GEORGE Vs. CHANCELLOR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the order of the Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University, removing the petitioner from the office of the Vice- Chancellor of the University, is the issue that comes up for consideration in this writ petition. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows;

(2.) The office of the Vice-Chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University having fallen vacant, proceedings were initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MGU Act') for appointing a new incumbent to the said office. As a first step in that direction, the Chancellor of the University issued a notification dated 26.11.2012 constituting a three member committee as contemplated in Section 10 of the MGU Act. The Chief Secretary of the State was the nominee of the Chancellor in the said committee and he was also to be the Convener of the committee. While the committee began to receive applications from interested candidates immediately after its constitution, pursuant to a meeting held by the members of the committee on 20.12.2012, it was decided by the committee to receive applications from interested candidates till 28.12.2012, before commencing the process of shortlisting of candidates for submission to the Chancellor. Thereafter, on 31.12.2012, the committee submitted two panels of names. Two members of the panel submitted a panel of three names and the other member submitted a separate panel of three names. From among the panel of names submitted by two members of the committee, the Chancellor appointed the petitioner as the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide Notification dated 05.01.2013.

(3.) Immediately after the appointment of the petitioner as the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the Chancellor received representations from the 3rd respondent citing certain irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner. The Chancellor, thereupon, vide Ext.R2 (g) communication, forwarded the same to the Chief Secretary for necessary action. The Chief Secretary, as convener of the committee, caused the 2nd respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry in the matter and submit a report to him. Ext.R3 (m) is a copy of that report and therein it was opined that the appointment of the petitioner as Vice-Chancellor was tainted and invalid on account of misidentification, misrepresentation, deception and misleading the appointing authority.