Himanshu Solanki vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, an advocate claiming acquaintances in the staff of the National Law University and other public spirited people from legal fraternity, seeking writ in the nature of quo warranto with the following reliefs:-

"a. by an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, the order dated 02.07.2013 Annexure-1, appointing the respondent no.4 as a Vice-Chancellor NLUJ may kindly be quashed and set aside; and

b. by an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, the Respondent No.4 may be declared ineligible to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor of NLUJ; and

c. Respondent No.4 be directed to deposit the extra emoluments and salary receipts by virtue of holding the post of Vice Chancellor of NLUJ.

d. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the Case may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

e. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

A bare look at the order dated 2.7.2013 (Annex.1) sought to be challenged by the petitioner indicates that by the said order Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court & Chancellor, NLU, Jodhpur appointed respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor of the University for a period of 5 years from the date she assumes the charge of office or till she attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier.

The period for which the respondent No.4 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor has since expired on 14.7.2018 as respondent No.4 assumed the charge of the office on 15.7.2013 (Annex.2).

Though the term of respondent No.4 has been extended by 5 years or till respondent No.4 attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier by order of the Chancellor, no relief has been claimed in the writ petition qua the said order of extension / extended term.

As the period, for which, the respondent No.4 was appointed by impugned order dated 2.7.2013 (Annex.1), has already expired over one year back and no relief has been sought qua the extended term, the challenge laid by the present writ petition to the validity of respondent No.4's appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University is apparently rendered academic only.

Submission has been made that as the challenge has been laid to the initial appointment made vide Annex.1, there is no necessity to question the validity of extension, as the challenge laid would encompass challenge to the extended term as well. Submission made in this regard is baseless, inasmuch as, once the petitioner is aware of the extended term and has placed on record material in this regard, not seeking of any relief in this regard, is fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition.

Despite pointing out the said fatal defect in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions pertaining to the merit of the writ petition.

Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, it is revealed that the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor of the National Law University, Jodhpur, has been challenged on the ground that the appointment made in the year 2013 was contrary to the UGC Regulations On Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staffs In Universities And Colleges And Measures For The Maintenance Of Standards In Higher Education, 2010 ('Regulations, 2010'), as well as the criteria desired by the Selection Committee, as at the time of appointment the respondent No.4 did not have requisite experience of 10 years as Professor in a University.

The plea raised regarding violation of Regulations, 2010, apparently has no substance, inasmuch as, it is not in dispute that the National Law University, Jodhpur is governed by National Law University, Jodhpur Act, 1999, and the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations framed thereunder and none of the said governing statutes provide for any eligibility criteria for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University.

So far as the applicability of the Regulations, 2010 is concerned, the applicability of the said Regulations has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj & Ors.: (2015) 6 SCC 363, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the Regulations, 2010 specially Regulation 7.3.0 held that the Regulation is not applicable to the Universities, Colleges and other Higher Educational Institutions coming under purview of the State Legislature unless the State Government wishes to adopt and implement the scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein.

The relevant paras No. 18, 39 & 43 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the issues that arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether UGC Regulations, 2010 is mandatory in nature; and

(ii) Whether in the event of conflict between the University Act, Regulations framed thereunder and the UGC Regulations, 2010, the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 would prevail or not; and

(iii) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor of a University is to be considered as part of teaching staff.

We find that post of Vice-Chancellor under the University Act, 1965 is a post of an Officer. The UGC Act 1956 is silent about this aspect. The UGC Regulations, 2000 are also silent in regard to post of Vice-Chancellor. Provisions regarding Vice-Chancellor have been made for the first time under UGC Regulations, 2010.

We have noticed and held that UGC Regulations, 2010 is not applicable to the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein. In this connection, one may refer paragraph 8(p)(v) of Appendix-I dated 31st December, 2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010.

We do not agree with the finding of the Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 is not traceable to clause (e) or (g) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956. We also refuse to agree that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 being a sub-ordinate legislation under the Act of Parliament cannot override the preliminary legislation enacted by the State Legislature. However, the finding of the Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as recommendatory in nature is upheld in so far as it relates to Universities and Colleges under the State Legislation."

In view of the above judgment in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan (supra) due to inapplicability of the Regulations, 2010, the plea raised in this regard has no substance.

So far as the criteria desired by the Section Committee, which itself proposed the name of respondent No.4 in its recommendation alongwith two others, is concerned, the Committee itself indicated the criteria as 'as far as possible'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that the term 'as far as possible' connotes discretion vested in the prescribed authority and recognises flexibility in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.: (1998) 7 SCC 654 and Osmania University v. V.S. Muthurangam & Ors. : (1997) 10 SCC 741, respectively.

In view of the above, besides the fatal defect as noticed hereinbefore, the pleas raised in the writ petition even otherwise have no substance.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.