NITENDRA VAJPAYEE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is claiming himself to be an academician in the field of education and a practising advocate. According to him, he is a public-spirited person and interested in the maintenance of high slandered education. According to him by way of the impugned amendment, the university will not be in a position to maintain a high standard in the matter of appointment of a vice chancellor (Kulpati). Sec. 13 of the Act of 1973 prescribes the procedure of appointment of Kulpati and as per the un-amended provision and UGC regulation of 2010, the committee for appointment of Kulpati consists of one nominated person elected from the Executive Council, one person nominated by the chairman of the University Grants Commission and one person nominated by the Chancellor (Kuladipati). It is further submitted that the Executive Council is defined under sec. 23 of the Act of 1973. The Executive Council is nothing but a group of academicians such as Deans, Professors, Principals and Secretaries of the Government of Madhya Pradesh or Higher Education. It is further submitted by the learned counsel Shri Samwaskar that now the state government by way of amendment in sec. 13(2)(i) and sec. 13(3) of the Act has replaced the word Executive Council by the word State Government. It means that henceforth the Executive Council of the concerned university will have no say in the matter of selection or appointment of Kulpati. This power has been snatched and taken away by the State Government to defeat the independent power of the Executive Council to work for the betterment of the education in the university. No useful object is sought to be achieved by making such an amendment in sec. 13 of the Act. It is further submitted that clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulation 2010 highlights the importance of the search committee and mandates the inclusion of such members who are persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education. The apprehension of the petitioner that the state government may send representatives without verifying his expertise or experience in the field of education and selection of Kulpati or he may not be an eminence in the sphere of the higher education hence the petitioner has approached this court under such apprehension challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid notification.

(2.) The respondents have filed the return by submitting that the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless and that by way of the impugned amendment the state government has taken away the autonomy of the university in the matter of appointment of Kulpati. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the impugned notification as he is nowhere connected with the functioning of the university. The present petitioner appears to be a sponsored litigation on behalf of the persons who are aspirants to become vice-chancellor in Vikram University Ujjain. It is further submitted that the subject of higher education and the university falls at entry no.25 of the list 3 (concurrent list appended to the Schedule VII of the constitution) in terms of Article 246 (2) of the constitution. Therefore, it is well within the competence of jurisdiction of the State Government to legislate on the said subject. The amendment has been made strictly in conformity and consonance with clause 7.3.0 (II) of the UGC Regulation, 2010 which specifically provides that the search committee shall be a team of the person of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the university concern or its college, therefore, by way of amendment there will be no member of the search committee who is connected with any manner with the university. Therefore, in order to achieve the aforesaid, the appropriate amendment has been brought to the statute. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the state government is also directly responsible and answerable to the public for the matter related to the university and the appointment of Kulpati therefore while appointing the member of the search committee the government shall be bound to follow the provisions of 7.3.0 (I) of the UGC Regulation, 2010 that the member of the search committee shall be a person of eminence in a sphere of higher education, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless that the government will send his nominee or any person of eminence in the sphere of higher education hence the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The competence of the state government in respect of the amendment of the Act of 1973 is not in dispute and is also not under-challenged. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless. We have no reason to believe that while appointing a person to be a member of a search committed under the amended sec. of 13(2)(i) and sub-sec. (3) of the Act of 1973 by the State Government he shall not be a person of eminence in the sphere of higher education. Under un-amended provision the nominee of by the Executive Council of the concerned University was bound to be connected in any manner with such University or its colleges, hence the State Government has made amendment in the statute to achieve complete independence of search committee and to avoid scope biases and favouritism as per 7.3.0 (II) of the UGC Regulation 2010. Now while preparing the panel, the search committee would 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.