STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 946 · Decided: 11-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
946
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
946
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022)
OCTOBER 11, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Universities – Vice-Chancellor – Re-appointment of –
Challenge to – Calcutta University Act, 1979 – ss. 8 and 60 – High
Court allowed petition u/Art.226 seeking a writ of quo warranto
against the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Calcutta University – The High
Court held that the State government had no authority to appoint
or re-appoint the VC under s.8 of the Act, or by taking recourse to
the residuary provisions of s.60 of the Act – As a consequence, the
order issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West
Bengal re-appointing the incumbent VC of Calcutta University was
set aside – The High Court held that the scheme of s.8 empowers
only the Chancellor to appoint, re-appoint, temporarily appoint or
remove the VC; and s.60 to which recourse was taken by the State
government provides only for the removal of difficulties arising in
giving effect to the provisions of the statute – Apart from the reasoning
based on the provisions of the Act, the High Court also held that
the UGC Regulations envisage that the appointment of a VC can be
made only by a Visitor / Chancellor, and this came in the way of the
State government making the appointment – On appeal, held: There
is neither an express provision nor a necessary intendment by which
it could be inferred that the power which is entrusted to the
Chancellor to appoint a VC is taken away in the case of re-
appointment – A re-appointment is the appointment of an existing
incumbent who fulfils the conditions of eligibility – The power of
appointment including of reappointment is entrusted to the
Chancellor and not the State Government – The amended provisions
of s.8(2)(a) of the Act cannot be construed to mean that the power
of reappointment has been taken away from the Chancellor and
entrusted to the State government – Where there is a specific
provision, as in the present case s.8(2)(a), it was not open to the
State government to conjure up a lacunae or omission and
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 946
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties – The State
government chose the incorrect path under s.60 by misusing the
“removal of difficulty clause” to usurp the power of the Chancellor
to make the appointment – The government cannot misuse the
“removal of difficulty clause” to remove all obstacles in its path
which arise due to statutory restrictions – Allowing such actions
would be antithetical to the rule of law – In the guise of removing
the difficulties, the State cannot change the scheme and essential
provisions of the Act – Even if the provisions of the Act allowed the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would
be in violation of the UGC Regulations – The Regulations become
part of the statute framed by Parliament and will prevail – The
judgment of the High Court is correct in law and on fact and does
not warrant interference in appeal – The State government could
not have issued the order re-appointing the VC – The University
Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for appointment of
Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education) Regulations 2018 – Regulation 7.3 – Constitution of
India – Art. 226.
Writs – Writ of Quo Warranto – Held: The writ of quo warranto
can be issued where an appointment has not been made in
accordance with the law – Constitution of India – Article 226 –
Service Law – Appointment.
Interpretation of Statutes – Where there is a specific provision,
it is not open to the State government to conjure up a lacunae or
omission and purportedly exercise the power to remove difficulties
– Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations
and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation
effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would
defeat the purpose of the legislation.
Interpretation of Statutes – A statute must be read to avoid a
construction which would make certain provisions or terms
meaningless or redundant – An effort must be made to read the
provisions of the statute in a holistic manner so as to imbue it with
meaning and content.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal

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