NGOS COORDINATION FED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved of re -appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Vice Chancellor of the Sher -I -Kashmir University of Agricultural Science & Technology of Kashmir, interference of the Writ Court was sought by the Writ petitioner -Appellant on the ground of non adherence to the rules, prescribing the mode and method of appointment of the Vice Chancellor, enshrined in sub section (1) of section 25 of the Sher -I -Kashmir Universities of Agriculture Scientists and Technology Act 1982 (Act hereinafter), but in the face of the interpretation, placed by the Writ Court, that the procedure contained in sub section (1) is not applicable to the reappointment of the Vice Chancellor, the attempt made by the writ petitioner to persuade the Writ Court, to quash the order of reappointment of the Vice Chancellor, proved futile, resultantly, dismissal of writ petition in limine, hence this Letters Patent Appeal, alleging error of judgment to the learned Single Judge, founded on irrefutable fact that the reappointment of the Vice Chancellor has been made without seeking the panel of eminent agricultural/veterinary scientists from the Selection Committee in terms of sub section (1) of Section 25 of the Act, giving rise to a principal question before us which we would like to formulate hereunder: Whether exercise of the power of reappointment vested in the Chancellor is impermissible without seeking a fresh panel of eminent Agricultural/Veterinary scientists from the Selection Committee as per the procedure prescribing the mode and method of appointment of the Vice Chancellor, enshrined in sub section (1) of section 25 of the Sher -I -Kashmir Universities of Agriculture Scientists and Technology Act 1982?

(2.) TO answer the question, reference to the relevant provision of the statute becomes imperative and for facility of reference it is extracted: "25. The Vice -Chancellor. (1) The Vice -Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University and he shall be appointed by the Chancellor from the penal of eminent agricultural/veterinary scientists drawn by the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee shall consist of the following persons: - (I) Director General ICAR: (II) Chairman UGC or his nominee. (III) Chief Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Jammu; and Kashmir Government (nominee of the Jammu and Kashmir Government) (IV) One nominee of the Chancellor Provided that one of the members shall be nominated by the Chancellor to act as Convenor: Provided further that the project Director -cum -Vice -Chancellor (designate) appointed by the Government shall be the first Vice -Chancellor of the University] (2) The Vice -chancellor shall hold office for a term of five years or until fie attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier He shall be eligible for re -appointment for a second term of five years or until he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. The emoluments and other conditions of the service of the Vice -Chancellor shall be such as may be prescribed and shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment"

(3.) PHRASEOLOGY employed in the provision extracted above unveils vesting of the power of appointment as also reappointment in the Chancellor but the basic entry has to be made, out of the panel to be prepared by committee, constitution whereof, is spelt out in sub section (1) itself. The appointment of the respondent Vice Chancellor having come into being by due adherence to the procedure contained in the sub section (1), therefore, no grievance was registered ever. The grouse originates from non adherence to the mandate of sub section (1) at the stage of, reappointment only. But does the scheme of the re -appointment admit any requirement of drawing of a panel by the selection committee, sub section (2) assumes significance so as to find out as to whether any such prohibition does exist -therein, but its reading clearly shows that the condition of drawing of a panel prescribed in sub section (1) has not been incorporated in sub section (2). Had it been the intention of the Legislature, nothing prevented it to prescribe so and in absence of having provided for selection for reappointment by selection committee, anything said to the contrary would amount to rewriting the statute by imposition of fetters of procedure on the discretion of the Chancellor requiring him to seek a fresh panel for re -appointment of a Vice Chancellor notwithstanding the fact that he virtually owes his appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor by strict adherence to the procedure stipulated in sub section (1). Viewed thus, we are of the opinion that re -appointment is the discretion of the Chancellor, provided basic entry of the person to be re -appointed is through a mode prescribed by sub section (1) of section 25 of the Act which is not disputed in the case on hand Situated thus, we answer the question in the negative.