GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 406 · Decided: 03-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 406
406
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1525 of 2019)
MARCH 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Universities: Appointment of Vice Chancellor – Writ of quo
warranto – Writ petition alleging that eligibility criteria was diluted
and UGC Regulations, 2018 were violated – Held: Being a
subordinate legislation, UGC Regulations becomes part of the Act
and in case of any conflict between State legislation and Central
legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the rule/
principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Art.254 of the Constitution
as the subject ‘education’ is in the concurrent list – By adopting the
scheme and having accepted 80% of the maintenance expenditure
from the central government and when respondent No.4 is paid a
fixed pay of Rs.75,000/- along with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/
- per month, the State and the Universities thereunder are bound by
the UGC Regulations, including the UGC Regulations, 2018 –
Respondent No.4 has been appointed by a search committee, not
constituted as per the UGC Regulations, 2018 and also does not
fulfil the eligibility criteria as per the UGC Regulations, 2018,
namely, having ten years of teaching work experience as a professor
in the university system – Appointment of respondent No.4 as a Vice
Chancellor of respondent No.2-University, is contrary to the UGC
provisions, namely, UGC Regulations, 2018 – Writ of quo warranto
issued for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent
No.4 as the Vice Chancellor of SP University – UGC Regulations,
2010/2018 – Regn. 7.3.0 – Writ of quo warranto – Constitution of
India – Art.254.
Universities: 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 –
The said reports of the Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari
Commission, Gnanam Committee and Ramlal Parikh Committee have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
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 – These committees have also made
suggestions and recommendations for identifying the right person
for the said position – A Vice Chancellor is the king pin of a
University’s system and a keeper of the University’s conscience –
Further, 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 – 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.
Sardar Patel University Act, 1955 – ss. 9, 10 – Governor of
Gujarat is the Chancellor of the University and he shall, by virtue
of his office, be the head of the University and the President of the
Senate – As the head of the University, his advice is binding upon
the University – Universities.
Allowing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
writ of quo warranto is a limited one, which can only be issued
when a person holding public office does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria prescribed to be appointed to such an office or when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. [Para 9.1][423-H;
424-A]
Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Ors., (2013) 1
SCC 501 : [2012] 10 SCR 883; Retd. Armed Forces
Medical Association and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
(2006) 11 SCC 731 : 2006 (10) SCALE 224 – relied
on.
1.2 The UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provision for
the co-ordination 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
GAMBHIRDAN K GADHVI v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
with recommendations of the Commission”. Section 26 deals with
“Power to make regulations”. As per Section 28, the rules and
regulations framed under the UGC Act ar

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