K.VENKATACHALAPATHY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a practising lawyer. He filed this writ petition in public interest questioning the constitutional validity of the impugned Acts amending some of the provisions of the following Acts:

(2.) By the impugned amendments, the power to appoint Vice- Chancellors for the aforesaid Universities has been taken away from the Chancellor and vested with the Government.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned amendments suffer from the vice of repugnancy since they are in direct conflict with Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018. According to him, the issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra. He argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already upheld the primacy of UGC Regulations over State Laws in (2022) 5 SCC 179 (Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi -vs- State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 318 (State of West Bengal -vs- Anindya Sundar Das and Others), (2023) 17 SCC 338 (Professor Sreejith -vs- Dr.Rajashree MS and Others) and that therefore, the impugned amendments are unconstitutional. He pointed out that pursuant to the impugned amendments, search committees had been constituted for filling up the vacancies in the post of Vice Chancellor in respect of some of the Universities. Applications had been invited from eligible candidates. His case is that if the operation of the impugned amendments is not suspended, appointments would be made and that was the urgency for moving this Court during its Vacation Sitting.