Shaji P. Chaly, J
1. The captioned writ petitions are filed by the applicants participated in the selection process to the post of Vice Chancellor in the Kerala University
of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) consequent to Exhibit P5 notification issued by the State Governmentâ€"2nd respondent; challenging the
appointment of Dr. K. Riji John as the Vice Chancellor of the said University on various grounds, which would be dealt with hitherto.
2. Since the subject matter in both the writ petitions and the contentions are substantially similar, on agreement, we heard them together and proposed
to pass this common judgment.
3. W.P.(C) No. 16457 of 2021 is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P4 notification issued by the Principal Secretary to
Governor/Chancellor, Governor’s Secretariat, Kerala Raj Bhavan, appointing a Search Cum Selection Committee for recommending a panel of
qualified applicants to the post of Vice Chancellor; Exhibit P7 minutes of the Selection Committee meeting for the appointment of Vice Chancellor of
the University held on 20.11.2020; Exhibit P9 resolution of the Selection Committee held on 22.01.2021 recommending the name of Dr. K. Riji John,
Dean (Fisheries) of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, as the Vice Chancellor of the said University; and Exhibit P10 notification
dated 23.01.2021 issued by the Governor’s Secretariat/Chancellor appointing Dr. K. Riji John as the Vice Chancellor of the University for a
period of 5 years from the date of assumption of office or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, as provided under Section 33(6) of
the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies Act, 2010 (‘Act, 2010’ for short) and as per the UGC Regulations as amended from time
to time; and for a further declaration that Dr. K. Riji John, respondent No.4, is not entitled to be appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the Universityâ€
respondent No.3 or any other University in the State.
4. Further direction is also sought for the re-constitution of the Selection Committee and to complete the selection process in continuation of Exhibit P5
within a time frame fixed by this Court.
5. While the said writ petition was pending consideration before a learned single Judge, the pendency of the captioned connected writ petition seeking
a writ of quo warranto before this Court was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge and accordingly, as per the order of the learned single
Judge dated 13.12.2021, it is tagged on.
6. W.P.(C) No. 25932 of 2021 is filed seeking a writ of quo warranto against Dr. K. Riji John, respondent No.5 therein, who is alleged to be illegally
occupying the post of Vice Chancellor of the University and a consequential writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Exhibit P6 Minutes of Selection
Committee meeting held on 20.11.2020 for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor..
7. To dispose of the writ petitions, the pleadings, and documents available from W.P.(C) No. 16457 of 2021 are relied upon, and the findings rendered
accordingly would decide the fate of the other writ petition also.
8. The paramount contention advanced by the writ petitioner is that the State Government has adopted the UGC Regulations with effect from
18.09.2010 and once the UGC Regulations are so adopted, they prevail over any State enactment or subordinate legislation made under it. It is further
submitted that the UGC Regulations require persons in the Search Committee to be eminent in the sphere of higher education. However, the persons
in the Selection Committee are not having the requisite qualifications as prescribed under Exhibit P1 Regulations, 2018 of the University Grants
Commission.(UGC) It is also contended that the first member of the committee, Dr. J. Prabhash, was connected with higher education as he was a
Professor and a Pro Vice Chancellor; but the post of Pro Vice Chancellor is below the Vice Chancellor; and therefore, the Chancellor was not
justified in including such a person as an eminent person in a committee for selection of the Vice Chancellor.
9. It is also contended that the second member, Prof. Dr. V.K. Ramachandran, was the Vice Chairman of the Kerala State Planning Board, which
does not have any feature of higher education, and even though he is stated to be a former Head of the Economic Analysis Unit, Indian Statistical
Institute, Bangalore, he is not suggestive of his eminence in higher education.
10. It is further contended that the appointment of Dr. V.K. Ramachandran as the Chairman of the Selection Committee is purely political, as he is not
a Government servant of Kerala. Further, the third member in the Selection Committee, Dr. J.K. Jena is the Deputy Director General (Fisheries
Science) and a Government employee; but, by any standard, he cannot be said to be an eminent person in the field of higher education. It is also
contended that the mandatory requirement of a representative of the U.G.C in the Selection Committee is shunned by the Chancellor. Therefore, the
sum and substance of the contention advanced is that the constitution of the Search cum Selection Committee is not in tune with Exhibit P1 UGC
Regulations, 2018.
11. Accordingly, it is contended that any recommendation made by them is an action without jurisdiction. Various other contentions are also raised
with respect to the disqualification of the members of the Selection Committee.
12. It is also submitted that the Selection Committee cannot lay down any new norms for the selection, but can only adhere to those already in place.
But the Selection Committee, as its first step, excluded all applicants having less than three years of service remaining as on 28.10.2020, and the
refusal of consideration is not supported by any statutory provision.
13. It is further pointed out that the UGC Regulations do not contain any provisions with respect to the maximum age or tenure and therefore, the
University Act has to be referred to, and the Act, in turn, permits a person to continue as Vice Chancellor till he attains the age of 65 or five years,
whichever is earlier. Therefore, it is submitted that the Selection Committee had to adhere to the said procedure and thinking so, excluding the persons
from the zone of consideration by the Selection Committee is only with the intention of appointing Dr. K. Riji John.
14. That apart, it is contended that the promotions of academic staff were governed by the UGC Regulations 1996 till the promulgation of UGC
Regulations, 2006. It is the contention of the petitioner that a lecturer without Ph.D could be promoted as Lecturer (Senior Scale) only after 6 years as
Lecturer. It then requires 5 years for a Senior Lecturer to be promoted as Associate Professor (Reader). It is only after 8 years of service as
Associate Professor, a teacher could be promoted as Professor. Pointing out that Dr. K. Riji John in Exhibit P6 claims appointment as Assistant
Professor on 08.01.1990, it is contended that he took leave to undergo Ph. D course during September, 1994 and acquired it on 15.12.1997 and
consequently, the said period cannot be counted towards his tenure as Assistant Professor. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that
if Regulation 7.1. of the UGC Regulations, 1996 is taken into account, Dr. K. Riji John could be appointed in the senior scale only from 15.12.1997
when he acquired Ph.D; and as it takes 5 years for him to be promoted as Associate Professor, he could be promoted only on 15.12.2002. Therefore,
it is pointed out that the claim made by Dr. K. Riji John in Exhibit P6 application that he was promoted as Associate Professor on 08.01.1999, is
erroneous.
15. It is further pointed out that it takes 5 years for an Associate Professor to be promoted as Professor and thus, Dr. K. Riji John could be appointed
as Professor only after 8 years from 15.12.2002 i.e., on 15.12.2010. However, Dr. K. Riji John claims experience as Professor from 08.01.2007.
16. The material contention advanced on the basis of the said averment is that Dr. K. Riji John does not have 10 years’ of experience as
Professor on the last date of Exhibit P5 notification for appointment as Vice Chancellor i.e., on 26.10.2020. Various other contentions are also raised
on the basis of the same.
17. It is also pointed out that the Search Committee under the UGC Regulations, 2018 has to furnish a panel of names to the Chancellor for
appointment, and the Chancellor, in turn, has to make an appointment from the panel recommended by the Search cum Selection Committee. But, in
the instant case, the Search Committee, without assigning any reason or authority, recommended only the name of Dr. K. Riji John. Therefore,
according to the petitioner, the Chancellor, instead of having the liberty to choose from a panel, was constrained to appoint Dr. K. Riji John, in terms of
UGC Regulations, 2018.
18. Accordingly, it is contended that, in that process, the Selection Committee became the appointing authority which is not the scheme of UGC
Regulations; which provides for preparation of a panel for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor and forwarded to the Chancellor for making the
appointment. Further, the UGC Regulations, 2018 requires the Vice Chancellor to have a higher level of competence, integrity, morals, and institutional
commitment. Other factual circumstances are also advanced to canvass an argument that Dr. K. Riji John does not have any academic integrity as
required by the UGC, as 11 out of 15 publications since 2015 are less inferior journals which publish papers upon payment, and which has been
disapproved by the UGC and discredited by the academic and research community not only in India, but also around the world.
19. For and on behalf of the Chancellor, a statement is filed, inter alia stating that as per Section 33(2) of the Act 2010, the Chancellor appointed a
Search cum Selection committee on 16.09.2020 as per Ext.P4 notification to make recommendation for appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the
University. It is further stated that the said appointment was done in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2010, and like the Act, 2010, the Acts of the
Kerala Agricultural University and Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University too provide to have the Director General of Indian Council of
Agricultural Research or his representative as members in the Selection Committee for the appointment of new Vice Chancellor, and it was
accordingly Dr K.K. Jena was nominated as the representative of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Other submissions are also
made with respect to the circumstances leading to the appointment of the Search cum Selection Committee and the appointment of the Vice
Chancellor.
20. However, it is stated that the Selection Committee was constituted and the appointment of Vice Chancellor was made in conformity with the
provisions of the Act, 2010, which stipulates that the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the advice of the Selection Committee.
It is also stated that the Chairman of the committee, as per letter dated 22.01.2021, informed that, the Selection Committee for the appointment of
Vice Chancellor met on 22.01.2021, interacted with nine candidates shortlisted in the previous meeting of the Committee held on 20.11.2020, and after
deliberations, the Committee unanimously recommended the 4th respondent to be appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the University as per Ext.P9
resolution dated 22.01.2021.
21. The State of Kerala, respondent No.2, has filed a detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating that as per Section 73 of the Act, 2010, the College of
Fisheries, Panangad, which was under the Kerala Agricultural University, was disaffiliated from the said University and was brought under the third
respondent University and consequently, the teaching and non-teaching posts of College of Fisheries, Panangad were shifted from Kerala Agricultural
University to the 3rd respondent University.
22. It is also stated that the National Agricultural Accreditation Board (NAAB) under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) in October, 2016 decided to put on hold the grant of accreditation to the third respondent University till the University submits satisfactory
compliance report regarding the remarks made by the Accreditation Board. The appointment of the Dean was one of the remarks made by the
Accreditation Board and in the said circumstances, the University in June, 2017 decided to fill the vacant post of the Dean already sanctioned by the
Government and issued a notification inviting application for selection to the post. Therefore, it is submitted that it was after a selection process that
the University has appointed Dr. K. Riji John as the Dean Fisheries.
23. It is also submitted that the appointment of Dr. K. Riji John as Dean was against the post shifted from the Kerala Agricultural University and
sanctioned by the Government as per Exhibit R2(a) order dated 12.07.2012. Therefore, it is submitted that the post of Dean shifted from the Kerala
Agricultural University is a regular salaried post, which was different from the Dean nominated under Section 36 of the Act, 2010 from among the
members of the Faculty, who are academic members of the University and non-salaried Deans.
24. The significant contention advanced controverting the submissions made in the writ petition is that the agriculture, including agricultural education
and research, is a matter covered by Entry 14 of List II in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Act, 2010 enacted by the State
Legislature stipulates the method of selection and qualification for the post of Vice Chancellor, which is the law applicable for the appointment of the
Vice - Chancellor.
25. Therefore, the paramount contention advanced is that the UGC Regulations have no role to play in the matter of appointment of Vice Chancellor
of the third respondent University. According to the Government, Section 33 of the Act, 2010 deals with the appointment of Vice Chancellor, wherein
the composition of the Selection Committee is different from the provisions in the other University Acts and UGC Regulations.
26. Therefore, it is stated that one of the members of the Selection Committee is the Director General of the ICAR or his representative. It is further
submitted that Section 33(3) of the Act, 2010 mandates that the Vice Chancellor shall be a person of eminence and expert in the field of Fisheries and
Ocean studies. Other contentions are also made with respect to the procedure for nomination to the Selection Committee on the basis of Statute 2 of
Chapter III of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies First Statues, 2013.
27. Therefore, according to the Government, the constitution of the Search cum Selection Committee by the Chancellor is in terms of the provisions of
the Act, 2010, and therefore, by the law, fundamentally for the reason that the agriculture and agricultural research and education come under entry
14 of the List II of the Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Various other contentions are also raised with respect to the high credentials of the
members of the Search cum Selection Committee.
28. Therefore, it is the contention of the State that the constitution of the Search cum Selection Committee is as per the provisions of the Act, 2010
and no manner of interference is required to the appointment of the Search cum Selection Committee.
29. The Vice Chancellor, respondent No.4, has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting all the allegations raised by the writ petition, including the
aspect concerning the qualification required to be appointed as a Professor in terms of the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 1996. That apart, it is
contended that the period of service of the 4th respondent in various posts and the reckoning of the period that he had spent in United Kingdom while
he was pursuing his Ph.D for career advancement, are all on the basis of the Government Orders prevailing in the State of Tamil Nadu and has also
invited our attention to Exhibit R4(b) certificate dated 01.02.2020 issued by the Registrar, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa Fisheries University, Tamil Nadu, wherein
the certificate particulars of Dr. K. Riji John is clearly specified, which shows that he was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 08.01.1990 and
continued upto 07.01.1999. He has worked as Associate Professor from 08.01.1999 to 07.01.2007; Professor from 08.01.2007 to 30.09.2013;
Professor and Head of the Department of Fish Pathology and Health Management from 01.10.2013 to 03.01.2016; Chair, of the School of
Aquaculture from 04.01.2016 to 07.08.2017; and the Professor and Head, Department of Fish Pathology and Health Management from 08.08.2017 to
24.04.2019.
30. Therefore, according to the 4th respondent, the contentions advanced by the writ petitioner contrary to the same cannot be sustained under law. It
is also submitted that the petitioner was appointed as the Dean Fisheries in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2010 and the statutes.
31. The University has also filed a counter affidavit basically supporting the contentions advanced by the State Government as well as the 4th
respondent. The appointment of the petitioner as a Dean of the University is stated to be done in terms of the Act, 2010.
32. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri. George Poonthottam assisted by Adv. Nisha George, Sri. Millu Dandapani for the
writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 25932 of 2021, learned Advocate General Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Advocate Sri. Jaju Babu for the
Chancellor assisted by Sri. Brijesh Mohan, and the learned Senior Advocate Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar for Dr. K. Riji Johnâ€"the Vice-Chancellor, and
perused the pleadings and material on record.
33. The basic contention advanced by the petitioner is that as per UGC Regulations, 2018, a clear-cut procedure is prescribed in respect of the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor at Regulations 7.3. The said provision reads thus:
“7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR:
i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be
appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ of 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.
ii. 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, through a
public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be persons’ of
eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the
Search cum-Selection Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and
adequate experience in academic and administrative governance, to be given in writing along with the panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. One member of
the Search cum Selection Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellors of State, Private and
Deemed to be Universities.
iii. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.
iv. The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent making him/her eligible for all service related benefits.â€
34. Relying upon the said provision, it is submitted that the selection to the post of Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification by a Panel
of 3-5 persons by a Search cum Selection Committee through a public Notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination thereof.
It is also clear from the said provision that the members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher
education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. It is also clear that while preparing the panel, the
Search Committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and
adequate experience in academic and administrative governance to be given in writing along with the panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor.
35. The important aspect available from clause 7.3.ii is that, one member of the Search Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman, University
Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.
36. But, in the case on hand, Exhibit P4 notification dated 16.09.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary to Governor/Chancellor, Governor’s
Secretariat, establishes that Dr. J.K. Jena is a representative of the Indian Council of the Agricultural Research, New Delhi; which is quite contrary to
the imperative condition contained in Regulation 7.3.ii of the UGC Regulations, 2018, because one member of the Search cum Selection Committee as
per the UGC Regulations is to be nominated by the Chairman of the University Grants Commission.
37. That apart, as per Regulation 7.3.iii, the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the
Search cum Selection Committee. But, in the instant case, the Search cum Selection Committee, after conducting selection, shortlisted nine persons by
excluding the applicants who were having less than 3 years of service as on 28.10.2020 and all applicants whose disciplinary qualifications and
publication do not cover fisheries at all. However, the Selection committee, as per Exhibit P9, has only forwarded the name of Dr. K. Riji John as the
Vice Chancellor, and consequent to which the Chancellor has made the appointment, as per Exhibit P10, taking into account Section 33(6) of the Act,
2010 and the UGC Regulations as amended from time to time. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, there is a clear
violation of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, in the matter of appointing the selection committee, as well as in the case of submitting the
panel of names of the candidates before the Chancellor for appointment of the Vice Chancellor.
38. On the other hand, learned, Advocate General for the State submitted that the agriculture, education and research are included in entry 14 of List
II (State List) of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India; and therefore the State alone is vested with powers to make suitable legislation for the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor in the university in question. Accordingly it is submitted that the provisions of the Act, 2010 would strictly apply in
the matter of appointment of Search and Selection Committee as well the appointment of the Vice Chancellor.
39. Section 33 of the Act, 2010 is relied upon to address the said issue. Relevant portion of Section 33 reads thus:
33. The Vice Chancellor - (1) The Vice Chancellor shall be a full-time Officer of the University.
(2) The Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the advice of the Selection Committee consisting of one person nominated by the Governing Council
of the University, one person nominated by the Government, Director General of the Indian Agricultural Research or his representative;
Provided that the nominee of the University Governing Council shall not be from among the members of that Council or an employee of the University.
Provided further that the selection committee shall submit a panel of members not exceeding three to the Chancellor unanimously;
Provided also that if the advice rendered by the Selection Committee is not unanimous, the Chancellor may accept the opinion of the majority of its members.
(3) The Vice Chancellor shall be a person of eminent and expert in the field of Fisheries or Ocean Studies.
(4) The Selection Committee may formulate its own procedure for securing names of possible candidates for consideration and in consultation with such individuals
or bodies as it considers appropriate.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the first Vice Chancellor shall be appointed by the Government for a period not exceeding five years on
such terms and conditions.
(6) The term of the Vice Chancellor shall be five years or till he attains the age of sixty five years, whichever is earlier. Provided that he shall be eligible for
reappointment.â€
40. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Search cum Selection Committee was appointed absolutely in terms of the provisions
of Section 33(2) of the Act, 2010. That apart, it is submitted that the second proviso to Section 33(2) makes it clear that the Selection Committee shall
submit a panel of names not exceeding three to the Chancellor unanimously; which would clearly exemplify that the Selection Committee needs to
submit only a panel of even one member.
41. Therefore, it is the case of the learned Advocate General that having sent a panel of one person by the Selection Committee to the Chancellor
unanimously, the Chancellor was right in making the appointment of Dr. K. Riji John as the Vice Chancellor of the University.
42. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Vice Chancellor also advanced arguments in that line and submitted that being the absolute domain of
the State Government as per entry 14 of the State List, there was no requirement at all to follow the procedure prescribed under the UGC
Regulations, 2018.
43. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the agriculture, education and research is carved out from entry 66 of the List I â€"Union List
dealing with standard of education in the University in question and therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner that the appointment made is
in violation of entry 66 of List I, cannot be sustained under law. Learned counsel has also submitted that if all the arguments of the petitioner are taken
into account in their entirety, the violation alleged is only the procedural aspects, which has nothing to do with the fixation of standards as per entry 66
of the Union List.
44. The learned Senior Counsel for the Chancellor submitted that the Chancellor has made appointment thinking that the law applicable in the matter
of appointment of the Vice Chancellor in the University in question is as per the provisions of the Act, 2010, and the other intrinsic aspects involved in
the subject matter relating to entry 66 of List I, Union List, and entry 14 of the State List, were not subject matter of consideration while the Search
cum Selection Committee was appointed, and the panel of name submitted for an appointment.
45. To answer the said issue, we are inclined to refer to entry 66 of Schedule VII constituted as per Article 246 of the Constitution of India. Entry 66
reads thus:
“66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.â€
46. Therefore, it can be seen that entry 66 is not only dealing with the determination of the standards in institutions for higher education or research
and scientific and technical institutions, but also its coordination. It is well settled in law that the entries contained in various lists of Schedule VII with
respect to the legislative competence of the parliament or the State legislature are to be considered in a broader and purposive sense, and every word
contained under each entry would have to be provided with a meaning. Insofar as the co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for
higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions is concerned, that is the sole domain of the Union Government by virtue of the
powers conferred under Article 246 of the Constitution of India. This is more so since, Article 246 is eminently aided, with a non obstante clause that,
“notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to the matters enumerated in
List I of Schedule VIIâ€. Clauses (2) and (3) deal with the concurrent list and the state list respectively, and they are modulated in such a manner so
as not to have any interference with the exclusive power of the parliament to make legislations with respect to matters enumerated in the Union list.
47. However, as we have pointed out above, the paramount contention advanced by the State as well as the learned counsel for the Vice Chancellor
is that the agriculture, including agricultural education and research, is dealt with under the List II of Schedule VII and therefore, whatever contained
in entry 66 of the Union List is except entry 14 of the State List.
48. Therefore, our first endeavour is to identify as to whether which of the entries would apply in the instant case. Even though the learned Advocate
General as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Vice Chancellor advanced arguments to the effect that entry 66 deals only with the standards in
institutions for higher education and not with any procedure of any selection, we are unable to agree with the same, for the basic reason that entry 66
of the Union List takes in co-ordination also. The phraseology ‘co-ordination’ employed in entry 66 of the Union list definitely has to be provided
with a meaning in order to gather a meaning for the whole entry contained therein.
49. The term ‘co-ordination’ is defined under the Chambers Concise Dictionary, Deluxe edition to mean ‘ordered action together; balanced or
skilful movement etc.’ Moreover, the said aspect was considered by a Six Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court inG ujarat University
and another v. Shri Krishna Ranganath Mudhokar and others [AIR 1963 SC 703], which dealt with entries 63 to 66 of List I. The fundamental
finding rendered in the said decision by the Apex Court is that entries 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education, and it was held that
the power to legislate is vested exclusively in Parliament. That apart, the expression ‘co-ordination’ used in entry 66 of the Union List is
interpreted, and held that it does not merely mean evaluation.
50. Therefore, it can be seen that entry 66 includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards, but also for preventing the occurrence of
such disparities. Which thus means, the phraseology 'co-ordination' employed in entry 66 of the Union List would take in the entire aspects with
respect to the fixation of the standards, and all aspects leading to the appointments to be made in the higher educational system.
51. The issue with respect to entry 66 of the Union List and entry 11 of List II dealing with education as it stood then was considered by the Apex
Court in Gujarat University (supra), wherein the basic question considered was, whether prior to the Forty Second Amendment, when entry 11 of
the List II was in existence, and items 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education, whether the power to legislate on those items is
vested exclusively in the Parliament, and held as follows:
26. There is nothing in the entry which indicates that the power to legislate on coordination of standards in institutions of higher education, does not include the
power to legislate for preventing the occurrence of or for removal of disparities in standards. This power is not conditioned to be exercised merely upon the existence
of a condition of disparity nor is it a power merely to evaluate standards but not to take steps to rectify or to prevent disparity. By express pronouncement of the
Constitution makers, it is a power to co-ordinate, and of necessity, implied therein is the power to prevent what would make co-ordination impossible or difficult. The
power is absolute and unconditional, and in the absence of any controlling reasons it must be given full effect according to its plain and expressed intention. It is true
that ""medium of instruction"" is not an item in the legislative list. It falls within item No. 11 as a necessary incident of the power to legislate on education: it also falls
within items 63 to 66. In so far as it is a necessary incident of the powers under item 66 List I it must be deemed to be included in that item and therefore excluded from
item 11 List II. How far State legislation relating to medium of instruction in institutions has impact upon co-ordination of higher education is a matter which is not
susceptible, in the absence of any concrete challenge to a specific statute, of a categorical answer. Manifestly, in imparting instructions in certain subjects, medium
may have subordinate importance and little bearing on standards of education while in certain other its importance will be vital. Normally, in imparting scientific or
technical instructions or in training students for professional courses like law, engineering, medicine and the like existence of adequate text books at a given time, the
existence of journals and other literature availability of competent instructors and the capacity of students to understand instructions imparted through the medium in
which it is imparted are matters which have an important bearing on the effectiveness of instruction and resultant standards achieved there by. If adequate textbooks
are not available or competent instructors in the medium, through which instruction is directed to be imparted are not available, or the students are not able to receive
or imbibe instructions through the medium in which it is imparted, standards must of necessity fall, and legislation for co-ordination of standards in such matters
would include legislation relating to medium of instruction.â€
52. The Constitution Bench in Gujarat University (supra) had also considered the validity of the State legislation on University education and as
regards the education in technical and scientific institutions not falling within entry 66 of List I and held as follows at paragraph 24 thus:
“24. The State has the power to prescribe the syllabi and courses of study in the institutions named in Entry 66 (but not falling within entries 63 to 65) and as an
incident thereof it has the power to indicate the medium in which instruction should be imparted. But the Union Parliament has an overriding legislative power to
ensure that the syllabi and courses of study prescribed and the medium selected do not impair standards of education or render the co-ordination of such standards
either on an All India or other basis impossible or even difficult. Thus, though the powers of the Union and of the State are in the Exclusive Lists, a degree of
overlapping is inevitable. It is not possible to lay down any general test which would afford a solution for every question which might arise on this head. On the one
hand, it is certainly within the province of the State Legislature to prescribe syllabi and courses of study and, of course, to indicate the medium or media of
instruction. On the other hand, it is also within the power of the Union to legislate in respect of media of instruction so as to ensure co-ordination and determination
of standards, that is to ensure maintenance or improvement of standards. The fact that the Union has not legislated, or refrained from legislating to the full extent of
its powers does not invest the State with the power to legislate in respect of a matter assigned by the Constitution to the Union. It does not, however, follow that
even within the permitted relative fields there might not be legislative provisions in enactments made each in pursuance of separate exclusive and distinct powers
which may conflict. Then would arise the question of repugnancy and paramountcy which may have to be resolved on the application of the ""doctrine of pith and
substance"" of the impugned enactment. The validity of the State legislation on University education and as regards the education in technical and scientific
institutions not falling within Entry 64 of List I would have to be judged having regard to whether it impinges on the field reserved for the Union under Entry 66. In
other words, the validity of State legislation would depend upon whether it prejudicially affects co-ordination and determination of standards, but not upon the
existence of some definite Union legislation directed to achieve that purpose. It there be Union legislation in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards,
that would have paramountcy over the State law by virtue of the first part of Art. 254(1); even if that power be not exercised by the Union Parliament the relevant
legislative entries being in the exclusive lists, a State law trenching upon the Union field would still be invalid.â€
53. The dictum laid down in Gujarat University (supra) makes it clear that the State Legislation would depend upon whether it prejudicially affects
co-ordination and determination of standards but not upon the existence of some definite union legislation directed to achieve that purpose. It is also
clear that if there is Union Legislation in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards, that would have paramountcy over the State law by
virtue of the first part of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
54. Article 254 deals with the inconsistency between laws made by the Parliament and the laws made by the Legislatures of States. Clause (1)
thereto reads thus:
“254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States.â€"(1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a
State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of
the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause(2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made
by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the
repugnancy, be void.â€
55. In our considered opinion, clause (1) has two limbs: the first limb deals with any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State being
repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which it is competent to enact. This is exactly the legal position laid down by the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in Gujarat University (supra).
56. Therefore, taking into account the specific entry 66 of the Union list in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions of
higher education, we are of the view that it is an occupied field of the Union. Therefore, the State Legislature has no power under entry 14 of List II
to legislate on the entry 66 of the Union list. The power of the State Government to enact a law by virtue of entry 14 of the State List could be
anything other than the specific entry contained under entry 66 of the Union List dealing with co-ordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education etc. In other words, there is no overlapping or encroachment by and between the said entries and they are governing
the respective fields guided by Article 246 of the Constitution of India.
57. It was also held in State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute [(1995) 4 SCC 104] that the strict and settled view of the
Apex Court is that in spite of incorporation of Universities as a legislative head being in the State list, the whole gamut of the University which will
include teaching, quality of education being imparted, curriculum, standard of examination and evaluation and also research activity being carried on
will not come within the purview of the State Legislature on account of a specific entry on co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions
for higher education or research and scientific and technical education being in the Union List for which Parliament alone is competent. It was also
held therein the responsibility of the Parliament to ensure that proper standards are maintained in institutions for higher education or research
throughout the country and also uniformity in standards is maintained.
58. It is also relevant and important to note that, though entry 25 in the concurrent list deals with education including technical education, medical
education and universities, it is made subject to entry 63 to 66 of List I. Therefore, taking into account the above aspects, we are of the undoubted
opinion that the requirements of UGC Regulations, 2018 are not followed in the matter of selection of Vice Chancellor, which falls clearly in entry 66
of the Union List. Which thus means, the UGC Regulations, 2018 would apply in the case of appointment of Search cum Selection Committee and
also selection out of the panel of names; however, the Chancellor has exercised the power in terms of Section 33 of the Act 2010 which is running
contrary to regulation 7.3 of the U.G.C Regulations, 2018.
59. Regulation 7.3 extracted above would make it clear that there is a clear procedure thereunder in the matter of appointment of Search cum
Selection Committee; the manner in which a panel of names to be provided to the Chancellor; and the appointment to be made by the Chancellor out
of the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. But, the said procedures are substantially violated.
60. Given our finding that the procedure under the UGC Regulations, 2018 is to adhere to entry 66 of the Union List, the arguments advanced by the
learned Advocate General and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Vice Chancellor thrusting upon the provisions of Act 2010 do not have
any force at all. Moreover, even in the second proviso to Section 33(2) of the Act, 2010, what is contemplated is the submission of a panel of names
not exceeding three to the Chancellor unanimously by the Selection Committee.
61. The phraseology ‘panel’ employed in the said proviso also is relevant to the context. This we say because, the learned Advocate General as
well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Vice Chancellor have a case that the said proviso only states that submitting a panel of members not
exceeding three would mean that it can be a panel of one member.
62. The term ‘panel’ is defined under Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, to mean ""a list of persons summoned as potential jurors; a
group of persons selected to serve on a jury; a set of Judges selected from a complete court to decide a specific case; esp. a group of three judges
designated to sit for an appellate court etc.â€
63. Therefore, we would say that even the State law would have to be read down to mean, a panel of three names submitted to the Chancellor
unanimously by the Selection Committee, if not, at least exceeding a panel of names more than one.
64. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Exhibit P17 Government Order dated 29.09.2019 produced along with I.A. No.
3 of 2022, wherein it is stated that the Government, as per order dated 29.06.2019, have issued orders for implementing Seventh UGC Pay Revision to
teachers in Universities, affiliated colleges, teachers in Law Colleges and Engineering Colleges and Kerala Agricultural University, Kerala Veterinary
and Animal Sciences University, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies and teachers in Physical Education and qualified Librarians etc.
65. It also shows that the Government has examined the matter in detail and decided to approve and implement the Regulations, 2018 which has come
into force on and with effect form 18.07.2018 as such. In the said Government Order, it is also made clear that all the Universities are directed to
ensure incorporation of the UGC Regulations in their statutes and Regulations within one month from the date of the order. It is also specified
thereunder that the Government will initiate steps to amend the Acts of the University if required to implement the regulations, and also to amend the
special rules to give effect to the stipulations of the UGC Regulations.
66. So also, in Exhibit P18 Minutes of the 65th University Governing Council meeting held on 08.08.2019 of the Kerala University of Fisheries and
Ocean Studies, Agenda No.1319/2019 clearly specifies that the Vice Chancellor, as per note dated 25.07.2019, ordered that the matter of
implementing the Government Order dated 29.06.2019 regarding revision of scale of pay of teachers in the Universities under Higher Education,
affiliated colleges, teachers in law colleges, Engineering Colleges, Kerala Agricultural University, Kerala Veterinary and Animal Science University
Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies may be placed in the next Governing Council for consideration.
67. Accordingly, in the meeting held on 08.08.2019, it was resolved to implement the revision of scale of pay under UGC scheme with effect from
01.01.2016 and ordered that the revised pay along with arrears with effect from 01.04.2019 shall be disbursed along with the salary for August, 2019.
68. Exhibit P19 is a communication issued by the University Grants Commission dated 14.07.2021 to the Registrar, Kerala University of Fisheries and
Ocean Studies with respect to the proposal for 12-B status. It states that the University has submitted a proposal for 12-B status, and the subsequent
visit of the UGC Expert Committee on 15th and 16th january, 2021 to consider the proposal. The report of the Expert Committee along with the
compliance report submitted by the University was placed before the Standing Committee of UGC members for consideration, and the committee
recommended various aspects, including that the faculty sanctioned and in position should be as per concerned statutory council(s)/UGC norms in all
the Departments. The recommendations of the Committee were considered by the UGC and it was decided to include the University in question in the
list of Universities under Section 12(B) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
69. The said aspects stated by us would be more meaningful in a reference to the definition of the term ‘University’, in the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956. It means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any
such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in
that behalf under the Act. Therefore, it can be seen that a State University once recognised by the UGC is obligated under law to follow its
requirements. This we say because, the UGC Act, 1956 is an Act made to make provision for the co-ordination and determination of standards in
Universities.
70. Section 12 dealing with ‘the functions of the Commission’ specifies that, it shall be the general duty of the Commission to take, in
consultation with the Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co- ordination of University
education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the purpose of
performing its functions, the Commission may discharge the functions enumerated thereunder, including any general or specified purpose and perform
such other functions as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or
conducive to the discharge of the functions prescribed.
71. It is also significant to note that it is on the basis of the power conferred under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the regulations are made which
includes a power to make a regulation for regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities. These
aspects would give a clear insight into the relevance of entry 66 of the Union List.
72. Additional documents are produced by the 4th respondent along with I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in order to impress upon us that the University in question
is functioning as per the guidance issued by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research. Annexure R4(H) is a policy paper issued by the Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, Agricultural Education Division, for quality assurance in higher Education through Accreditation by National
Agricultural Educational Accreditation Board.
73. From the perusal of the said policy paper, we could gather that the said policy paper deals with accreditation in respect of various matters,
including the Education Panel, Standing Committee on Agricultural Education, Norms and Accreditation Committee; Accreditation Board, National
Agricultural Education Accreditation Board and its Regional Centres. In our view, that has nothing to do with the co-ordination and determination of
the standards in institutions for higher education as contained under entry 66 of the Union List.
74. Moreover, in the National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board, the Secretary of the UGC is an ex-officio member. It also shows that
National Agricultural Education Accreditation Board is constituted to advise the Council in evolving the norms and standards for accreditation of
institutions and programmes of Agricultural Education, including Veterinary Sciences and Agricultural Engineering; (ii) to assist the Council for the
matters pertaining to approval, recognition, inspection and funding of institutions of Agricultural Education; (iii) evaluate the academic programme and
the institutional set up in which these programmes are conducted; (iv) to periodically assess the curricula of various degree programmes offered by the
State Agricultural Universities and other approved institutions and suggest modifications, if required; (v) to decide the equivalence of qualifications; (vi)
to lay down Norms and Standards of courses, curricula, instructional facilities, teaching staff qualifications, requirements of admission etc. and if
warranted de- recognize degree/institution; and (vii) to provide guidance on University governance, personnel and financial policies etc.
75. On evaluation of the role of ICAR, we are of the undoubted opinion that it has nothing to do with the power of the Union Government to legislate
on the basis of entry 66 of the Union List. That apart, paragraph 6 of the said policy document deals with the impact of accreditation. Sub clause (5)
thereto makes it clear that mandatory UGC guidelines were implemented because of the weightage given to them in the accreditation process.
Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Advocate General as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Vice Chancellor that the
University is absolutely guided by the policy of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, cannot be sustained. We are also of the opinion that the
policy guidelines issued by the ICAR have not at all encroached into the domain of the Union Government to co-ordinate and determine the standards
in institutions for higher education; rather it is issued for the purpose of fixing standards for accreditation of the Universities etc.
76. Learned Advocate General has invited our attention to the decision of the Five Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dr. Preeti
Srivastava and another v. State of M.P and others [(1999) 7 SCC 120] to canvass a proposition that the legislative competence of Parliament and
the legislature of the State to make laws under Article 246 is regulated by the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India in the light of entry 11 of
List II as it existed then, which gave exclusive power to the State to legislate on education including University, subject to the provisions of the entries
63 to 66 of List I and entry 25 of List III. Anyhow, entry 11 of List II was deleted and entry 25 was included in List III with effect from 03.01.1977 as
a result of the Forty Second Amendment Act of 1976.
77. The contention advanced by the learned Advocate General is that entry 25 of the List IIIâ€"Concurrent List, and other entries make it clear that
those entries are made subject to the provisions of the entries 63 to 66 of List I and in absentia of the phraseology ‘subject to"" in entry 14 of the List
II â€"State List, dealing with agriculture, agricultural education and research, it is clear that the State is vested with absolute power to legislate in
agriculture, agriculture education and research of the University in question.
78. However, we are unable to agree with the same for the basic reason that it is clearly held in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) that when there is a
conflict by and between any provision of law made by the legislature of a State, and the law made by Parliament, which it is competent to enact, then
the provisions of law made by the Parliament would have precedence over the law made by the State enactment.
79. So also, merely because certain restrictive phraseologies are employed in the entries, such as “subject toâ€, that would not disable a writ court
to identify the pith and substance of the entry contained in Schedule VII. That is to say, the court considering a question with respect to the applicable
entries in Schedule VII would have to make an endeavour to identify the purpose of entry contained in each of the list so as to arrive at a safe
conclusion, with the intention of the Parliament or the State Legislature.
80. In Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College, (2002) 8 SCC 228], the Apex Court, while considering a question with
respect to entry 66 vis-a-vis Section 17(4) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, it was held as follows:
 “6. In view of the rival submissions at the Bar, the question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned legislation can be held to be a law dealing with
coordinated development of education system within Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule or it is a law dealing with the service conditions of an employee under
the State Government. The power to legislate is engrafted under Article 246 of the Constitution and the various entries for the three lists of the Seventh Schedule are
the “fields of legislationâ€. The different entries being legislative heads are all of enabling character and are designed to define and delimit the respective areas of
legislative competence of the Union and the State Legislatures. They neither impose any restrictions on the legislative powers nor prescribe any duty for exercise of
the legislative power in any particular manner. It has been a cardinal principle of construction that the language of the entries should be given the widest scope of
which their meaning is fairly capable and while interpreting an entry of any list it would not be reasonable to import any limitation therein. The rule of widest
construction, however, would not enable the legislature to make a law relating to a matter which has no rational connection with the subject-matter of an entry. When
the vires of enactment is challenged, the court primarily presumes the constitutionality of the statute by putting the most liberal construction upon the relevant
legislative entry so that it may have the widest amplitude and the substance of the legislation will have to be looked into. The court sometimes is duty-bound to
guard against extending the meaning of the words beyond their reasonable connotation in anxiety to preserve the power of the legislature.
7. It is further a well-settled principle that entries in the different lists should be read together without giving a narrow meaning to any of them. Power of Parliament as
well as the State Legislature are expressed in precise and definite terms. While an entry is to be given its widest meaning but it cannot be so interpreted as to override
another entry or make another entry meaningless and in case of an apparent conflict between different entries, it is the duty of the court to reconcile them. When it
appears to the court that there is apparent overlapping between the two entries the doctrine of “pith and substance†has to be applied to find out the true nature
of a legislation and the entry within which it would fall. In case of conflict between entries in List I and List II, the same has to be decided by application of the
principle of “pith and substanceâ€. The doctrine of “pith and substance†means that if an enactment substantially falls within the powers expressly conferred
by the Constitution upon the legislature which enacted it, it cannot be held to be invalid, merely because it incidentally encroaches on matters assigned to another
legislature. When a law is impugned as being ultra vires of the legislative competence, what is required to be ascertained is the true character of the legislation. If on
such an examination it is found that the legislation is in substance one on a matter assigned to the legislature then it must be held to be valid in its entirety even
though it might incidentally trench on matters which are beyond its competence. In order to examine the true character of the enactment, the entire Act, its object,
scope and effect, is required to be gone into. The question of invasion into the territory of another legislation is to be determined not by degree but by substance.
The doctrine of “pith and substance†has to be applied not only in cases of conflict between the powers of two legislatures but in any case where the question
arises whether a legislation is covered by particular legislative power in exercise of which it is purported to be made.
8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of rule of construction, if the provisions of the impugned statute, namely, the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 are examined and more particularly Section 17(4) thereof which we have already extracted, the conclusion is irresistible that the statute is one squarely dealing
with coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education within the meaning of Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Both Entries 65
and 66 of List I empower the Central Legislature to secure the standards of research and the standards of higher education, the object behind them being that the
same standards are not lowered at the hands of the particular State or States to the detriment of the national progress and the power of the State Legislature must be
so exercised as not to directly encroach upon power of the Union under Entry 66. The power to coordinate does not mean merely the power to evaluate but it means
to harmonise or secure relationship for concerted action. A legislation made for the purpose of coordination of standards of higher education is essentially a
legislation by the Central Legislature in exercise of its competence under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule and sub-section (4) of Section 17 merely provides
the consequences if an institution offers a course or training in teacher education in contravention of the Act though the ultimate consequences under sub-section
(4) of Section 17 may be that an unqualified teacher will not be entitled to get an employment under the State or Central Government or in a university or in a college.
But by no stretch of imagination can the said provision be construed to mean a law dealing with employment as has been held by the High Court in the impugned
judgment.â€
81. It was held by the Apex Court in Union of India & others v. Tata Tea Company Limited and another [(2017) 10 SCC 764], that in the event
of any overlapping found in two entries of the Seventh Schedule or two legislations, it is the duty of the court to find out its true intent and purpose and
to examine the particular legislation in its pith and substance, in order to determine whether it fits in one or other of the lists.
82. Therefore, considering the principles of law evolved by the Apex Court and the facts and circumstances, we are of the clear opinion that the
larger purpose of entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII is for co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education or research in national
level, and therefore, entry 14 of List II of the Seventh Schedule dealing with ‘agriculture, including agricultural education and research’, would
have to concede to the broader intention of the Parliament contained under entry 66 in the Union List.
83. Be that as it may, the Apex Court recently had occasion to consider the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam
Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S v. Dr. Rajasree M.S & Ors. [judgment dated 21.10.2022 in Civil
Appeal Nos. 7634-7635 of 2022@ SLP© Nos. 21108-21109 of 2021] and held that the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in
Gambhirdan K. Gaxhvi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [(2022) 5 SCC 179] and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Anindya
Sundar Das & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022, would strictly apply to the matter and the said University had to follow the UGC Regulations in
the matter of the appointment of Search cum Selection Committee as well as recommendation of the panel of names for appointment of the Vice
Chancellor.
84. However, a distinction was attempted to be drawn by the learned Advocate General as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Vice Chancellor
that as per Section 13 of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, the committee shall recommend unanimously a panel of not less
than three suitable persons from among the eminent persons in the field of Engineering Science and therefore, there should be a panel of not less than
three suitable persons; and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of appointment of Prof. (Dr.) Sreejith P.S may not strictly apply
to the facts of this case.
85. But, we are unable to agree with the same for the basic reason that in the said judgment, the Apex Court had clearly stated that as per the UGC
Regulations, the visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee; that when
only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of other
candidates; therefore, the appointment of the Vice Chancellor therein can only be said to be dehors and/or contrary to the provisions of the UGC
Regulations; and when, only one name was recommended in spite of panel of suitable candidates, the appointment of respondent No. 1 therein can be
said to be illegal and void ab initio, and, it was thereupon that the writ of quo warranto was issued.
86. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in that regard relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Gambhirdan (supra) and has invited
our attention to paragraphs 50 and 53 of the said judgment, which reads thus:
“50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise of powers under Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(g) of the UGC Act, 1956. Even
as per the UGC Act every rule and regulation made under the said Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, being a subordinate legislation, UGC
Regulations becomes part of the Act. In case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, Central legislation shall prevail by applying the
rule/principle of repugnancy as enunciated in Article 254 of the Constitution as the subject “education†is in the Concurrent List (List III) of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution. Therefore, any appointment as a Vice-Chancellor contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations can be said to be in violation of the
statutory provisions, warranting a writ of quo warranto.
53. It is to be noted that the post of Vice-Chancellor of the university is a very important post so far as the university is concerned. Being a leader and head of the
institution, the Vice-Chancellor of the university has to play very important role. While academic qualifications, administrative experience, research credentials and
track record could be considered as basic eligibility requirements, the greater qualities of a Vice-Chancellor would be one who is a true leader and a passionate
visionary. A Vice-Chancellor needs to be one who understands and handles the affairs of the university as ethical business and maintains a pellucidity in his conduct
towards the betterment of the university as well as the students therein. A Vice-Chancellor should be one who can inspire students and guarantee entry of high
quality teachers into the university system. A Vice-Chancellor functions as a bridge between the executive and academic wings of a university as he is the head of
both a “teacher†and an “administratorâ€.â€
87. Taking into consideration the law accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold that the selection of Dr. K. Riji John as the Vice Chancellor of the
Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, overlooking the UGC Regulations, 2018, cannot be sustained under law. We are also of the view
that the Search cum Selection Committee constituted is also in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Even though learned Senior Counsel for the
Vice Chancellor Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court inJ ayant Verma and others v. Union of India and others
[(2018) 4 SCC 743] and Uco Bank and another v. Dipak Debbarma and others [(2017) 2 SCC 585) with respect to the inconsistency between the
Central and State Acts, we are of the definite opinion that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgments would not strictly apply to the
facts and circumstances of this case.
88. To put it otherwise, the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018 in the matter of appointment of Vice Chancellor and the constitution of the
Search cum Selection Committee have supremacy and paramountcy over the provisions of the Act, 2010.
89. It is an admitted fact that the appointment of the Search cum Selection Committee and the Vice Chancellor was made by the Chancellor in terms
of the provisions of the Act, 2010, though not fully; and therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the constitution of the Selection Committee and
the appointment of the Vice Chancellor admittedly done on the basis of Section 33 of the Act, 2010 cannot be sustained under law.
90. Therefore, Exhibit P4 notification dated 16.09.2020 issued by the Chancellor, respondent No.1, appointing the Selection Committee without the
nominee of the University Grants Commission; Exhibit P9 resolution of the Selection Committee dated 22.01.2021 recommending only one name, and
Exhibit P10 order dated 23.01.2021 of the Chancellor appointing Dr. K. Riji John for a period of 5 years from the date of assumption of the office or
till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, as provided under Section 33(6) of the Act, 2010 are quashed. Consequently, there will be a
direction to the Chancellor to constitute a Search cum Selection Committee for recommendation of a panel of names to the Chancellor in accordance
with regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, at the earliest possible time and accordingly.
91. Before we part with the judgment, we make it clear that the contentions raised by the writ petitioner with respect to the disqualification of Dr. K.
Riji John for want of 10 years of service as professor for the appointment as Vice Chancellor, is not legally sustainable, especially in view of the fact
that the certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu, Dr. J. Jayalalithaa Fisheries University would make it clear that he had sufficient qualification as a
Professor.
Upshot of the discussion is that W.P.(C) No. 16457 of 2021 is allowed. W.P.(C) No. 25932 of 2021 seeking a writ of quo warranto will also stand
allowed in terms of the findings rendered by us in W.P.(C) No. 16457 of 2021.
