KRISHNA CHANDRO GOUDO Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. B. Choudhury and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsels for all the respondents. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the selection process initiated vide Advertisement dtd. 26/4/2022 (Annexure - 1) for the post of Vice Chancellor, Krishna Kanta Handique State Open University (University). Referring to Clause - 1 of the terms and conditions of the Advertisement, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the eligibility of the applicants is to be strictly ascertained on the basis of UGC Regulations, 2018. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that in terms of Clause 1.1 of Chapter-IV of the first statutes of the University notified on 30/3/2009, the Vice Chancellor is to be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendations of an Advisory Board constituted by the Chancellor for the purpose consisting of three (3) members, of whom one (1) member shall be elected by the Board of Management, one (1) member shall be nominated by the State Government and one (1) member shall be nominated by the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall appoint one (1) of them as Chairman of the Advisory Board. Further, as per Clause 1.2 of the same Statutes, the Advisory Board shall recommend a panel of names of three (3) persons to the Chancellor, who may appoint one (1) of the persons recommended to be the Vice Chancellor. If the Chancellor does not approve any of the person recommended by the Advisory Board, he may call for a fresh recommendation.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel submits that in exercise of the powers vested under Sec. 6(i)(b) of Sec. 6(ii)(b) of Chapter-II of the Statutes as amended, the Chancellor of the University nominated the respondent No. 5 to be the Expert Member of the Selection Committee for selection of Teachers of the University along with another Expert Member for selection of Officers in the University. The said nomination was issued by the Governor's Secretariat, Assam on 9/2/2021 (Annexure - 4) and by the Office of the Registrar of the University on 17/2/2021. As per the 2 notifications, the term of office of the members nominated is for 3 years in terms of the Statutes.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel submits that as per Clause 7.3 ii of the UGC Regulations, 2018, notified on 18/7/2018 (Annexure - 5), the selection for the post of Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3 - 5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee through public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. However, in clear violation of this provision, the respondent No. 3 vide Notification dtd. 3/3/2022 (Annexure - 2) in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Sec. 1.1 of Sec. 1 of Chapter-IV of the Statutes, constituted a panel of 3 persons for the purpose of appointment of Vice Chancellor of the University, which included the respondent No. 5 as the nominee of the Chancellor and also as the Chairman of the Advisory Board. The learned Senior Counsel submits that since the respondent No. 5 is already associated with the University with her appointment as an Expert Member of the Selection Committee for selection of Teachers of the University, she could not have been nominated as one of the member and Chairman of the Advisory Board to appoint the Vice Chancellor. The same being in clear violation of Clause 7.3 ii of the UGC Regulations, 2018, any selection made by the constituted Advisory Board is unauthorized, illegal and cannot be acted upon in any manner. He therefore submits that the impugned Notification dtd. 3/3/2022 should be set aside and the respondent authorities should be directed to reconstitute the Advisory Board in terms of Clause 7.3 (2) of the UGC Regulations, 2018.