LexDR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 117 DR. RAM TAWAKYA SINGH v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 6831 of 2013) AUGUST 19, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) UNIVERSITIES: A B 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.