CMJ FOUNDATION AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 13-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1020 : 2025 INSC 211
CMJ Foundation and Others 
v. 
State of Meghalaya and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2024)
13 February 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University 
was made with due adherence to the procedure, as mandated 
by law; whether the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014 
was passed with due adherence to the procedure provided under 
Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009 and in compliance of 
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th September, 
2013 in SLP(C) No. 19617 of 2013 titled as “CMJ Foundation & 
Ors. v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.”; whether the Division Bench 
of the High Court of Meghalaya was justified in remanding the 
matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merit, 
while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 14 of 2017.
Headnotes†
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – s.14(1) –  
Non-compliance with – Appointment of the Chancellor of the 
CMJ University, if was non-est and void ab initio:
Held: Yes – Under s.14(1), the Sponsor must appoint a person 
suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University, 
however, such appointment is ‘subject to the approval’ of the 
Visitor – Thus, the appointment of the Chancellor, made by the 
University, shall require mandatory approval by the Visitor failing 
which, such appointment would be non est in the eyes of law – The 
phrase ‘subject to’ means ‘conditional upon’ in law – Therefore, 
the appointment of Chancellor was conditional upon the approval 
of the Visitor – The Visitor is not merely a titular head and the 
appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would 
attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor – However, 
in the present case, the Visitor’s approval was never granted 
for the appointment of the Chancellor of the University – Thus, 
the procedure prescribed u/s.14(1) for the appointment of the 
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
1021
CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others
Chancellor was not duly followed by the CMJ University – Division 
Bench of the High Court rightly declared the appointment of the 
Chancellor of the CMJ University as invalid and non-est in the 
eyes of law – To this extent, the impugned judgment does not 
suffer from any infirmity. [Paras 36, 39, 44, 46]
Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 – s.48(2) – State 
Government dissolved the CMJ University vide order dated 
31.03.2014 – Aforesaid dissolution order, if was passed 
adhering to the procedure provided u/s.48 and in compliance of 
the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2013 
in SLP(C) No.19617 of 2013 wherein it took cognizance of 
the recommendations issued by the Visitor indicating the 
irregularities committed by the CMJ University and directed 
the State Government to take appropriate action and pass a 
speaking order u/s.48, after giving due notice and opportunity 
of hearing to the appellants:
Held: Yes – On facts, proper opportunity to show cause and take 
necessary measures for rectification was extended to the appellants 
against the proposed action of dissolution – State Government 
examined the replies to the show cause notices and passed the 
well-reasoned order dated 31.03.2014, by taking recourse to 
the powers conferred by s.48(2), dissolving the CMJ University 
with immediate effect on the grounds that the appellants neither 
satisfactorily explained the allegations set out in the show cause 
notices, nor could they provide adequate justification for the evident 
anomalies and irregularities – Also, the reminder letter dated 
03.06.2013 issued by the State Government was in compliance 
with s.48(2) – Decision of the State Government dated 31.03.2014 
dissolving the CMJ University, affirmed – Educational Institution – 
Dissolution. [Paras 55, 56, 58, 59]
Practice and Procedure – Remand of the matter, when not 
proper – Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was 
justified in remanding the matter to the Single Judge for 
reconsideration on merit, while allowing the Writ Appeal:
Held: By way of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench had 
quashed and set aside the judgment dated 16.07.2015 passed by 
the Single Judge and upheld the procedure followed by the State 
Government in ordering the dissolution of the University u/s.48 – 
Division Bench was fully justified in quashing and setting aside the 
1022
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supre

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.