ANUPAM BERA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner being General Secretary of one Jatiyatabadi Adhyapak O Gabeshak Sangha, a registered society and organization of educationist, has filed the present public interest petition challenging the validity of West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 and West Bengal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 and has prayed for writ of quo warranto questioning the appointments of respondent nos. 5 to 35 as Vice-Chancellors of different Universities within the State of West Bengal.

(2.) The plea of the petitioner is that the provisions of the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 (for short, 'Act of 2012') and West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 (for short, 'Act of 2014') are ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India, University Grants Commission Act and the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2018. Further plea of the petitioner is that the respondent Vice-Chancellors have been appointed either by a Search Committee which was not properly constituted or without constituting any such Committee. Some of the appointments are also being challenged on the ground that they do not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria of 10 years experience as Professor in the University or 10 years experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization as prescribed in the UGC Regulation. Some of the appointments have also been questioned on the ground that the appointments have been made in defiance of specific order or without specific approval of the Chancellor, who in law, is the sole appointing authority for Vice-Chancellor post. A plea has also been taken that the appointment of some of the respondent Vice-Chancellors have been made contrary to the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations, 2018.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that provisions of the Act of 2012 and Act of 2014 run counter to the UGC Regulations, 2018 as the minimum qualifications prescribed in the impugned Acts for the post of Vice-Chancellors stands diluted and these provisions prescribed minimum qualification lower than the one prescribed in the UGC Regulations, 2018. A further plea has been raised that in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2018, the Search Committee for appointment of Vice-Chancellors must have a nominee of the Chairman, UGC which was missing in the Search Committee formed for appointment of the respondent Vice-Chancellors. She further submits that the UGC Regulations have statutory force having being framed under the UGC Act, 1956 and that the UGC Regulations are applicable in the State of West Bengal even if the UGC Scheme has not been accepted by the State and the State has no option in this regard. In support of this submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473. She has also referred to relevant entries of List I and List III of Schedule 7 and Article 254 of the Constitution and has submitted that in case of conflict, the Central Legislation will prevail. In support of this submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2022) 5 SCC 179. She has also submitted that some of the respondent Vice-Chancellors have been appointed by the State taking recourse to the removal of difficulty clause which is not permissible and in support of her submission, she has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das and Others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1382. She has submitted that the appointing authority for the office of Vice-Chancellor is the Chancellor, therefore, the appointments made by the State cannot be sustained and that if the initial appointment itself is defective, then extension by the proper authority cannot cure the defect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baharul Islam and Others vs. Indian Medical Association and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 79 and has further submitted that UGC Regulations, 2018 are mandatory whereas UGC Regulations, 2010 were directory since they were applicable to those who had adopted the Scheme. She submits that there is no question of exercising discretion while issuing the writ of quo warranto against the respondent Vice-Chancellors because they are holders of high position and it is not the issue of their livelihood as they will go back to their original places.