PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. versus DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 21-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S.
v.
DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7634-7635/2022)
OCTOBER 21, 2022
[M.R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 254 –UGC Regulations, 2010 –
UGC Guidelines – APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University
(AAKTU) Act, 2015 (University Act, 2015/State Act) & Regulations
– S. 13 – Appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor – Requirement
of recommending a panel of names by search committee – State
government’s discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations,
2010 – Repugnancy between State legislation and Central legislation
– Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of
the Kerala High Court to declare the appointment of the respondent
No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram as
void on the ground the appointment was contrary to UGC
Regulations, which required that the Search Committee should
recommend a panel of three to five names for consideration, but in
the instant case, only one name was recommended – Further
contended that UGC Act shall prevail over State legislation  – Single
Judge dismissed the petition by noting that unless the UGC
Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the
State legislation shall prevail and once the Search Committee was
constituted as per Section 13 of the University Act enacted by the
State, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be by
a duly constituted Search Committee and as such the appointment
cannot be said to be illegal – Appellant appealed before a Division
Bench, which came to be dismissed – Question for the Supreme
Court – Whether while making the appointment of respondent No.
1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram, the
appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or
in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)?;
Whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend the name
of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the University can be
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 252
252
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
253
said to be duly constituted Committee? – Held: Any appointment as
a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search
Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the
UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio – If there is any conflict
between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union
law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India
to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant –
Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically
adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to
contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding
on the State/State’s Universities – Search Committee in this case
was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per UGC regulations
– Under UGC regulations, the Search Committee duly constituted
has to send a panel of 3-5 names for consideration as appointment
as Vice Chancellor, and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended
by the Search Committee – Even under University Act, the Search
Committee shall recommended unanimously a panel of not less than
three suitable persons – When only one name was recommended
and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had
no option to consider the names of the other candidates – Thus, the
appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/
or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as
even to the University Act, 2015.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on
the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is
constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations
shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict between the State
legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail
even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the
extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant.
[Para 8.4][264-B-D]
1.2 In the present case as such vide order dated 10
December 2010, the UGC Regulations have been specifically
adopted by the State Government. In the order dated 27 March
2010, while adopting/accepting the UGC Regulations, it is
PROFESSOR (DR.) SREEJITH P.S. v. DR. RAJASREE M.S. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
specifically observed in paragrap

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