SANAT KUMAR GHOSH Vs. CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed as a Public Interest Litigation by a professor who has 41 years of teaching experience, seeks for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto to declare that the Respondent Nos. 28 to 40 do not have a right to hold office of Vice Chancellor and to quash their appointments. The Respondent No. 1 to 13 are the Chancellors in the different Universities in the State of West Bengal who is none other than his Excellency Hon'ble Governor of West Bengal. It is submitted that the various enactments under which the Universities were established provides the methodology by which the Vice Chancellors will be appointed to the University. The petitioner would state that in 2022, the State of West Bengal appointed 24 Vice Chancellors to the 24 Universities. The said appointments as well as the validity of the West Bengal University Laws Amendment (Act), 2012 and the West Bengal Laws Amendment (Act), 2014 were challenged in a Public Interest Litigation in WPA (P) 170 of 2022. The said writ petition was allowed by judgment dtd. 14/3/2023 holding that the Search Committee constituted by the Government of West Bengal did not have any Member nominated by the Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC), and that the Search Committees so constituted were in violation of the UGC Regulations of the year 2018. The Division Bench held that the UGC Regulations, 2018 will prevail over the provisions of the concerned State Universities Act relating to appointment of Vice Chancellors and consequently held that the appointments of the 24 Vice Chancellors were unsustainable in law. There were also other directions issued in the said writ petition as to how the Vice Chancellors have to be appointed in terms of the relevant provisions. The said order passed by the Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the Government of West Bengal made several amendments bringing the State Universities Act in tune with the UGC Regulations, 2018, by passing the West Bengal Universities Laws (Amendment Ordinance), 2013. In the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench, certain of the Vice Chancellors resigned and in respect of others the term of office came to an end and an order was passed appointing interim Vice Chancellors for a period of 3 months to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice Chancellor as an interim measure and 28 professors were so appointed. The petitioner would state that he has come to know that the Minister-in-charge of the Department of the Higher Education, Government of West Bengal on 18/5/2023 proposed the name of 27 persons for being appointed as Vice Chancellors for a tenure of 6 months. It is a further case of the petitioner that contrary to the proposal given by the Minister-in-charge. The Chancellor of the respondent Universities without consultation with the Minister-in-charge had made series of appointments of Vice Chancellors. In this regard, the petitioner has referred to the various enactments under which the respondent Universities were constituted and by way of illustration we refer to the Kalyani University Act, 1981. In the said Act, reference has been made to Sec. 9 (5) (b) and it is submitted that the said provision expressly provides that when a vacancy occurs in the office of a Vice Chancellor by reason of death, resignation or expiry of the term of his office or otherwise, then pending the appointment of a Vice Chancellor, the Chancellor in consultation with the Minister may appoint any person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice Chancellor for any period not exceeding 6 months. It is submitted that the appointment made by the Chancellor appointing the private respondent as Vice Chancellors is in contravention of the mandate as contained in Sec. 9 (5) (b) of the Kalyani University Act, 1981. The petitioner would further state that the Respondent Nos. 32, 34, 35, 39 and 40 do not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed as Vice Chancellors of the Universities to which they have been appointed. Further, it is submitted that the impugned appointments were made by the Chancellor without even considering the names proposed by the Minister-in-charge. The provisions of the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 has been referred to State that the Government of West Bengal has the authority to institute an enquiry over the affairs of the University in relation to financial matters and, therefore, the Government has a significant role to play in the management by the Universities and thus, the requirement of consultation with the Minister-in-charge in the appointment of Vice Chancellors as laid down in all the University Acts provides for active deliberation on the names of the Vice Chancellors to be appointed between Minister-in-charge and the Hon'ble Chancellor. Thus, the petitioner would state that the impugned appointments are arbitrary, it lacks transparency.

(2.) The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner after reiterating the factual position, referred to the orders of appointments of the private respondents as the Vice Chancellors dtd. 1/3/2023 and 31/5/2023. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that there was any consultation with the Minister-in-charge by the Chancellor. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Tawakya Singh Versus State of Bihar (2013) 16 SCC 206 to explain the meaning of the word 'consultation'. Reference was also made to several paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Anupam Bera in WPA (P) 170 of 2022 dtd. 14/3/2022, for the proposition as to when and what circumstances a writ of quo-warranto can be issued. It is submitted that in the absence of any consultation with the Minister-in-charge, the appointment of the private respondents as Vice Chancellors is illegal and therefore, a writ of quo-warranto can be issued. Further, to support the argument that the statute must be read to avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or terms meaningless or redundant, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Versus Anindya Sundar Das and Ors (2022) SCC Online SC 1382.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal submitted that when the interim Vice Chancellors were appointed by orders dtd. 1/3/2023, there was prior consultation with the Minister-in-charge which is evident from the order itself. In this regard, the learned Senior Advocate has referred to the various orders issued by the Chancellor and by way of illustration referred to the order appointing the interim Vice Chancellor from Kanyashree University, Nadia. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the averments made in the writ petition more particularly Paragraph No. 12 mentioning the names of 27 professors forwarded by the Minister-in-charge to the Hon'ble Chancellor for being appointed as interim Vice Chancellors. However, the same has been totally brushed aside and ignored by the Hon'ble Chancellor which clearly shows that fair procedure was not adopted. Further, by referring to the 2023 Amendment Ordinance, it is submitted that in terms of Sec. 9(1) the Vice Chancellor of the University shall be a person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment; he shall be a distinguished academician with a minimum of 10 years' experience as Professor in a University or 10 years' experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. It is submitted that several candidates who have now been appointed, who are the private respondents, do not fulfill the eligibility criteria in terms of Sec. 9(1)(a) of the Amendment Ordinance. Further, it is not clear as to what is the source of knowledge of the Hon'ble Chancellor about the competence, integrity, moral and institutional commitment of candidates and a fair and transparent procedure having not been adopted, the State Government does not approve of the appointments as they are all illegal appointments. The learned Senior Advocate referred to the 'First Statues' of Kazi Nazrul University and referred to Statute No. 141 (9) and submitted that the said provision states that subject to the order of the State Government as may be made, an employee shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to a post to which he has been appointed with effect from the date he assumes the duties of that post and shall seize to draw the same when he seizes to discharge the duties. Thus, it is submitted that the satisfaction of the Government is necessary and the same cannot be dispensed with. Reference was also made to Sec. 5 and 6 of the West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 and it was submitted that the Government has supervisory power. It is submitted that the question of accountability would come into play and the Chancellor is not accountable in the instant case and this is a very important aspect which the Court should consider. Reference was also made to the West Bengal State Universities (Terms and Conditions of Services of Vice Chancellors) Rules, 2019 by referring to Rule 8. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Chancellor has to communicate through the department which has not been done. The mode of consultation by the Hon'ble Chancellor with the State Government has also been mentioned in Rule 9. It is submitted that though the said rule has been challenged, the same has not been set aside and the matter is pending before the Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders of appointment of the private respondents as Vice Chancellors by orders dtd. 31/5/2023 could not have been communicated by the Hon'ble Chancellor to the candidates and it is contrary to the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Versus Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) (2013) 3 SCC 1 to explain the meaning of the term 'consultation'. For the same proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister and Ors (2021) 8 SCC 1. Thus, it is submitted that it is not clear as to what is the procedure adopted by the Hon'ble Chancellor, whether all the persons appointed as Vice Chancellors possessed the requisite qualification, whether the Hon'ble Chancellor had sent the names to the Minister-in-charge, was there any sitting/ discussion with the Minister-in-charge, in the absence of any of these, the entire selection stands vitiated as it lacks transparency and it is against the provisions of the various enactments under which the respondent Universities have been constituted.