate of law and making appointments of Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors without effectively D
consulting the State Government and completely disregarding
the requirement of academic excellence and experience. The
appointments made by the Chancellor in 2010 were quashed
by the learned Single Judge who found that there was virtually
no consultation with the State Government. He opined that even E
though the Chancellor has some flexibility in suggesting the
names which may come to his knowledge or domain but he is
duty bound to share the details with the State Government and
then decide who is suitable to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
The Division Bench approved the view taken by the learned F
Single Judge and observed that the objective of making
consultation with the State Government mandatory is to ensure
that the selection procedure is transparent and fair. The Division
Bench observed that the State Government has the means to
enquire into the background of the candidates and provide G
inputs to the Chancellor which could be extremely useful in
making final choice of the candidate. The Division Bench also
emphasised that consultation in such an important matter must
be effective so that the Chancellor may make final choice after
considering the information and inputs given by the State H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A Government and that would obviate the risk of University being
placed in the hands of wrong or unsuitable person.

20. What the Chancellor did after the High Court quashed
the appointments made vide Notifications dated 1.8.2011 and
3.8.2011 is extremely disturbing. By taking advantage of the
8
language used in the penultimate paragraph of order dated
7.12.2012 passed in CWJC No.15123/2011, the Chancellor
prepared a list of persons proposed to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors and forwarded the same
C to the State Government. How the Chancellor picked those
names is a matter of mystery because he did not adopt any
transparent method of making selection keeping in view the
qualifications enumerated in Section 10(1) of the BSU Act and
Section 11 (1) of the PU Act. In the charts annexed with letter
dated 5.1.2013 sent by the Special Secretary to the Governor
D there was a mention of the academic qualifications and
experience of the persons proposed to be appointed as Vice-
C hancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors but there was no
indication of their academic excellence or eminence in the field
of education. In the last column, the following identical remarks
E were given qua the first eight candidates:

"Comprehensively considered most suitable. Not a word
as to his/her qualification, eligibility and suitability in the
judgement."

F For the remaining three candidates in the category of Vice-
Chancellors, the following remarks were given:

"Considered duly qualified and best suitable for the job.

G In the category of Pro Vice-Chancellor, the following remarks
were given in respect of the first eight candidates:

"Considered best suitable for the job."

In respect of the last candidate, the following remarks were
H recorded:
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 189
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"Most OBC candidate. Considered best suitable for the A
job."

Not only this, letter dated 5.1.2013 sent by the Special Secretary
to the Governor to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister
and the charts annexed therewith were conspicuously silent B
about the particular University in which the particular person
was proposed to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor or Pro Vice-
Chancellor.

21. The Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister sent reply
dated 21.1.2013 and conveyed the State Government's inability C
to make effective inquiry about the antecedents of the
candidates. What followed was nothing but a farce enacted by
the Chancellor to make a show of effective consultation with the
State Government. In his letter, the Principal Secretary to the
Chief Minister had pointed out that letter dated 5.1.2013 only D
contained a brief reference to the qualifications and experience
of the persons nominated by the Chancellor but there was no
record of their vigilance clearance or integrity and moral
standard so as to enable the State Government to scrutinise
the names in terms of the direction given by the High Court. E
The Principal Secretary also mentioned that criminal
proceedings were pending against the person at serial No.4.
When that letter was placed before the Governor, he directed
the Special Secretary to send another communication requiring
the Government to forward substantive and credible evidence F
as to the integrity and moral standard of the persons named in
letter dated 5.1.2013 and also indicate whether there is any
record of judicial conviction. The Chancellor brushed aside the
factum of pendency of criminal proceedings against the person
named at serial No.4. On receipt of the second letter sent by G
the Special Secretary to the Governor-cum-Chancellor, the
Principal Secretary, Education forwarded the same to the
Principal Secretary, Vigilance Department with the request to
get an inquiry conducted into the antecedents of the candidates.
An intimation to this effect was also sent to the Governor's
H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A Secretariat on 4.2.2013 and a request was made that
appointments should be made only after the exercise for
consultation with the State Government is completed. The
Chancellor treated that letter as an affront to his authority and
without waiting for the report of the Vigilance Department, he
B passed order dated 8.2.2013 on the file for preparation of draft
notifications, which were finally issued on 9.2.2013.

22. Though the counsel for the private respondents tried
to make capital out of the fact that letter dated 9.2.2013 sent
C by Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister was received in the
office of the Chancellor only on 12.2.2013 and, therefore, he
did not get an opportunity to consider the report annexed
therewith, they could not explain as to why the Chancellor did
not wait for the report of the Vigilance Department despite the
fact that vide letter dated 4.2.2013 he was apprised of the fact
D that the matter had been referred to that department for making
an inquiry into the antecedents of the candidates. The
extraordinary haste exhibited by the Chancellor in getting the
notifications issued on 9.2.2013 speaks volume of his intention
to prevent the State Government from bringing to the fore facts
E relating to criminal cases pending against some of his
nominees. The singular objective of the Chancellor to appoint
his men as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors is
evinced from the fact that he did not stop the process of
appointment on 9.2.2013. By Notifications dated 19.2.2013, he
F ordered appointment of Dr. Tapan Kumar Shandilya as Vice-
Chancellor of Nalanda Open University, Patna and six others
as Pro Vice-Chancellors of different Universities. Not only this,
after about one month the Chancellor passed order dated
14.3.2013 for appointment of Dr.Anjani Kumar Sinha as Vice-
G Chancellor of TM Bhagalpur University and Prof. (Dr.) Raja Ram
Prasad and Dr. Padmasha Jha as Pro Vice-Chancellors of
Patna University and BRA Bihar University, Muzaffarpur,
respectively. While ordering the appointments which were
notified on 19.2.2013 and 14.3.2013, the Chancellor had before
H him the report sent by the State Government but he simply
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 191
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
ignored the same and ordained appointment of his nominees. A

23 ..In our view, the entire exercise undertaken by the
Chancellor was ex-facie against the mandate of Sections 10(1 ),
10(2) and 12(1) of the BSU Act and Sections 11 (1 ), 11 (2) and
14(1) of the PU Act because he made every possible effort to
B
prevent the.State Government from providing inputs about the
candidates and conveying its opinion on their suitability to be
appointed as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors. He
also acted in contemptuous disregard to the pronouncements
made by the High Court in the two rounds of litigation that the C
appointments of the Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors must precede meaningful and effective consultation
with the State Government. What is most shocking is that the
Chancellor selected two persons for appointment as Vice-
Chancellors and one person as Pro Vice-Chancellor despite
the fact that they are facing prosecution under various provisions D
of IPC, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Against some other candidates there
were complaints of wrongful drawal of TA I DA and other
financial irregularities. It can only be a matter of imagination as E
to how the Universities would be safe in the hands of such
persons. The reason for this malady is not far to seek. For the
last many years the Chancellors have been appointing Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors without adopting any
transparent and fair method of selection. In the process they F
may have accommodated some persons having allegiance to
the political party in power and thereby averted any conflict with
the State Government. However, we do not have the slightest
hesitation to hold that the mechanism adopted by the Chancellor
in making appointments is blatantly violative of the scheme of G
the BSU Act and the PU Act and also Article 14 of the
Constitution.

24. We may add that even though the language of Sections
19(1) and 12(1) of the BSU Act and Sections 11 (1) and 14(1)
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A of the PU Act does not postulate selection of Vice-Chancellor
or Pro Vice-Chancellor by inviting application through open
advertisement, a wholesome reading of these sections makes
it clear that Vice-Chancellor must be a person reputed for his
scholarship and academic interest or eminent educationist
B having experience of administering the affairs of any University
and selection of such a person is possible only if a transparent
method his followed and efforts are made to reach out people
across the country. Article 14 which mandates that every action
of the State authority must be transparent and fair has to be
c read in the language of these provisions and if that is done, it
becomes clear that the Chancellor has to follow some
mechanism whereby he can prepare panel by considering
persons of eminence in the field of education, integrity, high
moral standard and character who may enhance the image of
the particular University. Surely, Section 10(1) of the BSU Act
0
and Section 11 (1) of the PU Act do not contemplate
preparation of panel of suitable persons by the Chancellor
sitting in his office.

25. The UGC regulations, which provide for constitution of
E a Search Committee consisting of eminent educationists I
academicians are intended to fill up an apparent lacuna in the
provisions like Section 10(1) of the BSU Act and Section 11 (1)
of the PU Act. We have no doubt that if the UGC regulations
had been engrafted in the two Acts, an unseemly controversy
F relating to appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors could have been avoided.

26. At this stage, we may mention that on 11. 7.2013, Shri
Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
G Chancellor made a statement that the Ordinance sent by the
State Government in April, 2013 for the approval of the
Governor is not in consonance with the UGC regulations and
the same will be immediately returned to the State Government.
Thereupon, Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State Government gave out that the Ordinance
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 193
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
will be re-submitted to the Governor within one week after A
making appropriate amendment. On 24.7.2013, i.e., the date
on which the order was reserved, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned
senior counsel, who appeared for the State Government made
a statement that if the two Acts are amended for incorporation
of UGC regulations then he would inform the Court about the B
same. On 16.8.2013, the counsel assisting Shri Ranjit Kumar
handed over xerox copies of Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary)
dated 13.8.2013. The first Gazette contains the amendments
made in the BSU Act by Bihar Act No.14/2013. The second
Gazette contains the amendments made in the PU Act by Bihar c
Act No.13/2013 and the third Gazette contains the amendment
made in Nalanda Open University Act, 1995 by Bihar Act
No.12/2013. By these amendments, Sections 1O and 12 of the
BSU Act, Sections 11 and 14 of the PU Act and Sections 11
and 13(a) of the Nalanda Open University Act, 1995 have been 0
amended. For the sake of reference, Sections 2 and 3 of the
amendment made in the BSU Act is reproduced below:

2. Amendment of section 10 of Bihar Act, 23of1976.-
ln the Bihar State Universities Act 1976 (Bihar Act 23,
1976) sub section (1) of Section-1 O shall be substituted E
by the following, namely :-

"(1) (i) Persons of the highest level of competence,
integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be
appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be F
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 I or
academic administrative organization. G

(ii) The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through
proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 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 H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B country and abroad, and adequate experience in
academic and administrative governance to be given in
writing alC'ng with the panel to be submitted to the
Chancellor.

(iii) Following shall be the constitution of the Search
c Committee.

(a) A member nominated by the Chancellor, who shall be
an eminent Scholar I Academician of national repute or a
recipient of Padma Award in the field of education and
D shall be the Chairman.

(b) The Director or Head of an institute or organization of
national repute, such as, Indian Institute of Technology,
Indian Institute of Science, Indian Space Research
Organization, National Law University or National
E
Research Laboratory or Vice-Chancellor of a statutory
University nominated by the Chancellor as Member.

(c) A member nominated by the State Government who
shall be an eminent Academician and have full knowledge
F . of the academic structure and problems of higher
education of the State."

3. Amendment of section 12 of Bihar Act, 23 of 1976.-
1n the Bihar State Universities Act 1976 (Bihar Act 23,
G 1976) sub section (1) of Section 12 shall be substituted
by the following namely :-

"(1) The Pro Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the
Chancellor in consultation with the State Government in the
same manner as prescribed for appointment of Vice-
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 195
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
chancellor." A

27. In view of the aforementioned amendments, it is not
necessary to delve into the question whether the UGC
regulations are in the nature of subordinate legislation and they
cannot override the provisions contained in the BSU Act and
B
the PU Act.

28. Before concluding, we shall deal with the objection
raised by Shri Jethmalani to the locus standi of Dr. Ram
Tawakya Singh and another objection raised by him and Shri
c
Anil Divan to the maintainability of the appeal filed b
the State of Bihar. In our view, challenge to the locus
standi of Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh was rightly rejected by the
High Court. It is not in dispute that he is a Professor and Head
of the Department of Chemistry in Veer Kunwar Singh D
University, Ara. Therefore, the mere fact that he did not project
himself as a candidate for the office of Vice-Chancellor or Pro
Vice-Chancellor is not sufficient to deny him the right to question
the appointments made by the Chancellor. His anxiety to ensure
that eminent educationists are appointed as Vice-Chancellors E
and Pro Vice-Chancellors in the State can very well be
appreciated. Therefore, we do not find any justification to non-
suit him by accepting the respondents' challenge to his standing.

29. The issue deserves a look from another angle. Even
if it may be possible to say that Dr. Ram Tawakya Singh does F
not have any direct personal interest in the appointment of Vice-
Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors in the State Universities,
the High Court could have suo motu taken cognizance of the
issues raised by him and treated his petition as one filed in
public interest and decided the same on merits as was done G
in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi
(1987) 1 SCC 227. Some of the observations made in that
judgment are worth noticing, which we hereby do:

"The allegations made in the petition disclose a lamentable
H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A state of affairs in one of the premier universities of India.
The petitioner might have moved in his private interest but
enquiry into the conduct of the examiners of the Bombay
University in one of the highest medical degrees was a
matter of public interest. Such state of affairs having been
B brought to the notice of the Court, it was the duty of the
Court to the public that the truth and the validity of the
allegations made be inquired into. It was in furtherance of
public interest that an enquiry into the state of affairs of
public institution becomes necessary and private litigation
c assumes the character of public interest litigation and such
an enquiry cannot be avoided if it is necessary and
essential for the administration of justice.

The allegations of the petitioner have been noted about the
role of the Chief Minister. It is well to remember that
D Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. speaking for this Court in C.S.
Rowjee v. APSRTC (1964) 6 SCR 330 observed at p.
347 of the Report that where allegations of this naturewere
made, the court must be cautious. It is true that allegation
of mala fides and of improper motives on the part of those
E in power are frequently made and their frequency has
increased in recent times. This Court made these
observations as early as 1964. It is more true today than
ever before. But it has to be borne in mind that things are
happening in public life which were never even anticipated
F before and there are several glaring instances of misuse
of power by men in authority and position. This is a
phenomenon of Which the courts are bound to take judicial
notice."

G 30. The other objection raised by learned senior counsel
relates to the maintainability of the appeals I special leave
petitions. It is true that the State Government moved this Court
only after the Chancellor initiated the process of making
appointments and an apparently incorrect statement was made
before the Court on 18.3.2005 in the context of the Governor's
H
DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR 197
[G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
refusal to approve the amendments made in the two Acts but A
these factors are not sufficient to negate the State
Government's challenge to the direction given by the High, Court
which, as mentioned above, gave free hand to the Chancellor
to manipulate the appointment of the persons of his choice,
some of whom are embroiled in criminal cases, without getting B
a selection made keeping in view the requirements of Section
10(1) of the BSU Act and 12 (1) of the PU Act.

31. In the result, the appeals and the writ petition are
allowed in the following terms:
c
(i) Notifications dated 9.2.2013, 19.2.2013 and
14.3.2013 issued for appointment of the private
respondents as Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors of different Universities are declared
illegal and quashed. D

(ii) The direction given by the High Court to the
Chancellor to propose names for appointment of
Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors is
modified and it is directed that the Chancellor shall E
prepare a panel of suitable persons for
appointment to the offices of Vice-Chancellors and
Pro Vice-Chancellors keeping in view the
provisions of Sections 10(1 ), 10(2) and 12 of th.e
BSU Act and Sections 11(1), 11(2) and 14 of the
F
PU Act as amended by Bihar Act No.14/2013 and
13/2013 respectively and by following a transparent
and fair method of selection.

(iii) The Chancellor shall make appointments after
effective and meaningful consultation with the State G
Government, as indicated in the orders passed by
the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court in the case of Dr. Subhash
Prasad Sinha and Dr. Arvind Kumar.
H
198 SUPREME COURT-REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A (iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within
a maximum period of three months and
appointments of the selectees shall be made within
next four weeks.

(v) The persons who are currently holding charge of the
B
offices of Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-
Chancellors shall continue to discharge the duties
of their respective offices till the joining of new
appointees.

C R.P. Appeal~ & Writ Petition allowed.