KANTILAL CHATURBHAI PATEL Vs. CHANCELLOR NORTH GUJ UNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek a declaration that the action of the Chancellor of the North Gujarat University in not appointing the Vice-Chancellor from the names recommended by the Search Committee and calling for another meeting of the Search Committee to recommend names for appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. A direction is sought on the respondent No. 1 to select and appoint the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the three names already recommended by the Search Committee under Sec. 10(3) of the North Gujarat University Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) The petitioners are associated with the North Gujarat University as narrated by them in para 3 of the petition. It appears that the term of appointment of the earlier Vice-Chancellor Mr. K. P. Yagnik was due to be over on 31/07/1992. Therefore, as per the provisions of Sec. 10(2) the Chancellor appointed a Committee of four members on 20/04/1992, for the purpose of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 10. There is an elaborate procedure prescribed for nominating the members of the Committee by the Executive Council and Academic Council jointly, by the Vice-Chancellor of all the Universities established by law in the State of Gujarat, by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi and by the Chancellor in Statute No. 159 of the Statutes framed under the Act. There is no challenge against the validity of the constitution of the Committee and, therefore, no discussion is called for on the question of the constitution of the Committee. The Committee thus constituted by Chancellor recommended a panel, consisting of three names to the Chancellor, arranged in an alphabetical order as per their letter dated 7/07/1992. There is no dispute about the three names, which are said to have been recommended by the Committee, which is popularly known as "Search Committee". The Chancellor, however, did not announce the appointment from the panel even after the term of the previous Vice-Chancellor came to an end on 31/07/1992. It appears that the Chancellor had instructed the Registrar that the matter be referred back to the Search Committee. The petitioners' case is that the Chancellor is bound to appoint the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the three persons recommended by the Committee and he has no other choice in that matter. It is their case that the Chancellor cannot send the matter back to the Search Committee for reconsideration. It is alleged that the action of the Chancellor in asking the Committee to send a fresh panel was not contemplated by the provision of Sec. 10(1) of the Act and such a course if permitted would result in abuse of the process of appointment of a Vice- Chancellor.

(3.) The case of the respondents is that at the stage of the process of consultation envisaged by Sec. 10(1), it was observed that the norms as regards the age of appointment of a Vice-Chancellor were not taken into account by the Search Committee. According to the respondents, the Vice-Chancellors are normally appointed from amongst persons who are below 65 years of age, but while recommending three names, the Search Committee had included in it two persons above the age of 65. It is their say that the policy of the University Grants Commission was that the age of superannuation for the Vice-Chancellors should be 65 years, and the State Government was being advised by the University Grants Commission to take necessary steps in this direction. It was, therefore, decided by the Chancellor to request the Search Committee to send a panel of three suitable and eligible persons keeping in view the advice of the University Grants Commission. It is the case of the respondents that the action of the Chancellor was grounded on valid reasons and cannot be termed as arbitrary, illegal or in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.