PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S.versusDR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.

252                       [2022]
               SUPREME COURT     18 S.C.R. 252
                              REPORTS                    [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A                     PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S.
                                       v.
                        DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
                      (Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635/2022)
B                             OCTOBER 21, 2022
                [M.R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
             Constitution of India – Art. 254 –UGC Regulations, 2010 –
      UGC Guidelines – APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
      (AAKTU) Act, 2015 (University Act, 2015/State Act) & Regulations
C
      – S. 13 – Appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor – Requirement
      of recommending a panel of names by search committee – State
      government’s discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations,
      2010 – Repugnancy between State legislation and Central legislation
      – Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of
D     the Kerala High Court to declare the appointment of the respondent
      No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram as
      void on the ground the appointment was contrary to UGC
      Regulations, which required that the Search Committee should
      recommend a panel of three to five names for consideration, but in
      the instant case, only one name was recommended – Further
E
      contended that UGC Act shall prevail over State legislation – Single
      Judge dismissed the petition by noting that unless the UGC
      Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the
      State legislation shall prevail and once the Search Committee was
      constituted as per Section 13 of the University Act enacted by the
F     State, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be by
      a duly constituted Search Committee and as such the appointment
      cannot be said to be illegal – Appellant appealed before a Division
      Bench, which came to be dismissed – Question for the Supreme
      Court – Whether while making the appointment of respondent No.
      1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram, the
G
      appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or
      in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)?;
      Whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend the name
      of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the University can be

H
                                      252
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS. 253


said to be duly constituted Committee? – Held: Any appointment as        A
a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search
Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio – If there is any conflict
between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union
law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India
                                                                         B
to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant –
Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically
adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to
contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding
on the State/State’s Universities – Search Committee in this case
was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per UGC regulations       C
– Under UGC regulations, the Search Committee duly constituted
has to send a panel of 3-5 names for consideration as appointment
as Vice Chancellor, and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended
by the Search Committee – Even under University Act, the Search
                                                                         D
Committee shall recommended unanimously a panel of not less than
three suitable persons – When only one name was recommended
and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had
no option to consider the names of the other candidates – Thus, the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/
or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as          E
even to the University Act, 2015.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on
the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is
constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations            F
shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict between the State
legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail
even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the
extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant.
[Para 8.4][264-B-D]                                                      G
     1.2 In the present case as such vide order dated 10
December 2010, the UGC Regulations have been specifically
adopted by the State Government. In the order dated 27 March
2010, while adopting/accepting the UGC Regulations, it is
                                                                         H
254            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     specifically observed in paragraph 5 that all the universities shall
      incorporate the UGC Regulations in their Statutes and
      Regulations within one month from the date of the said order and
      Government will initiate steps to amend the Acts of the
      Universities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is further
      mentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the
B
      steps to amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations
      of the UGC Regulations. Merely because the subsequent
      amendment has not been specifically adopted/accepted by the
      State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the
      amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/
C     State’s Universities. Therefore also, the UGC Regulations were
      applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice Chancellor in
      the respective Universities in the State and the appointment of
      the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions
      of the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.
      [Para 8.5][264-E-H]
D
            1.3 As per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, the
      selection of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper
      identification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and
      the members of the Search Committee shall be persons of
      eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be
E     connected in any manner with the university concerned or its
      colleges. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor shall
      appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended by
      the Search Committee. The recommendation for appointment as
      a Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee duly
F     constituted and that the Search Committee has to recommend
      the names and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the
      Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the
      Search Committee. [Para 8.7][267-D-F]
            1.4 Even as per Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015,
G     the Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less
      than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent persons
      in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be placed before
      the Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case, admittedly the only
      name of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the Chancellor.

H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.              255


As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor shall          A
appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names
recommended by the Search Committee. Therefore, when only
one name was recommended and the panel of names was not
recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the
names of the other candidates. Therefore, the appointment of
                                                                       B
the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or contrary to
the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the
University Act, 2015. Therefore, the appointment of respondent
No. 1 on the basis of the recommendations made by the Search
committee, which was not a duly constituted Search Committee
as per the UGC Regulations and when only one name was                  C
recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable
persons as required under Section 13(4) of the University Act,
2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1 can be said to be
illegal and void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo warranto
was required to be issued. [Para 8.10][271-H; 272-A-D]
                                                                       D
       1.5 The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned
Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue
the writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and        E
void ab initio are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition
is allowed. There shall be a writ of quo warranto declaring the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the
APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram
as void ab initio and consequently, the appointment of respondent      F
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and set aside.
[Para 9][272-E-F]
      Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors. (2015)
      6 SCC 363 : 2015 (3) SCR 467; Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi               G
      Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 179; State
      of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. 2022
      (14) SCALE 636 – referred to.


                                                                       H
256            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A                             Case Law Reference
      [2015] 3 SCR 467                  referred to              Para 2.2
      (2022) 5 SCC 179                  referred to              Para 3
      2022 (14) SCALE 636               referred to              Para 3
B           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-
      7635 of 2022.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2021 of the High Court
      of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No.514 of 2021 and dated 24.09.2021
      in R.P. No.634 of 2021.
C
            Dr. Amit George, Mohammed Sadique T.A., Mrs. Anu K. Joy,
      Alim Anvar, Mobashshir Sarwar, Piyo Harold, Bharat Rayadurgam, Amol
      Acharya, A. Bhaumik, Ms. Iram Peerjada, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Harshad V. Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot,
      Mrs. Ashly Harshad, C. K. Sasi, Abdulla Naseeh V. T., Ms. Meena K.
D
      Poulose, P. V. Dinesh, Rahul Raj Mishra, Bineesh K, Ashwini Kumar
      Singh, Ravinder Agarwal, Lekhraj Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M.R. SHAH, J.
E            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at
      Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 514 of 2021 and Order dated 24.09.2021
      in Review Petition No. 634 of 2021 by which the Division Bench of the
      High Court has dismissed the said appeal and the review petition preferred
F     by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed
      by the learned Single Judge refusing to issue writ of quo warranto to
      declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of
      the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram
      as void ab initio, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present
      appeals.
G
            2. The appellant herein – original writ petitioner preferred the
      writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court for writ
      of quo warranto to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as
      Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,

H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.                       257
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio inter alia on the grounds that the         A
appointment of the respondent No. 1 dehors the provisions of the UGC
Regulations; that the composition of the Search Committee was not in
accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010; even the recommendation
and appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor was not in
accordance with the UGC Guidelines; the Search Committee was
                                                                                B
required to recommend a panel of three to five names to the Chancellor,
however, in the present case, only one name was recommended to the
Chancellor, which was contrary to the UGC Regulations; the provisions
of the University Act to the extent it conflicts with the UGC Regulations
shall not be binding and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall
prevail over the said legislation to the extent they are in conflict with the   C
UGC Regulations.
       2.1 The writ petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents.
It was inter alia contended that unless the UGC Regulations are adopted
by the State Government, the University Act enacted by the State shall
prevail and that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for the                D
universities and colleges and for the other higher educational institutions
under the provisions of the State legislature as the mater has been left to
the State Government to adopt and implement the scheme.
         2.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan Vs.          E
K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors., (2015) 6 SCC 363 by observing that unless
the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government,
the State legislation shall prevail. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
opined that once the Search Committee was constituted as per Section
13 of the University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of the
respondent No. 1 therefore, can be said to be by a duly constituted             F
Search Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be
illegal.
       2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the appeal
before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, it was specifically       G
argued and pointed out that in fact the UGC Regulations were adopted
by the State Government, however, the Division Bench while dismissing
the appeal has observed that as the amendment to the UGC Regulations
have not been adopted, the same shall not be applicable and/or binding
                                                                                H
258            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     while appointing the respondent No. 1. Again, relying upon the decision
      of this Court in the case of Kalyanji Mathivanan (supra), the Division
      Bench has dismissed the appeal, which has given rise to the present
      appeals.
              3. Shri Amith George, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
B     of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment(s)
      and order(s) passed by the High Court are just contrary to the decision
      of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat
      and Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 179 as well as the recent decision of this
      Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Anindya Sundar Das
      & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022.
C
             3.1 It is vehemently submitted by Shri George, learned Senior
      Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that as observed and held
      by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, the provisions of the UGC
      Regulations shall be applicable and prevail. It is submitted that therefore
      any provision of the State Act (in the present case, the University Act
D     and the Regulations), which are in conflict with the UGC Regulations
      shall be repugnant and the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall have
      to be applied.
            3.2 It is submitted that as such in the present case the UGC
      Regulations, 2010 were in fact adopted by the State Government vide
E     order dated 10.12.2010. However, the High Court has erroneously
      observed and held that the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable as
      the subsequent amendment to the UGC Regulations dated 13.06.2013
      have not been specifically adopted by the State Government.
             3.3 It is submitted that therefore any appointment on the post of
F     Vice Chancellor of the University contrary to the UGC Regulations shall
      be void ab initio and therefore, the High Court ought to have issued a
      writ of quo warranto.
             3.4 It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committee
      constituted to recommend the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as
G     Vice Chancellor was not duly constituted Search Committee as required
      under the provisions of the UGC Regulations and therefore the same
      was illegal and void ab initio.
            3.5 It is submitted that even otherwise, ever as per Section 13 of
      the University Act, the Search Committee was required to recommend
H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.                      259
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent       A
persons in the field of engineering sciences. It is submitted that in the
present case, the Search Committee recommended the name of the
respondent No. 1 alone, which was sent to the Chancellor. It is submitted
that therefore also the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said
to be contrary to Section 13(4) of the University Act, 2015.
                                                                               B
       3.6 Making above submissions and relying upon the above two
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set
aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court
and allow the writ petition preferred by the appellant and to issue a writ
of quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as illegal
and void ab initio.                                                            C

       4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Jaideep Gupta,
leaned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the State – Government
of Kerala. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani
Mathivanan (supra), it is submitted that as observed and held by this
Court unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the state,        D
the State is not bound by the UGC Regulations. It is submitted that
therefore the Hon’ble High Court has rightly refused to issue a writ of
quo warranto considering and/or relying upon the decision of this Court
in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra).
      5. Present appeals are opposed by Shri P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel      E
appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
       5.1 It is submitted that even assuming that the UGC Regulations,
2013 shall be applicable, in that case also, even considering the relevant
provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2013, the Search Committee
constituted in the present case cannot be said to be contrary to UGC           F
Regulations. It is submitted that in the present case, the Search Committee
was consisted of one member nominated by AICTE and the Chief
Secretary of the State. It is submitted that the member nominated by
AICTE can be said to be a person of eminence in the sphere of higher
education. It is submitted that therefore, it cannot be said that the Search   G
Committee constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1
was illegally constituted Search Committee.
      5.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeals.
                                                                               H
260             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A            6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
      parties at length.
            7. The short question, which is posed for consideration of this
      Court is: whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 as
      Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
B     Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing
      UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act,
      2015 (State Act)?
            The other question which is posed before this Court for
      consideration is: whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend
C     the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the University
      can be said to be duly constituted Committee?
              8. Identical question came to be considered by this Court in the
      case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and Kalyani Mathivanan
      (supra). Now, the issue whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail vis-
D     à-vis the State legislation/State Act, identical question came to be
      considered by this Court in the recent decision of this Court in the case
      of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra). While considering the appointment
      of the Vice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, it is
      specifically observed and held by this Court that the appointment of
      Vice Chancellor cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations,
E     even if the State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis-
      à-vis the criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC Regulations. It is
      further observed and held by this Court in the aforesaid decision that the
      State Act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended to
      bring it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it is
F     the applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail. It is further observed
      and held that being a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations become
      part of the Act. It is further observed and held that in case of any
      conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the
      Central legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail by
      applying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution
G     as the subject “education” is contained in the Concurrent List of Schedule
      VII of the Constitution. The observations made in relevant paras are as
      under:-
                     “20. Now the next question which is posed for
              consideration of this Court is, whether, the appointment of
H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.                   261
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

      Respondent 4 as a Vice-Chancellor of the SP University —              A
      Respondent 2 herein can be said to be contrary to any statutory
      provisions and whether, can it be said that Respondent 4 fulfils
      the eligibility criteria for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
              20.1. While examining the aforesaid issues the relevant
      provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 enacted in exercise of        B
      powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g) of sub-section (1)
      of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
      and the relevant provisions of the SPU Act, 1955, are required
      to be referred to.
                20.2. The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision       C
      for the coordination and determination of standards in universities
      and for that purpose, to establish a University Grants
      Commission. Section 12 deals with “Functions of the
      Commission”, while Section 14 speaks of “Consequences of
      failure of universities to comply with recommendations of the
      Commission”. Section 26 deals with “Power to make                     D
      regulations”. As per Section 28 the rules and regulations framed
      under the UGC Act are required to be laid before each House
      of Parliament and when both the Houses agree then rules and
      regulations can be given effect with such modification as may
      be made by Parliament. Therefore, any regulation enacted in           E
      exercise of powers under Section 26 can be said to be subordinate
      legislation.
              20.3. For the appointment and career advancement of
      teachers in the universities and institutions affiliated to it, UGC
      by Regulation dated 4-4-2000, enacted the University Grants           F
      Commission (Minimum Qualifications Required for the
      Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in
      Universities and Institutions Affiliated to it) Regulations, 2000.
      However, in the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were
      prescribed for the post of “Pro-Chancellor” or “Vice-Chancellor”.
                                                                            G
             21. Thereafter, the Government of India, Ministry of
      Human Resource Development Department of Higher
      Education, New Delhi by Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated
      31-12-2008 communicated to the Secretary, University Grants
      Commission, New Delhi the Scheme of revision of pay of
                                                                            H
262    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges
      following the revision of pay scales of the Central Government
      employees on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay
      Commission.
               22. By the said letter, the Government of India directed
B     that there shall be only three designations in respect of teachers
      in the universities and colleges, namely, Assistant Professors,
      Associate Professors and Professors. In the said letter revised
      pay scales, service conditions and Career Advancement Scheme
      for teachers and equivalent positions including the post of
      Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/Professors in
C     universities and colleges were intimated. Pay scales of Pro Vice-
      Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor were also mentioned therein. It was
      intimated that the said Scheme may be extended to the
      universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions
      coming under the purview of the State Legislature, provided the
D     State Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme
      subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein.
               23. In view of the aforesaid Letter No. 1-32/2006-U.II/
      U.I(i), dated 31-12-2008 issued by the Government of India and
      in exercise of the powers conferred under clauses (e) and (g)
E     of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC
      enacted the Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC
      Regulations, 2000. It was published in the Gazette of India on
      28-6-2010 and came into force with immediate effect.
                              XXXXXXXXX
F             25. Regulation 7.4.0 mandates that the universities/State
      Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Acts/Statutes
      of the universities concerned within six months of adoption of
      these Regulations.
              26. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010, inter alia, prescribe
G     in Regulation 7.3.0 that a person shall have ten years of teaching
      work experience as a Professor in a university system. It also
      provides for constitution of a Search Committee consisting of a
      nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, a nominee of the Chairman
      of the UGC, a nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council of
H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS. 263
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

        the University and the Search Committee has to recommend                 A
        the names of the successful candidates.
                                  XXXXXXXXX
                 50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are
        enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections
        26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even as per the              B
        UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act,
        shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being
        a subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the
        Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and
        the Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying   C
        the rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of
        the Constitution as the subject “education” is in the Concurrent
        List (List III) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
        Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to
        the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in
        violation of the statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo          D
        warranto.”
      8.1 That thereafter and having found that the appointment of the
Vice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University was contrary to the UGC
Regulations, 2010, this Court issued the writ of quo warranto. It is required
to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Kalyani               E
Mathivanan (supra) was also pointed out by this Court.
        8.2 Even in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), it is
observed in paragraph 53 that to the extent the State legislation is in
conflict with the Central legislation including subordinate legislation made
by the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, the            F
same shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative.
It is also required to be noted that in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan
(supra), this Court was considering the UGC Regulations, 2010, which
were silent in regard to the post of Vice Chancellor.
       8.3 The decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K.               G
Gadhvi (supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in the
recent decision of this Court in the case of Anindya Sundar Das &
Ors (supra) while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor
of Calcutta University. In the said decision, it is also observed and held
in paragraph 56 that in view of the decision in the case of Gambhirdan
                                                                                 H
264             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     K Gadhvi (supra), even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the
      appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would
      have to be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice
      Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. It
      is further observed that the UGC Regulations shall become part of the
      statute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail.
B
             8.4 In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court, any
      appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the
      Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the
      UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict between
      the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail
C     even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the
      provision of the State legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the submission
      on behalf of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically
      adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be applicable and
      the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC Regulations are specifically
D     adopted by the State cannot be accepted.
             8.5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present
      case as such vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC Regulations have
      been specifically adopted by the State Government. At this stage, it is
      required to be noted that in the order dated 27.03.2010, while adopting/
E     accepting the UGC Regulations, it is specifically observed in paragraph
      5 that all the universities shall incorporate the UGC Regulations in their
      Statutes and Regulations within one month from the date of the said
      order and Government will initiate steps to amend the Acts of the
      Universities, if required to implement the Regulations. It is further
      mentioned in paragraph 5 that Government will also take the steps to
F     amend the Special Rules to give effect to the stipulations of the UGC
      Regulations. Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been
      specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the
      State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be
      binding on the State/State’s Universities. Therefore also, the UGC
G     Regulations were applicable with respect to the appointment of Vice
      Chancellor in the respective Universities in the State and the appointment
      of the Vice Chancellor shall be always as per the relevant provisions of
      the UGC Regulations amended from time to time.


H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.                    265
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

        8.6 Now, the next question, which is posed for the consideration     A
of this Court is whether in fact in the present case, the Search Committee
constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice
Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
Thiruvananthapuram can be said to be a duly constituted Search
Committee, is concerned, the relevant clauses of the UGC Regulations,
                                                                             B
2013 and Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
Act, 2015 relating to the appointment of the Vice Chancellor are required
to be referred to, which are as under:-
        CLAUSE 7.3.0 OF UNIVERSITY GRANTS
        COMMISSION (2 nd AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS.
        2013. EXT.R3(a)                                                      C

        7.3.0 VICE CHANCELLOR:
        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 appointed should be a         D
        distinguished academician with a minimum of ten years of
        experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of
        experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/
        or academic administrative organization.
        ii. The selection of Vice Chancellor should be through proper        E
        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 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,     F
        the Search Committee must give proper weightage to academic
        excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the
        country and abroad, and adequate Experience in academic and
        administrative governance to be given in writing along with the
        panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. The constitution    G
        of the Search Committee could be as per the Act/Statutes of
        the concerned university.
        iii. The Visitor/ Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out
        of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.
                                                                             H
266    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     iv. The conditions of services of the Vice Chancellor shall be as
      prescribed in the Act Statutes of the university consented in
      conformity with the Principal Regulations.
      v. The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part of
      the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her
B     eligible for all service related benefits.
      SECTION  13  OF   APJ   ABDUL      KALAM
      TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 2015
      13. The Vice-Chancellor

C     (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and
      academic officer of the University. He shall be the ex-officio
      Chairman of the Executive Committee and of the Academic
      Committee.
      (2) The first Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor
D     on the recommendation of the Government and thereafter the
      Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from
      among a panel of names recommended by a Search Committee
      consisting of the following members, namely:
              (i)      one member elected by the Board of Governors:
E             (ii)     one member nominated by the AICTE
              (iii)    the Chief Secretary of the State, who shall be
                       the Convenor of the Committee
      (3) The process of preparing a panel shall begin at least three
      months before the probable date of occurrence of the vacancy
F     of the Vice-Chancellor and shall be completed within the time-
      limit fixed by the Chancellor. The Chancellor, however, may
      extend such time-limit, if, in the exigency of the circumstances,
      it is necessary to do so. However, the process of preparation of
      the panel shall be completed within a period of three months,
G     including the period so extended.
      4. The Committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not
      less than three suitable persons from amongst the eminent
      persons in the field of engineering sciences. The names shall be
      in English alphabetical order. The report shall be accompanied
H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.                     267
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

        by a detailed write-up on the suitability of each person included     A
        in the panel. In case the Committee fails to make a unanimous
        recommendation as provided, each member of the Committee
        may submit the name of one person each to the Chancellor. The
        non submission of the name by any member of the Committee
        shall not invalidate the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.
                                                                              B
        (5) No person who is more than sixty one years of age shall be
        appointed as Vice-Chancellor and after the appointment, he shall,
        subject to the terms and conditions of his appointment, hold office
        for a period of four years from the date on which he enters
        upon his office or till he attains the age of sixty five years,
        whichever is earlier.                                                 C

        (6) The persons appointed as Vice-Chancellor will be eligible
        for re-appointment provided he has not attained the maximum
        age mentioned in sub-section 5.
       8.7 Thus, as per the UGC Regulations, 2013 – Clause 7.3.0, the         D
selection of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification
of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee and the members of the
Search Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher
education and shall not be connected in any manner with the university
concerned or its colleges. It further provides that the Visitor/Chancellor
shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the names recommended by the         E
Search Committee. Therefore, the recommendation for appointment as
a Vice Chancellor should be sent by the Search Committee duly
constituted and that the Search Committee has to recommend the names
and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor
out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.                F
While preparing the panel, the Search Committee must give proper
weightage to the academic excellence; exposure to the higher education
system in the country and abroad, and adequate Experience in academic
and administrative governance.
      8.8 The importance of the post of the Vice Chancellor has been          G
elaborately observed and considered by this Court in the case of
Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) in paragraphs 53, 54, 54.1 to 54.5, 55
and 56 as under:-
                “53. It is to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor of
        the university is a very important post so far as the university is
                                                                              H
268    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     concerned. Being a leader and head of the institution, the Vice-
      Chancellor of the university has to play very important role.
      While academic qualifications, administrative experience,
      research credentials and track record could be considered as
      basic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice-
      Chancellor would be one who is a true leader and a passionate
B
      visionary. A Vice-Chancellor needs to be one who understands
      and handles the affairs of the university as ethical business and
      maintains a pellucidity in his conduct towards the betterment of
      the university as well as the students therein. A Vice-Chancellor
      should be one who can inspire students and guarantee entry of
C     high quality teachers into the university system. A Vice-
      Chancellor functions as a bridge between the executive and
      academic wings of a university as he is the head of both a
      “teacher” and an “administrator”.
               54. We may refer to some of the significant Commission
D     Reports concerning the personality and role of a Vice-Chancellor
      of a university as under:
               54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan Commission stated that
      originally, the Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian university was
      regarded as an honorary post to be filled by a prominent man in
E     his leisure time. But now the position has changed, there is
      enough work to justify a full-time appointment and the universities
      should have full-time paid Vice-Chancellors. While discussing
      the duties of a Vice-Chancellor, the Commission stated that a
      Vice-Chancellor must be the chief liaison between the university
      and the public and must be a keeper of the university’s conscience,
F     both setting the highest standard by example and dealing firmly
      and promptly with indiscipline and malpractice of any kind. He/
      she must have the strength of character to resist unflinchingly
      the many forms of pressure. Being a full-time task, it needs an
      exceptional man (or woman) to undertake it. The Commission
G     rejected the proposal of selecting the Vice-Chancellor by an
      external body and recommended that the Chancellor should
      appoint the Vice-Chancellor upon the recommendation of the
      executive.


H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.                  269
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

               54.2. The 1971 Report of the Committee on Governance        A
      of Universities and Colleges by the University Grants Commission
      chaired by Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of
      India while reiterating the recommendations and observations
      made by the aforesaid commissions also stated that the selection
      of a Vice-Chancellor is the single most important decision that
                                                                           B
      the governing body of the university may be called upon to make.
      While the Chancellor of a university may be a high dignitary of
      the State of the Union of India or an eminent scholar or eminent
      person in public life of the State, the appointment of Vice-
      Chancellor, being the important functionary of the university is
      most strategic. The powers of proper maintenance of discipline       C
      and a healthy environment for both teachers and students in the
      university is vested with the Vice-Chancellor along with all the
      other powers vested in him/her by various Statutes, Ordinances
      or Regulations. The Commission also stated that appointment
      of a Vice-Chancellor is made in most of the universities out of a
                                                                           D
      panel of at least three names by the Chancellor in case of State
      Universities and by the Visitor in case of Central Universities.
      The panel of names is prepared by a Search Committee
      constituted in accordance with the provision of the Act/Statute.
      Since it was difficult to have a uniform system of forming a
      committee in all the States, the alternatives to constitute the      E
      Search Committee were also provided in the Report.
               54.3. The 1990 Report of the UGC Committee towards
      New Educational Management by Professor A. Gnanam (also
      called as the Gnanam Committee Report, 1990) accentuated
      the role of a Vice-Chancellor, stating that the Vice-Chancellor      F
      should be a person with vision and qualities of academic
      leadership and with a flair for administration because what the
      universities need is a sensitive, efficient, fair and bold
      administrator. The Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished
      educationist from the higher education system having highest
      level of competence, integrity, morals and self-respect.             G

              54.4. The Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993 accented that
      the universities need distinguished and dignified persons as Vice-
      Chancellors and it is necessary to ensure that they are treated
      with dignity and regard, which the office merits.
                                                                           H
270    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A              54.5. The University Grants Commission in its handbook
      titled Governance in Higher Education : Handbook for Vice-
      Chancellors published in 2019 has penned down the role of Vice-
      Chancellor of Indian universities having gained a paramount
      importance in the recent times. In the words of Prof. D.P. Singh,
      the then Chairman of University Grants Commission and former
B
      Director of National Assessment and Accreditation Council
      (“NAAC”):
              “As Chief Executives and Academic Heads of
          Universities, the Vice-Chancellors are expected to be
          efficient and effective in terms of:
C
              (a) Implementation of National Higher Education Policy
          and programmes,
             (b) Institutional change in tune with the national reforms
          package,
D             (c) Quality and innovation enhancement and their
          sustainability,
              (d) Productive engagement with ‘communities of
          scholars’ from within their universities and from national
          and international domains,
E
              (e) Nurturing of ‘Research and Innovation Ecosystem’
          and translation of deliverables to society and economy,
             (f) Adoption of international best practices of ‘Good
          Governance’.”
F        “The Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as the leader of a
      symphony of orchestra with the attributes of:
              (a) Developing teams and teamwork, building
              partnerships and collaborations delicately interwoven by
              collegiality, friendship and intellectual engagement;
G             (b) Devising a strategy and action plan with defined
              milestones and deliverables;
              (c) Ensuring primary accountabilities of self and the
              abovementioned university governing bodies; and

H
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.                        271
                    [M.R. SHAH, J.]

                 (d) Steering an institutional monitoring and evaluation         A
                 mechanism on university performance built on principles
                 of transparency.”
                55. Discussing the situation in the backdrop of principle
        of governance as quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra —
        “Yatha Raja Tatha Praja”, the sense of morality must begin from          B
        the door of the leader who preaches it.
                  56. Thus, universities are autonomous and the Vice-
        Chancellor is the leader of a higher education institution. As per
        the norm, he/she should be an eminent academician, excellent
        administrator and also someone who has a high moral stature.             C
        The aforesaid reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari
        Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee
        have highlighted the importance of the role of Vice-Chancellor
        in maintaining the quality and relevance of universities, in addition
        to its growth and development, keeping in view, the much needed
        changes from time to time. Further, these committees have also           D
        made suggestions and recommendations for identifying the right
        person for the said position. At this stage, it is correct to say that
        a Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of a university’s system and a
        keeper of the university’s conscience.”
      8.9 On the role of Search Committee / Selection Committee, it is           E
observed in paragraph 57 as under:-
                 “57. Further, in our view, the Search/Selection
        Committee plays a vital and significant role in the selection of
        the Vice-Chancellor; yet the selected Vice-Chancellor’s
        performance in the universities vary from university to university.      F
        Therefore, the members of the Search Committee, who are given
        the privilege and honour of selecting and suggesting names for
        the appointment of Vice-Chancellor are directly or indirectly
        responsible for the achievement of the university. Commitment
        to the quality and the objectives of the universities in particular      G
        and higher education system in general, are of course the deciding
        factors in selecting the right person.”
      8.10 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even as per Section
13(4) of the University Act, 2015, the Committee shall recommend
unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons from amongst
                                                                                 H
272              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     the eminent persons in the field of engineering sciences, which shall be
      placed before the Visitor/Chancellor. In the present case, admittedly
      the only name of respondent No. 1 was recommended to the Chancellor.
      As per the UGC Regulations also, the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint
      the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the
      Search Committee. Therefore, when only one name was recommended
B
      and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no
      option to consider the names of the other candidates. Therefore, the
      appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/or
      contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the
      University Act, 2015. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 1
C     on the basis of the recommendations made by the Search committee,
      which was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per the UGC
      Regulations and when only one name was recommended in spite of
      panel of suitable candidates (3-5 suitable persons as required under Section
      13(4) of the University Act, 2015), the appointment of respondent No. 1
      can be said to be illegal and void ab initio, and, therefore, the writ of quo
D
      warranto was required to be issued.
             9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed
      by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned
      Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and refusing to issue the writ of
E     quo warranto declaring the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice
      Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University,
      Thiruvananthapuram as bad in law and/or illegal and void ab initio are
      hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall
      be a writ of quo warranto declaring the appointment of the respondent
F     No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
      University, Thiruvananthapuram as void ab initio and consequently, the
      appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul
      Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed and
      set aside.
G            Present appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.

      Ankit Gyan and Anurag Bhaskar                                 Appeals allowed.
      (Assisted by : Adnan Khan, LCRA)



H