PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI versus RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 10-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI
v.
RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 8184 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 – Regulation
7.3.0 – Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 – Ss. 10, 10 (3) –
Constitution of India – Art. 319 – Appointment of Vice Chancellor
in a University – Eligibility for appointment – Requirement of having
minimum teaching experience – Due process for appointment –
Appellant herein was appointed as a Professor in Soban Singh Jeena
University and worked as such for a period of 8 years and 5 months
– Then he was appointed as Member, Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission – On 13th August 2020, he was appointed as Vice-
Chancellor of the University – Said appointment was challenged
before the High Court, inter alia, on the grounds that at the time
when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, he was not having the
requisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which was
required as per the ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’, which were adopted
by the State Government – High court quashed the appointment of
the appellant herein, finding the appointment process devoid of due
process prescribed by UGC Regulations, 2018 – Whether the
appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University
was legal and valid and whether it was after following the due
procedure, as required – Held: Under Section 10 of the University
Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a
person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have a minimum
of 10 years’ teaching experience as Professor in a University or ten
years of experience in a reputed research and/or academic
administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated
academic leadership – Merely because his lien was continued on
the post of a Professor, it cannot be said that he continued to teach
and/or he was having the teaching experience during the period of
lien – Supervising the Ph.D. scholars cannot be said to be having a
teaching experience as a Professor in the University, which is the
requirement as per the UGC Regulations – Further, the selection
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 545
545
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper
identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection
Committee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed out of the
panel of the names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee – Appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor cannot
be said to be as per the requirement of the University Act r/w
Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 as it is an admitted
position that no advertisement was issued before appointing the
appellant as Vice-Chancellor, name of the appellant was not
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, selection of
the appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor was not by a panel of
persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and therefore he was
not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of the names
recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee – Only one name
was placed before the State Government/the Chief Minister for
approval – Under the circumstances, the appointment of the appellant
as Vice-chancellor of the University was just contrary to Section
10 of the University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 On conjoint reading of Section 10 of the
University Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018, a person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor
shall have a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience as
Professor in a University or ten years of experience in a reputed
research and/or academic administrative organisation with proof
of having demonstrated academic leadership. On conjoint reading
of the aforesaid provisions, the selection for the post of Vice-
Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of
3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee and the Vice-
Chancellor shall be appointed out of the panel of the names
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. In the
present case, the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor
cannot be said to be as per the requirement of Section 10 of the
University Act, 2019 r/w Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations,
2018. It is an admitted position that no advertisement was issued
before appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. The nam

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