Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5946-5947 OF 2014

KALYANI MATHIVANAN              … APPELLANT

VERSUS

K.V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.            … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6455-6456 OF 2014 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8602-8603 OF 2014.  

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J

These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against a  

common  judgment  and  order  dated  26th June,  2014  passed  by  the  

Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Writ  

Petition (MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of  

2013.

The aforesaid writ petitions were preferred by K.V. Jeyaraj  

and I. Ismail respondents/writ petitioners praying for issuance of  

a  writ  of  quo  warranto  directing  the  appellant  –  Dr.  Kalyani  

Mathivanan to show cause under what authority she continues to  

hold  the  office  of  the  Vice-Chancellor,  Madurai  Kamaraj  

University.

Page 2

2

2. By  the  impugned  judgment  the  High  Court  held  that  the  appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan did not satisfy the eligibility  

criteria  stipulated  by  the  UGC  Regulations  of  Minimum  

Qualifications  for  Appointment  of  Teachers  and  other  Academic  

Staff  in  Universities  and  Colleges  and  Measures  for  the  

Maintenance  of  Standards  in  Higher  Education  2010  (hereinafter  

referred to as the ‘UGC Regulations, 2010’) for appointment as  

Vice-Chancellor  and  non-fulfilment  of  such  eligibility  criteria  

cannot be completely white washed on the specious plea that the  

University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 are not mandatory.  

The  High  Court  set  aside  the  order  of  appointment  of  the  

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan and allowed the writ petitions.

3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows: The  post  of  Vice-Chancellor  in  Madurai  Kamaraj  University  

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) fell vacant in the  

year 2011-2012 and the Government constituted a search Committee  

to appoint a suitable candidate. All together names of 104 persons  

were considered by the search Committee and finally three persons  

namely  (1)  Dr.  R.  Jayaraman,  Professor  of  Management  Studies  

(Retd.),  Member  Secretary,  Centre  for  Entrepreneurship  

Development,  Madurai,  (2)Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan,  Head  of  the  

Department  of  English,  Ethiraj  College  for  Women,  Chennai  and  

(3)Dr.  T.  Ramasamy,  Professor  of  History  (on  lien)  Registrar,  

Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli were short listed. On the  

basis  of  the  recommendation  of  the  search  Committee,  the  

appellant-Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan  was  selected  and  appointed  as

Page 3

3

Vice-Chancellor by G.O.(1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2)Department,  

Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 for a period of  

three years with effect from the date of assumption of office.

4. Challenging  the  selection  of  the  appellant-Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan, two separate writ petitions were preferred by Dr. K.V.  

Jeyaraj, and Dr. I. Ismail, who were aspirants to the said post-

respondents herein. The said challenge was mainly on the ground  

that as per UGC Regulations, 2010, the person to be appointed as  

Vice-Chancellor,  should  be  a  distinguished  academician,  with  a  

minimum of 10 years experience as Professor in a University system  

or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed  

research/academic organization and Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan does not  

satisfy the said criteria. The High Court took up both the writ  

petitions  together  for  disposal  and  by  the  judgment  and  order  

allowed the writ petitions and set aside the appointment order of  

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor.

5. The appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan on notice appeared before  the  High  Court  and  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  Court  the  

following facts:

She was appointed as Assistant Professor in Ethiraj College  

on 16th January, 1981. The Government of Tamil Nadu on 5th December,  

1983 redesignated the post of Assistant Professor as Lecturer and  

Professor  as  Lecturer  [Senior  Scale/Selection  Grade].  She  was  

promoted  as  Lecturer  (Senior  Scale)  in  Ethiraj  College  on  22nd  

August, 1991. Since, 1995, the appellant has been a recognized  

Guide for M.Phil. candidates in the University of Madras.  The

Page 4

4

appellant was promoted as Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader on 7th  

May, 1998 and since then she has been a Recognized Guide for Ph.D  

candidate in the University of Madras. In 2008, She was promoted  

as  Head  of  the  English  Department,  Ethiraj  College.  On  9th  

September, 2009, the Department of Higher Education, Government of  

Tamil  Nadu  based  on  the  report  of  the  Official  Committee  

constituted  to  examine  the  recommendations  of  the  G.K.  Chadha  

Committee,  passed  an  order  that  there  shall  be  only  three  

designations in respect of Teachers in Universities and Colleges,  

namely, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors.  

It  was  further  ordered  that  the  posts  of  Professors  shall  be  

created for under-Graduate and Post-Graduate Colleges on the basis  

of guidelines prescribed therein. However, this direction has not  

been implemented till date in the State of Tamil Nadu.  

6. On  behalf  of  the  appellant-Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan,  it  was  further contended that she is qualified for appointment as Vice-

Chancellor of the University as per the Madurai Kamaraj University  

Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University Act, 1965’).  

It was further contended that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are not  

mandatory but directory and cannot override the provisions of the  

University Act, 1965.  

7. The High Court by the impugned order framed the following  questions for consideration, namely:

(i) whether the post of Associate Professor held by  

the  appellant-Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan  in  a  private  

aided  College  can  be  considered  as  an  equivalent

Page 5

5

post, satisfying requirement of paragraph 7.3.0 of  

the UGC Regulations, 2010;  

(ii) whether the prescriptions contained in paragraph  

7.3.0 of the Annexure to the UGC Regulations, 2010 is  

mandatory  or  directory;  and  whether  the  U.G.C.  

Regulation, 2010 would override the provisions of the  

University  Act,  1965  and  the  Statute  framed  

thereunder.

8. The  High  Court  after  taking  into  consideration  the  qualification laid down in the Annexure to the UGC Regulations,  

2010  answered  the  first  question  in  negative,  against  the  

appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan.  

The  High  Court  also  rejected  the  submission  that  the  Vice-

Chancellor need not be a Professor or teacher and observed as  

follows:

“44.Therefore, it is not possible to accept  contention  that  drawing  inspiration  from  the  past, one need not be a Professor or even a  teacher  to  become  a  Vice-Chancellor.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  several  committees  were  constituted in the past about 70 years by the  Government of India, to improve the standards  of  Universities.  Recently,  a  study  was  conducted by two persons by name K. Sudha Rao,  Vice-Chancellor,  Karnataka  State  Open  University,  Mysore  and  Advisor  ASERF  and  Mithilesh  Kr.  Singh,  Senior  Fellow,  (ASERF),  New  Delhi  analysing  the  different  methods  adopted for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor  in Indian Universities in comparison to those  adopted by some foreign Universities.

45.This  paper  indicates  that  as  per  the  reports  of  the  Radhakrishnan  Commission  (1948:422-23),  Kothari  Commission  (1964-1966:  333-35),  Gnanam  Committee  (1990:  27-30)  and  Ramlal Parujg Committee (1993:15-17), the Vice-

Page 6

6

Chancellors  have  an  important  role  in  maintaining  the  quality  and  relevance  of  universities.  The  highlights  of  some  of  the  committees were extracted in the said paper by  the learned authors as follows:-

Generally  the  Vice-Chancellor  should  be  a  distinguished educationist  or eminent  scholar  in any of the disciplines or professions, with  a high standing in his/her field and adequate  administrative experience. We are not generally  in favour of appointment of persons who have  retired from other fields. An exception to this  general recommendation should be made only in  the  case  of  very  outstanding  persons  whose  association  with  the  universities  would  be  desirable from every point of view and should  not  be  made  an  excuse  for  accommodating’  or  ‘rewarding individuals who do not fulfill the  conditions laid down. A Vice-Chancellor is one  who stands for the commitment of the University  to  scholarship  and  pursuit  of  truth.(Kothari  Commission 1964-66:334)

A Vice-Chancellor should be a person with  vision  and  (have)  qualities  of  academic  leadership with ability for administration. He  should command high respect among all sections  of the society. The Vice-Chancellor should be a  distinguished academic…(who) has commitment to  the values for which the Universities stand….He  must have the ability to provide leadership to  the  University  by  his  academic  worth,  administrative competence  and moral  stature,.  (Kothari Commission 1964-66:334)

Parikh  Committee  was  not  in  favour  of  appointing Government officials as VCs. Quoting  the  Kothari  Commission  Report,  the  Parikh  Committee mentions that the Vice-Chancellor is  the most important functionary in a University  not only on the administrative side but is also  charged with the responsibility of creating the  right atmosphere for teachers and students.

The  Universities  need  distinguished  and  dignified persons as VCs and it is necessary to  ensure that they are treated with dignity and  regard, which the office merits.(Ramlal Parikh  Committee 1993:15).

The  Vice-Chancellor  is  the  most  important  functionary in a University, not only on the  administrative side but also for securing the  right  atmosphere  for  the  teachers  and  the  students to do their work effectively and in

Page 7

7

the right spirit. (Report of the Committee on  Model Act for Universities 1964:11)

The  Vice-Chancellor  being  the  principal  executive  and  academic  officer  of  the  University, should exercise general supervision  and control over the affairs of the University  and  give  effect  to  the  decision  of  all  its  authorities.  He  shall  be  the  ex-officio  Chairman  of  the  Court,  Executive  Council,  Academic  Council,  Finance  Committee  and  Selection Committees and shall, in the absence  of the Chancellor preside at any convocation of  the University for conferring degrees. It shall  be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  Statutes  and  Ordinances and Regulations are fully observed  and he should have the power necessary for the  discharge  of  this  duty.  (Gajendragadkar  Committee on the Governance of the Unviersity,  1971:60).

In  accordance  with  Regulation  1  for  the  office  of  VC  (Statutes  and  Ordinances  of  Cambridge University, June 2002:655)…VC is of a  stature  and  his/her  presence  commensurate  to  lead a distinguished academic institution. The  stated  mission  of  the  University  is  to  contribute to society through the pursuit of  education,  learning,  and  research  at  the  highest international levels of excellence. The  VC must be of exceptional caliber with academic  credibility,  clear  strategic  vision,  and  outstanding leadership qualities. He/she should  have strong management skills and senior level  experience gained in a complex institution and  the  ability  to  bring  them  to  bear  in  a  democratic,  self  governing  University.  The  ability  to  promote  the  University  in  a  regional, national  and international  context,  and  to  increase  the  financial  resources  available  to  the  University,  should  be  key,  particularly  in  order  to  realise  the  full  potential of the University.”

9. By the impugned judgment, the Madras High Court differed with  the finding of the Bombay High Court in a similar case,  “Suresh  Patilkhede of Thane vs.  Chancellor,  University of Maharashtra,  

in  PIL (L) No.80/2011, 2012 (6) ALLMR 336. The Bombay High Court

Page 8

8

by  the  said  judgment  held  that  Vice-Chancellor  in  his  said  

capacity  cannot  be  considered  as  a  member  of  the  academic  or  

teaching  staff  of  the  University  and  also  held  that  the  UGC  

Regulations, 2010 is directory in nature. In the impugned judgment  

Madras High Court observed as follows:

“46.Therefore,  with  great  respect,  we  are  unable to subscribe to the view expressed by  the Bombay High Court in paragraph 13 of the  decision  in  Suresh  Patikhede  that  the  Vice- Chancellor need not be considered as a member  of the academic teaching staff.

10. The High Court further observed: “48.  If  University  Grants  Commission  

Regulations, 2010 will have to be given effect  to  (subject  to  our  finding  on  the  next  two  facets of question No.2), the Vice-Chancellor  should actually be a distinguished academician.  Today, Albert Einstein cannot be appointed as  the Vice-Chancellor of any University (at least  in India) unless he fulfills the qualifications  prescribed by University Grants Commission, the  reason being that after a legislative enactment  lays down the objective criteria, there is no  place for subjective satisfaction.

49. We do not mean to say that the fourth  respondent  is  not  an  academician.  She  has  always been a teacher and Mr. A.L. Somayaji,  learned Advocate General took great pains to  highlight the academic and other achievements  of the fourth respondent. But we are solely on  the question as to whether we could concur with  the opinion of the Bombay High Court that a  Vice-Chancellor  is  not  part  of  the  teaching  staff. There may be a hair splitting difference  between being part of an academic stream and  being part of the teaching faculty. But it is  not  possible  for  us  to  accept  the  interpretation  that  one  can  be  the  academic  head but cannot be considered as part of the  teaching staff.”

11. For  determination  of  the  second  question,  the  High Court  formulated three issues as follows:

Page 9

9

“33.  In  our  considered  view,  the  second  question before us, actually has three facets  namely:-

a) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor  is not to be considered as part of  the teaching staff;

b) Whether  the  Madurai  Kamaraj  University  Act  and  the  Statutes  issued  thereunder  prescribe  a  different set of qualifications for  the  post  of  Vice-Chancellor  than  those prescribed by the University  Grants Commission Regulations, 2010  leading to a conflict; and

c) Whether in the event of a conflict  between the State enactment and the  University  Grants  Commission  Regulations,  2010,  the  provisions  of  the  State  enactment  would  prevail.”

12. The High Court held that the post of Vice-Chancellor is a part  of academia i.e. teaching staff and the UGC Regulations, 2010 will  prevail  over  the  State  enactment  i.e.  University  Act  and  the  

Statutes framed thereunder in the event of a conflict.  

13. The  High  Court  in  the  impugned  judgment  discussed  the  background history of appointment of Vice-Chancellor in India and  

observed as follows:

“43.  It  is  true  that  when  the  seeds  of  Western education were shown in this country  about  150  years  ago,  men  of  eminence  from  various walks of life were appointed as Vice- Chancellors. Several Judges of this Court have  adorned the post of Vice-Chancellor of various  Universities  including  the  Madras  University  itself. But apart from being great (and rare)  Judges,  those  men  were  also  distinguished  academicians who excelled in various fields.

Students of Indian History would know that  Sir John George Woodraff who was a Judge of the  Calcutta  High  Court  and  who  retired  as  the  Officiating Chief Justice of the same Court,  collaborated with Ameer Ali in publishing the  Civil Procedure Code. He was a great Sanskrit

Page 10

10

scholar who authored books on Mantra Sastra and  Tantra  Sastra,  After  retiring  as  the  Officiating Chief Justice, he served a Reader  in  law  in  the  Oxford  University  for  seven  years. Great Jurists, both (Lawyers and Judges)  such as Sir Subramanya Ayyar, Sir P.S.Sivaswamy  Ayyar, Justice F.D. Oldfield were among a few  who  became  the  Vice-Chancellors  of  Madras  University, ever since its inception about 150  years.  But  today,  it  is  not  possible  to  continue with the same legacy or two reasons,  namely:-

(a) that we do not have such tall men of  great eminence and  

(b) that today the field is regulated by  law.”

14. The High Court also relied on an Article titled ‘Why Socrates  should be in the Boardroom in Research Universities’, published in  

2010 by Amanda H. Goodall, for determining the case and observed  

as follows:

“47.  In  an interesting Article, titled Why  Socrates should be in the Boardroom in Research  Universities, published in 2010 by Amanda H.  Goodall,  Leverhulme  Fellow,  Warwick  Business  School, the author points out two contrasting  events that happened in 2003 and 2004. It is  common knowledge that Cambridge University came  into  existence  in  1209  and  almost  about  800  years later, a distinguished Anthropologist, by  name Alison Richard, was appointed as the 344th  President or Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge. She  was an acclaimed academician. In contrast to  what  happened  at  Cambridge  in  2003,  Oxford  University appointed in 2004, a person by name  John Hood, who was not an academic but was only  a  businessman.  He  became  the  first  head  of  Oxford University, ever since the year 1230, to  be  elected  to  the  Vice-Chancellorship  from  outside the University’s current academic body.  The paper authored by Amanda Goodall considered  the  question  as  to  why  Cambridge  and  Oxford  chose such different individuals to lead their  ancient and reputed institutions. The central  theme of the paper was as to whether there was  a relationship  between University  performance  and leadership by an accomplished researcher.

Page 11

11

Eventually, after analysing the statistics from  about  100  Universities  throughout  the  world,  the author came to the conclusion, supported by  evidence that Research Universities should be  led by top scholars. The conclusions reached by  the author could be summarized as follows:

(i)That the best Universities in the world  are led by more established scholars;

(ii) That scholar-leaders are considered to  be  more  credible  leaders  in  Universities,  commanding greater respect from their academic  peers.

(iii)  That  setting  an  organisation’s  academic standards is a significant part of the  function of the Vice-Chancellor and hence one  should expect the standard bearer to first year  that standard.  

(iv) That a leader, who is an established  scholar, signals the institution’s priorities,  internally to its faculties and externally to  potential  new  academic  recruits,  students,  alumni, donors and the media.

(v) That since scholarship cannot be viewed  as a proxy for either management experience or  leadership skills, an expert leader must also  have  expertise  in  areas  other  than  scholarship.”

15. Learned  counsel  for  parties  relied  on  the  aforesaid  observation made by the High Court but we are of the view that it  

is not necessary to notice the background history of appointment  

of Vice-Chancellors or the great personalities who held such posts  

or the interesting Article, titled ‘Why Socrates should be in the  

Boardroom in Research Universities’, published in 2010 by Amanda  

H. Goodall as they are not relevant for determining the issue  

involved in the present case.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, has  taken similar pleas as were taken before the High Court.

17. The contesting respondent No.1-Dr. K.Y. Jeyaraj has taken the  following pleas:

Page 12

12

(i) The  words  “Teaching  Staff  of  the  University”  

occurring in Clause (e) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act,  

1956 are words of wide import. Section 2(n) of the  

Madurai Kamaraj University Act defines Teachers of the  

University, as persons appointed by the University to  

give instruction on its behalf. Any person appointed  

to the University including the Vice-Chancellor, other  

than mere administrative staff can be required by the  

University to give instructions on its behalf. Thus,  

teaching staff should include those who are appointed  

to contribute and who can be called upon to contribute  

to or assigned to contribute to educational activities  

of the University in its functional sense.

(ii) The UGC regulations having been perceived to be  

for  the  advancement  and  promotion  of  University  

education,  will  qualify  as  a  high  principle  of  

persuasive public policy which would commend itself  

for acceptance by the University. It is a matter of  

fact  that  no  University  Act  has  provided  for,  or  

enacted in respect of qualifications for appointment  

of Vice-Chancellors. To the extent that such a matter  

is  not  occupied  by  State  University  legislation  

falling  under  Entry  25  of  the  concurrent  list,  it  

would be subject to all provisions enacted including  

regulations, traceable to Entry 66, List – I. This  

Hon’ble Court has declared that regulations made under  

statutes traceable to Entry 66 would also fall within  

the scope of Entry 66 and would override legislation  

under Entry 25.

(iii) The  UGC  Regulations  are  persuasive  

principles of public policy relevant for the promotion  

and advancement of University and higher education.  

Consequently in the absence of any higher standards  

and in the absence of any other relevant guidelines,

Page 13

13

the appointing authority cannot act in disregard of  

the UGC guidelines. The selection process will be a  

process void for lack of any standard. Acting in this  

regard would thus be in frustration of the object and  

purposes  of  UGC  Act  as  well  as  the  University  

legislation itself.

(iv) A  person  appointed  to  a  public  office  without  

reference to any standards or norms or criteria, has  

no  right  to  hold  such  an  office.  Since  all  

appointments to all public offices created by statutes  

have to be made on the basis of a norm, standard or a  

criterion, the onus is on the person appointed to show  

that a relevant norm, standard or criterion has been  

adopted. This has not been done by the appellant.

(v) No case has been canvassed that the appointment  

in question is otherwise based on a relevant standard  

or  criterion,  higher  in  quality  than  the  UGC  

Regulations. No case has also been made out that on  

the application of such a higher criterion that the  

appointing  authority  did  not  find  any  other  person  

considered for appointment, as suitable and fit enough  

to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.  

18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the  issues that arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether UGC Regulations, 2010 is mandatory in nature; and

(ii) Whether in the event of conflict between the University  

Act, Regulations framed thereunder and the UGC Regulations,  

2010,  the  provisions  of  the  UGC  Regulations,  2010  would  

prevail or not; and

(iii) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor of a University is  

to be considered as part of teaching staff.

Page 14

14

19. For  determination  of  these  issues,  it  is  necessary  to  notice  the  relevant  provisions  of  University  Commission  

Act,  1956  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the,  ‘UGC  Act,  

1956’), UGC Regulations, 2010, the University Act, 1965 and  

the statutes framed thereunder.

University Grants Commission Act, 1956: UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make provisions for the co-

ordination and determination of standards in Universities and for  

that purpose, to establish a University Grants Commission.  

Section  12  deals  with  the  ‘function  of  the  Commission’,  

relevant of which is quoted hereunder:

“12.  It  shall  be  the  general  duty  of  the  Commission to take, in consultation with the  Universities  or  other  bodies  concerned,  all  such  steps  as  it  may  think  fit  for  the  promotion  and  co-ordination  of  University  education  and  for  the  determination  and  maintenance  of  standards  of  teaching,  examination and research in Universities, and  for  the  purpose  of  performing  its  functions  under this Act, the Commission may-

(a) inquire  into  the  financial  needs  of  Universities;

(b) ………………………… (c) …………………………

(d) recommend to any University the measures  necessary  for  the  improvement  of  University  education  and  advise  the  University upon the action to be taken for  the  purpose  of  implementing  such  recommendation;

(e) to (i)………………………

(j)perform  such  other  functions  as  may  be  prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by  the Commission for advancing the cause of

Page 15

15

higher   education in India or as may be  incidental or conducive to the discharge of  the above functions.”

Section 14 deals with ‘consequences of failure of Universities  

to  comply  with  recommendations  of  the  Commission’  which  is  as  

follows:

14. If any University 1[grants affiliation in  respect of any course of study to any college  referred to in subsection (5) of section 12A in  contravention of the provisions of that sub- section or] fails within a reasonable time to  comply  with  any  recommendation  made  by  the  Commission under section 12 or section 13, 2[or  contravenes  the  provision  of  any  rule  made  under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section  (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made  under clause(e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of  section 26,] the Commission, after taking into  consideration the cause, if any, shown by the  University 3[for Such failure or contraventions  may  withhold  from  the  University  the  grants  proposed to be made out of the Fund of the  Commission.”

20. Another  relevant  provision  with  which  we  are  concerned  is  Section 26 – ‘power to make regulations’. The relevant portion of  

the said section is quoted below:

“Section  26. (1)  The  Commission  [may,  by  notification  in  the  Official  Gazette,  make  regulations] consistent with this Act and the  rules made thereunder–

(a) to (d) x  x  x   x   x

“(e)  defining  the  qualifications  that  should  ordinarily  be  required  of  any  person  to  be  appointed  to  the  teaching  staff  of  the  University,  having  regard  to  the  branch  of  education  in  which  he  is  expected  to  give  instruction;”   (f) x   x   x   x

Page 16

16

“(g)  regulating  the  maintenance  of  standards  and the co-ordination of work or facilities in  Universities.”

21. As per Section 28 the Rules and Regulations framed under the  U.G.C. Act are required to be laid before each House of Parliament  

and when both the Houses agree then the Rules and Regulations can  

be  given  effect  with  such  modification  as  may  be  made  by  the  

Parliament. Section 28 reads as below:

“Section 28. Every rule and every regulation  made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as  may be after it is made, before each House of  Parliament while it is in session, for a total  period of thirty days which may be comprised in  one  session  or  in  two  or  more  successive  sessions,  and  if,  before  the  expiry  of  the  session immediately following the session, or  the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses  agree in making any modification in the rule or  regulation or both Houses agree that the rule  or regulation should not be made, the rule or  regulation shall thereafter have effect only in  such modified form or be of no effect, as the  case  may,  be;  so,  however,  that  any  such  modification  or  annulment  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  the  validity  of  anything  previously  done  under  that  rule  or  regulation.”]

[No rule made or purporting to have been made, with retrospective effect, under section 25 of  the principal Act before the commencement of  this Act shall be deemed to have been invalid  or  ever  to  have  been  invalid  merely  on  the  round  that  such  rule  was  made  with  retrospective effect and accordingly every such  rule  and  every  action  taken  or  thing  done  thereunder shall be as valid and effective as  if  the  provisions  of  section  25  of  the  principal Act, as amended by this Act, were in  force at all material times when such rule was  made or action or thing was taken or done.]”  

Page 17

17

22. From the aforesaid provisions, we find that the University  Grants Commission has been established for the determination of  

standard  of  Universities,  promotion  and  co-ordination  of  

University  education,  for  the  determination  and  maintenance  of  

standards of teaching, examination and research in Universities,  

for defining the qualifications regarding the teaching staff of  

the University, maintenance of standards etc. For the purpose of  

performing its functions under the UGC Act (see Section 12) like  defining the qualifications and standard that should ordinarily be  

required of any person to be appointed in the Universities [see  Section 26(1)(e)(g)] UGC is empowered to frame regulations.   

It is only when both the Houses of the Parliament approve the  

regulation, the same can be given effect.  Thus, we hold that the  

U.G.C. Regulations though a subordinate legislation has binding  

effect on the Universities to which it applies; and consequence of  

failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of  

the Commission, the UGC may withhold the grants to the university  

made out of the Fund of the Commission. (See Section 14)

23.UGC Regulations, 2010 and Annexure enclosed therein

For the appointment and career advancement of teachers in the  

Universities and Institutions affiliated to it UGC by Regulation  

No.F.3-1/2000(PS)  dated  4th April,  2000,  enacted  the  University  

Grants  Commission(Minimum  qualifications  required  for  the  

appointment and career advancement of teachers in Universities and

Page 18

18

Institutions  affiliated  to  it)  Regulations,  2000  (hereinafter  

referred  to  as  the  “UGC  Regulations,  2000”).  In  the  said  

Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were prescribed for the post  

of ‘Pro-Chancellor’ or ‘Vice-Chancellor’.  

The  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  

Development Department of Higher Education, New Delhi by letter  

No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) dated 31st December, 2008 communicated the  

Secretary, University Grants Commission, New Delhi the Scheme of  

revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in Universities  

and  Colleges  following  the  revision  of  pay  scales  of  Central  

Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central  

Pay  Commission.  By  the  said  letter,   the  Government  of  India  

directed that there shall be only three designations in respect of  

teachers  in  Universities  and  Colleges,   namely,  Assistant  

Professors, Associate Professors and Professors.  

In the said letter revised Pay Scales, Service Conditions and  

Career Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions  

including  the  post  of  Assistant  Professors/Associate  

Professors/Professors in Universities and Colleges were intimated.  

Pay  scales  of  Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor  were  also  

mentioned therein. It was intimated that the said Scheme may be  

extended  to  the  Universities,  Colleges  and  other  higher  

educational  institutions  coming  under  the  purview  of  State  

legislature,  provided  State  Governments  wish  to  adopt  and  

implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions mentioned

Page 19

19

therein.

24. In  view  of  the  aforesaid  letter  No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i),  dated 31st December, 2008 issued by the Government of India and in  exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-

section  (1)  of  Section  26  of  the  UGC  Act,  1956, UGC  enacted  Regulations, 2010 in supersession of the UGC Regulations, 2000. It  

was published in the Gazette of India on 28th June, 2010 and came  

into force with immediate effect. Relevant portion of the said  

Regulations is as follows:

“UGC REGULATIONS ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN  UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE  MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2010 To be published in the gazette of India

Part III Sector 4

University Grants Commission Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi-110002.

No.F.3-1/2009                     28 June, 2010 In exercise of the powers conferred under  

clause  (e)  and  (g)  of  sub-section  (1)  of  Section 26 of University Grants Commission Act,  1956 (3 of 1956), and in pursuance of the MHRD  O.M.No.F.23-7/2008-IFD  dated  23rd  October,  2008, read with Ministry of Finance (Department  of Expenditure) O.M.No.F.1-1/2008-IC dated 30th  August,  2008,  and  in  terms  of  the  MHRD  Notification No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1) issued on  31st December, 2008 and in supersession of the  University  Grants  Commission  (minimum  qualifications required for the appointment and  career advancement of teachers in Universities  and Institutions affiliated to it)Regulations,  2000,  issued  by  University  Grants  Commission  vide Regulation No. F.3-1/2000 (PS) dated 4th  April, 2000, together with all amendments made

Page 20

20

therein  from  time  to  time,  the  University  Grants Commission hereby frames the following  Regulations, namely:-

1. Short title, application and commencement:

1.1. These  Regulations  may  be  called  the  University Grants Commission (Minimum  Qualifications  for  Appointment  of  Teachers and other Academic Staff in  Universities  and  Colleges  and  other  Measures  for  the  Maintenance  of  Standards  in  Higher  Education)  Regulations, 2010.

1.2. They shall apply to every university  established  or  incorporated  by  or  under a Central Act, Provincial Act or  a  State  Act,  every  institution  including  a  constituent  or  an  affiliated college recognized by the  Commission, in consultation with the  university concerned under Clause (f)  of Section 2 of the University Grants  Commission  Act,  1956  and  every  institution deemed to be a university  under Section 3 of the said Act.

1.3  They  shall  come  into  force  with  immediate effect.

Provided that in the event, any candidate  becomes  eligible  for  promotion  under  Career  Advancement  Scheme  in  terms  of  these  Regulations on or after 31st December, 2008,  the  promotion  of  such  a  candidate  shall  be  governed  by  the  provisions  of  these  Regulations.

Provided  further  that  notwithstanding  anything contained in these Regulations, in the  event  any  candidate  became  eligible  for  promotion under Career Advancement Scheme prior  to 31st December, 2008,  the promotion of such a  candidate under Career Advancement Scheme shall  be governed by the University Grants Commission  (Minimum  Qualifications  Required  for  the  Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers  in Universities and institutions affiliated  to  it)  Regulations,  2000  notified  vide  Notification No. F.3-1/2000(PS) dated 4th April,  2000, as amended from time to time,  read with

Page 21

21

notifications  and  guidelines  issued  by  the  University Grants Commission (UGC) from  time  to time, in this regard.

2. The Minimum Qualifications for  appointment and other service  conditions  of  University  and  College  teachers,  Librarians  and  Directors  of  Physical  Education  and  Sports  as  a  measure for the maintenance of  standards in higher education,  shall  be  as  provided  in  the  Annexure to these Regulations.

3.Consequences of failure of the Universities  to  comply  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Commission, as provision of Section 14 of the  University Grants Commission Act, 1956:

If  any  University  grants  affiliation  in  respect of any course of study to any college  referred to in sub-section(5) of Section 12-A  in contravention of the provisions of the sub- section,  or fails within a reasonable time to  comply  with  any  recommendations  made  by  the  Commission under Section 12 or Section 13, or  contravenes the  provisions of any rule made  under clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section  25 or of any regulations made under clause (e)  or clause (f) or clause (g) of Sub-section (1)  of  Section  26,  the  Commission  after  taking  into consideration the cause,  if any,  shown  by  the  University  for  such  failure  or  contravention,  may  withhold  from  the  university the grants proposed to be made out  of the fund of the Commission.

Secretary.”

25. Annexure  to  UGC  Regulations,  2010  prescribes  the  minimum  qualifications  for  appointment  and  other  service  conditions  of  

University and College Teachers, Librarians, Directors of Physical  

Education and Sports.  

Regulation 2.0.0 relates to pay scales, pay fixation and age  

of superannuation, etc. Regulation 7.0.0. relates to selection of

Page 22

22

Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities. In Regulation  

7.3.0. standards to be followed and qualifications necessary for  

selection to the post of  Vice-Chancellor have been mentioned.  

Regulation  7.4.0  relates  to  adoption  of  Regulations  by  the  

universities and State Governments.

The  relevant  provisions  of  the  Annexure  to  the  UGC  

Regulations, 2010 are quoted hereunder:

      “ANNEXURE

  UGC  REGULATIONS  ON  MINIMUM  QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  APPOINTMENT OF THE TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN  UNIVESITEIS  AND  COLLEGES  AND  MEAUSRES  FOR  THE  MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATOIN, 2010

-----------------------------------------------

These Regulations are issued for minimum qualifications  for  appointment  and  other  service  conditions  of  University and College Teachers, Librarians, Directors  of Physical Education and Sports for the maintenance of  standards  in  higher  education  and  revision  of  pay  scales.

2.0.0 PAY SCALES, PAYFIXATION FORMULA AND  AGE OF SUPERANNUATION, ETC.  

2.1.0 The revised scales of pay and other  service  conditions including  age of  superannuation in central universities and  other institutions maintained and/or funded  by the University Grants Commission (UGC),  shall be strictly in accordance with the  decision  of  the  Central  Government,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development  (Department of Education), as contained in  Appendix-I.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

2.3.1. The revised scales of pay and age  of  superannuation  as  provided  in  Clause  2.1.0  above,  may  also  be  extended  to  Universities, institutions coming under the  purview  of  the  State  Legislature  and  maintained  by  the  State  Governments,

Page 23

23

subject to the implementation of the scheme  as  a  composite  one  in  adherence  of  the  terms and conditions laid down in the MHRD  notifications provided as Appendix I and in  the MHRD letter No.F.1-7/2010-U II dated 11  May, 2010 with all conditions specified by  the  UGC  in  the  Regulations  and  other  Guidelines.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

7.0.0.SELECTION  OF  PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR/VICE  - CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES:

7.1.0. PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR:

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole  time  Professor  of  the  University  and  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Executive  Council on the recommendation of Vice- Chancellor.

7.2.0.The  Pro-Vice-Chancellor  shall  hold  office for a period which is co-terminus  with  that  of  Vice-Chancellor.  However,  it shall be the prerogative of the Vice- Chancellor to recommend a new Pro-Vice- Chancellor  to  the  Executive  Council,  during  his  tenure.  These  Regulations,  for selection of Pro- Vice- Chancellor  shall  be  adopted  by  the  concerned  University  through  amendment  of  their  Act/Statute.

7.3.0. VICE-CHANCELLOR:

i. Persons  of  the  highest  level  of  competence,  integrity,  morals  and  institutional  commitment  are  to  be  appointed  as  Vice-Chancellors.  The  Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should  be a distinguished academician, with a  minimum of ten years of experience as  Professor in a University system or ten  years  of  experience  in  an  equivalent  position in a reputed research and / or  academic administrative organization.

ii.     The selection of Vice-Chancellor  should be through proper identification  of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search  Committee through a public Notification

Page 24

24

or  nomination  or  a  talent  search  process or in combination. The members  of the above Search 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.  While preparing the panel, the search  committee must 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  to be given in writing along with the  panel  to  be  submitted  to  the  Visitor/Chancellor. In respect of State  and Central Universities, the following  shall be the constitution of the Search  Committee.

a)  a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor,  who should be the Chairperson of the  Committee.

b) a nominee of the Chairman, University  Grants Commission.

c) a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive  Council / Board of Management of the  University.

iii.  The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the  Vice-Chancellor out of the Panel of names  recommended by the Search Committee

iv.  The conditions of service of the Vice- Chancellor  shall  be  prescribed  in  the  Statutes of the Universities concerned in  conformity with these Regulations.

v.   The term of office of the Vice-Chancellor  shall form part of the service period of  the  incumbent  concerned  making  him/her  eligible  for  all  service  related  benefits.

7.4.0  The Universities/State Governments shall  modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes  of  the  Universities  concerned  within  6  months of adoption of these Regulations.

Page 25

25

8.0. DUTY LEAVE, STUDY LEAVE, SABBATICAL LEAVE”

26. Letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1)(i) dated 31st December, 2008  issued  by  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  

Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi has been  

appended as Appendix I and is part of the UGC Regulations, 2010.  

The relevant portion of the said letter is quoted below:

“APPENDIX I

No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i) Government of India

Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Higher Education

New Delhi, dated the 31St December, 2008 To

The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

Subject: Scheme of revision of pay of teachers  and  equivalent  cadres  in  universities  and  colleges following the revision of pay scales  of  Central  Government  employees  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Sixth  Central  Pay  Commission.

Sir,

I am directed to say that the Government of  India  have  decided,  after  taking  into  consideration the recommendations made by the  University  Grants  Commission  (UGC)  based  on  the  decisions  taken  at  the  meeting  of  the  Commission held on 7-8 October 2008, to revise  the  pay  scales  of  teachers  in  the  Central  Universities. The revision of pay scales of  teachers  shall  be  subject  to  various  provisions of the Scheme of revision of pay  scales  as  contained  in  this  letter,  and  Regulations to be framed by the UGC in this  behalf  in  accordance  with  the  Scheme  given  below.  The  revised  pay  scales  and  other  provisions of the Scheme are as under:-

Page 26

26

1. General

(i) There shall be only three designations in  respect  of  teachers  in  universities  and  colleges,  namely,  Assistant  Professors,  Associate Professors and Professors. However,  there  shall  be  no  change  in  the  present  designation in respect of Library and Physical  Education Personnel at various levels.

(ii) No one shall be eligible to be appointed,  promoted or designated as Professor, unless he  or she possesses a Ph.D. and satisfies other  academic  conditions,  as  laid  downy  the  University Grants Commission (UGC) from time  to time. This shall, however, not affect those  who are already designated as 'Professor'.

(iii)  The  pay  of  teachers  and  equivalent  positions in Universities and Colleges shall  be fixed according to their designations in  two pay bands of Rs. 15,600 – Rs. 39,100 and  Rs.  37,400  –  Rs.  67,000  with  appropriate  "Academic Grade Pay" (AGP in short). Each Pay  Band shall have different stages of Academic  Grade Pay which shall ensure that teachers and  other  equivalent  cadres  covered  under  this  Scheme,  subject  to  other  conditions  of  eligibility  being  satisfied,  have  multiple  opportunities for upward movement during their  career.  

(iv) Posts of Professors shall be created in  under-graduate  (UG)  colleges  as  well  as  in  postgraduate  (PG)  colleges.  The  number  of  posts of Professors in a UG College shall be  equivalent  to  10  percent  of  the  number  of  posts-of Associate Professors in that College.  There shall be as many posts of Professors in  each PG College as the number of Departments  in that College. No new Departments shall be  created  in  UG  or  PG  Colleges  without  prior  approval of the UGC.

(v) Up to 10% of the posts of Professors in  universities shall be in the higher Academic  Grade  Pay  of  Rs.  12,000  with  eligibility  conditions to be prescribed by the UGC.

(vi) National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be

Page 27

27

compulsory for appointment at the entry level  of  Assistant  Professor,  subject  to  the  exemptions to the degree of Ph.D. in respect  of those persons obtaining the award through a process  of  registration,  course-work  and  external  evaluation, as have been/ or may be laid down  by  the  UGC  through  its  regulations,  and  so  adopted by the University. NET shall not be  required  for  such  Masters'  programmes  in  disciplines for which there is no NET.

2. Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and  Career  Advancement  Scheme  for  teachers  and  equivalent positions:

The pay structure for different categories of  teachers and equivalent positions shall be as  indicated below:-

(a) Assistant Professor/Associate Professors/  Professors in Colleges and Universities.

3.  Pay Scales of Pro Vice-Chancellor / Vice- Chancellor of Universities:

(i) Pro-Vice-Chancellor The posts of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be in  the Pay Band of Rs.37,400 – Rs. 67,000 with AGP  of Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 12,000, as the case may  be, along with a Special Allowance of Rs.4,000  per month, subject to the condition that the  sum total of pay in the Pay Band, the Academic  Grade Pay and the Special Allowance shall not  exceed Rs. 80,000.

(ii) Vice-Chancellor

The  posts  of  Vice-Chancellor  shall  carry  a  fixed pay of Rs. 75,000 along with a Special  Allowance of Rs. 5,000 per month.

8. Other terms and conditions: (a) Increments:

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(p) Applicability of the Scheme:

(i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers

Page 28

28

and  other  equivalent  cadres  of  Library  and  Physical  Education  in  all  the  Central  Universities and Colleges there-under and the  Institutions  Deemed  to  be  Universities  whose  maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. The  implementation of the revised scales shall be  subject to the acceptance of all the conditions mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations  to  be  framed  by  the  UGC  in  this  behalf.  Universities implementing this Scheme shall be  advised  by  the  UGC  to  amend  their  relevant  statutes and ordinances in line with the UGC  Regulations within three months from the date  of issue of this letter.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

From  paragraph  8(p)(i)  and  (v)  of  Appendix-I  dated  31st  

December, 2008 read with Regulation 7.4.0 we find that the Scheme  

of  regulation  is  applicable  to  teaching  staffs  of  all  Central  

Universities and Colleges thereunder and the institutions deemed  

to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the  

UGC.  However,  the  Scheme  under  UGC  Regulations,  2010  is  not  applicable to the teaching staffs of the Universities, Colleges  and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview  of State Legislature, unless State Government wish to adopt and  implement  the  Scheme  subject  to  terms  and  conditions  mentioned  therein.

27. The Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965 (University Act)     [(Tamil Nadu) ACT No.33 of 1965]

The above said Act was enacted by the State Legislature to  provide for the establishment and incorporation of a University at  

Madurai  enacted  by  the  State  Legislature.  Section  2(m)  of  the

Page 29

29

University Act defines ‘teachers’ as under:

“2(m).”teachers”  means  such  lecturers,  readers, assistant  professors, professors  and  other persons giving instruction in University  colleges  or  laboratories,  in  affiliated  or  approved  colleges,  or  in  hostels,  and  librarians as may be declared by the statutes  to be teachers;

Section 2(n) defines ‘teachers of the University’ as follows:

“2(n)”teachers  of  the  University”  means  persons  appointed  by  the  University  to  give  instruction on its behalf;

‘University  Lecturer’,  ‘University  Reader’  or  ‘University  

Professor’ are defined under Section 2(t) as follows:

“2(t)”University  Lecturer”,  “University  Reader”  or  “University  Professor”  means  Lecturer,  Reader  or  Professor  respectively  appointed as such by the University;”

Section 8 stipulates the Officers of the University. The said  

Section is as follows:

“Section  8.Officers  of  the  University.- The  University  shall  consist  of  the  following  officers, namely:-

(1)The Chancellor; (2)The Pro-Chancellor; (3)The Vice-Chancellor; (4)The Registrar; and (5)Such other  persons as  may be  

declared by the statutes to be  officers of the University.”

Section 9 relates to Chancellor, Section 10 relates to Pro-

Chancellor and Section 11 relates to the Vice-Chancellor. The said  

Sections are as follows:

Page 30

30

“Section 9.The Chancellor.-(1) The Governor of  Tamil  Nadu  shall  be  the  Chancellor  of  the  University. He shall, by virtue of his office,  be the head of the University and the President  of the Senate and shall, when present, preside  at  meetings  of  the  Senate  and  at  any  convocation of the University.

(2)  The  Chancellor  shall  exercise  such  powers as may be conferred on him by or under  this Act.

(3)  Where  power  is  conferred  upon  the  Chancellor to nominate persons to authorities,  the Chancellor shall, to the extent necessary,  nominate  persons  to  represent  interests  not  otherwise adequately represented.

Section  10.  The  Pro-Chancellor -  (1)The  Minister  in-charge  of  the  portfolio  of  education in the State of Tamil Nadu shall be  the Pro-Chancellor of the University.

(2)  In  the  absence  of  the  Chancellor,  or  during the Chancellor’s inability to act, the  Pro-Chancellor shall exercise all the powers of  the Chancellor.

Section  11.The  Vice-Chancellor –  (1)  Every  appointment  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  shall  be  made by the Chancellor from out of a panel of  three  names  recommended  by  the  Committee  referred to in sub-section (2).Such panel shall  not contain the name of any member of the said  Committee.

Provided  that  if  the  Chancellor  does  not  approve  any  of  the  persons  in  the  panel  so  recommended by the Committee, he may take steps  to constitute another Committee, in accordance  with sub-section (2), to give a fresh panel of  three different names and shall appoint one of  the persons named in the fresh panel as the  Vice-Chancellor.

(2)For the purpose of sub-section (1), the  Committee  shall  consist  of  three  persons  of  whom one shall be nominated by the Chancellor.

Provided that the person so nominated shall  not be a member of any of the authorities of

Page 31

31

the University.

(3)  The  Vice-Chancellor  shall  hold  office  for  a  period  of  three  years  and  shall  be  eligible for re-appointment for not more than  two successive terms.

(4)When any termporary vacancy occurs in the  office of the Vice-Chancellor or if the Vice- Chancellor is, by reason of absence or for any  other reason, unable to exercise the powers and  perform the duties of his office, the Syndiate  shall, as soon as possible, make the requisite  arrangements  for  exercising  the  powers  and  performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole- time  officer  of  the  University  and  shall  be  entitled  to  such  emoluments,  allowances  and  privileges  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  statutes.”

The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are mentioned in  

Section 12 which is as follows:

“Section  12.  Powers  and  duties  of  the  Vice- Chancellor. – (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be  academic  head  and  the  principal  executive  officer  of  the  University  and  shall,  in  the  absence of the Chancellor and Pro-Chancellor,  preside at meetings of the Senate and at any  convocation of the University. He shall be a  member  ex-officio  and  Chairman  of  the  Syndicate, the Academic Council and the Finance  Committee and shall be entitled to be present  at and to address any meeting of any authority  of the University but shall not be entitled to  vote there at unless he is a member of the  authority concerned.

(2)It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Vice- Chancellor  to  ensure  that  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  the  statutes,  ordinances  and  regulations are observed and carried out and he  may  exercise  all  powers  necessary  for  this  purpose.

Page 32

32

(3)The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to  convene meetings of the Senate, the Syndicate,  the Academic Council and the Finance Commtitee.

(4)   (a)  In  any  emergency  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  requires  that  immediate action should be taken, he may take  such action with the sanction of the Chancellor  or the Pro-Chancellor, as the case may be, and  shall as soon as may be thereafter report his  action to the officer or authority who or which  would have ordinarily dealt with the matter.

(b)When action taken by the Vice-Chancellor  under this sub-section affects any person in  the  service  of  the  University,  such  person  shall be entitled to prefer an appeal to the  Syndicate within thirty days from the date on  which he has notice of such action.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to  the  orders  of  the  Syndicate  regarding  the  appointment,  suspension  and  dismissal  of  the  teachers  and  servants  of  the  University  and  shall exercise general control over the affairs  of the University.

(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such  other powers as may be prescribed.”

The above provisions indicate that the Vice-Chancellor is the  

academic head [Section 12(1)], heads the Academic Council, and has  

general  control  over  teaching  and  examination  within  the  

University and is responsible for the maintenance of the standards  

thereof.  

28. Chapter  V  of  the  University  Act  deals  with  the  ‘Academic  Council’,  the  Faculties,  the  Boards  and  Studies,  the  Finance  

Committee  and  other  Authorities.  Section  23  relates  to  the  

Academic Council and Section 24 deals with the Constitution of the

Page 33

33

Academic  Council.  The  relevant  portion  of  the  said  provisions  

reads as under:

“ CHAPTER V

THE ACADEMIC COUCIL, THE FACULTIES, THE BOARDS  OF  STUDIES,  THE  FINANCE  COMMITTEE  AND  OTHER  AUTHORITIES.

Section 23.The Academic Council.- The Academic  Council shall be the academic authority of the  University and shall, subject to the provisions  of this Act and the statutes, have the control  and  general  regulation  of  teaching  and  examination  within  the  University  and  be  responsible  for  the  maintenance  of  the  standards thereof and shall exercise such other  powers  and  perform  other  duties  as  may  be  prescribed.

Section  24.Constitution  of  the  Academic   Council.- (a) The Academic Council shall, in  addition to the Vice-Chancellor, consist of the  following persons, namely;-

Class I – Ex-officio members-

(1) The  Director  of  Higher  Education,  Madras;

(2) The  Director  of  Secondary  Education,  Madras;

(3) The  Director  of  Technical  Education,  Madras;  

(3-A) The Director of Medical Educatoin; (4) The heads of University Departments of  

Study and Research;  (5) Members of the Syndicate who are not  

otherwise  members  of  the  Academic  Counci;  

xxx xxx xxx xxx

29. Chapter  VI  of  the  University  Act  deals  with  Statutes,  Ordinances  and  Regulations.  Section  30  stipulates  the  matters  

which  can  be  provided  under  Statutes.  This  includes  the

Page 34

34

constitution  or  reconstitution,  powers  and  duties  of  the  

authorities of the University. Section 32 deals with Ordinances  

which may provide for all or any of the matters mentioned therein  

including  the  qualifications  and  emoluments  of  teachers  of  the  

University [Section 32(d)].

30. The word statutes with respect to University means law of the  University. In the present context it means the provisions of the  

University Act and the statutes, ordinances and regulations framed  

therein. Chapter V of the Statutes of Madurai Kamaraja University  

relates to Vice-Chancellor. Clause 2(1) of Chapter V stipulates  

that  Vice-Chancellor  should  be  a  whole-time  Officer  of  the  

University who would be the academic head and principal executive  

officer  of  the  University  with  powers  and  duties  mentioned  

therein. Relevant portion of the provision reads as follows:

“CHAPTER V  THE VICE-CHANCELLOR

1. The  Vice-Chancellor  shall  be  appointed  by  the Chancellor from out of a panel of 3 names  recommended  by  the  Committee  referred  to  in  Statute  5  hereunder.  Such  panel  shall  not  contain  the  name  of  any  member  of  the  said  Committee.

(Act S.11 The Vice-Chancellor)

Provided  that  if  the  Chancellor  does  not  approve  any  of  the  persons  in  the  panel  so  recommended by the Committee, he may take steps  to constitute another Committee, in accordance  with Statue 5, to give a fresh panel of three  different names and shall appoint one of the  persons named in the fresh panel as the Vice- Chancellor.

2.(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time

Page 35

35

Officer  of  the  University.  He  shall  be  the  academic head and Principal executive officer  of the University.

(2)  The  Vice-Chancellor  shall  in  the  absence  of  the  Chancellor  and  the  Pro- Chancellor  preside  at  the  meetings  of  the  Senate,  and  at  any  Convocation  of  the  University.

(Act S.12 Powers and duties  of the Vice-Chancellor)

(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a member ex- officio  and  Chairman  of  the  Syndicate,  the  Academic Council and the Finance Committee of  the  University  and  shall  be  entitled  to  be  present  at  and  address  any  meeting  of  any  authority of the University but shall not be  entitled to vote there at unless he is a member  of the authorities concerned.

(4) The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to  convene  the  meetings  of  the  Senate,  the  Syndicate, the Academic Council and the Finance  Committee of the University.

(5)  The  Vice-Chancellor  shall  exercise  a  general  control  over  all  the  affairs  of  the  University.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.”

31. From UGC Regulations, 2010, it is clear that the Vice- Chancellor should be a distinguished academician with a minimum  

of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system  

or  ten  years  of  experience  in  an  equivalent  position  in  a  

reputed  research  and/or  academic  administrative  organization.  

Whereas the post of Vice-Chancellor under University Act, 1965  

and  statute  made  thereunder  is  not  a  teaching  post  but  an  

officer of the University.

Page 36

36

Constitutional Provisions: 32. Article 246 demarcates the matters in respect of which  Parliament and State Legislature may make laws. The legislative  

powers of the Central and State Governments are governed by the  

relevant entries in the three lists given in 7th Schedule.

Entry  66  in  List  I  provides  for  Co-ordination  and  

determination of standards in institutions for higher education  

or research and scientific and technical institutions.  Prior to  

42nd Amendment, education including Universities subject to the  

provisions of the Entries 63, 64, 65, 66 of List-I and Entry 25  

of List III was shown in Entry 11 of the List II – State List.  

By 42nd Amendment of Constitution w.e.f. 3rd January, 1977 Entry  

11 of List II-State List was omitted and was added as Entry 25  

of List-III.

At present the aforesaid provisions read as follows:

“Seventh Schedule

 List I – Union List

Entry  66. Co-ordination  and  determination  of  standards in institutions for higher education  or  research  and  scientific  and  technical  institutions.

List III     – Concurrent List  

Entry  25.-  Education,  including  technical  education, medical education and universities,  subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65  and  66  of  List  I;  vocational  and  technical  training of labour.”

Article 254 relates to repugnancy of Law made by the

Page 37

37

State with the law made by the Parliament. Article 254 reads as  

follows:-

“254.  Inconsistency  between  laws  made  by  Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of  States.-(1) If any provision of a law made by  the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any  provision  of  a  law  made  by  Parliament  which  Parliament  is  competent  to  enact,  or  to  any  provision of an existing law with respect to  one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent  List, then, subject to the provisions of clause  (  2  ),  the  law  made  by  Parliament,  whether  passed  before  or  after  the  law  made  by  the  Legislature of such State, or, as the case may  be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law  made by the Legislature of the State shall, to  the extent of the repugnancy, be void  

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a  State  with  respect  to  one  of  the  matters  enumerated in the concurrent List contains any  provision  repugnant  to  the  provisions  of  an  earlier law made by Parliament or an existing  law with respect to that matter, then, the law  so made by the Legislature of such State shall,  if it has been reserved for the consideration  of the President and has received his assent,  prevail in that State:  

Provided that nothing in this clause shall  prevent Parliament from enacting at any time  any  law  with  respect  to  the  same  matter  including a law adding to, amending, varying or  repealing the law so made by the Legislature of  the State.”

 33. The  effect  in  case  of  inconsistency  between  the  Legislation made by the Parliament and the State Legislature on  

the subject covered by List III has been decided by this Court  

in numerous cases.

34. In  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  another  vs.  Adhiyhaman

Page 38

38

Education & Research Institute and others, (1995) 4 SCC 104,  

this  Court  noticed  that  Entry  66  of  List  I  of  the  Seventh  

Schedule  has  remained  unchanged  from  the  inception  and  that  

Entry 11 was taken out from List II and was amalgamated with  

Entry 25 of List III.  In the said case the Court held as  follows:

“12.The  subject  “coordination  and  determination of standards in institutions for  higher education or research and scientific and  technical institutions” has always remained the  special  preserve  of  Parliament.  This  was  so  even before the Forty-second Amendment, since  Entry  11  of  List  II  even  then  was  subject,  among others, to Entry 66 of List I. After the  said Amendment, the constitutional position on  that score has not undergone any  change. All  that has happened is that Entry 11 was taken  out from List II and amalgamated with Entry 25  of List III. However, even the new Entry 25 of  List  III  is  also  subject  to  the  provisions,  among others, of Entry 66 of List I. It cannot,  therefore,  be  doubted  nor  is  it  contended  before us, that the legislation with regard to  coordination and determination of standards in  institutions for higher education or research  and scientific and technical institutions has  always been the preserve of Parliament. What  was contended before us on behalf of the State  was  that  Entry  66  enables  Parliament  to  lay  down the minimum standards but does not deprive  the  State  legislature  from  laying  down  standards above the said minimum standards. We  will  deal  with  this  argument  at  its  proper  place.

xxx xxx xxxx

41. What emerges from the above discussion  is as follows:

(i)  The  expression  ‘coordination’  used  in  Entry  66  of  the  Union  List  of  the  Seventh  Schedule to the Constitution does not merely  mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a  view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted  action according to a certain design, scheme or

Page 39

39

plan  of  development.  It,  therefore,  includes  action not only for removal of disparities in  standards  but  also  for  preventing  the  occurrence  of  such  disparities.  It  would,  therefore, also include power to do all things  which are necessary to prevent what would make  ‘coordination’ either impossible or difficult.  This power is absolute and unconditional and in  the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it  must be given its full effect according to its  plain and express intention.

(ii)  To  the  extent  that  the  State  legislation  is  in  conflict  with  the  Central  legislation though the former is purported to  have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent  List but in effect encroaches upon legislation  including subordinate legislation made by the  Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or  to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List,  it would be void and inoperative.

(iii) If there is a conflict between the two  legislations, unless the State legislation is  saved by the provisions of the main part of  clause  (2)  of  Article  254,  the  State  legislation  being  repugnant  to  the  Central  legislation, the same would be inoperative.

(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon  Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to  the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of  the Concurrent List, will have to be determined  by the examination of the two laws and will  depend upon the facts of each case.

(v) When there are more applicants than the  available situations/seats, the State authority  is  not  prevented  from  laying  down  higher  standards  or  qualifications  than  those  laid  down by the Centre or the Central authority to  short-list  the  applicants.  When  the  State  authority does so, it does not encroach upon  Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which  is repugnant to the Central law.

Page 40

40

(vi) However, when the situations/seats are  available  and  the  State  authorities  deny  an  applicant  the  same  on  the  ground  that  the  applicant  is  not  qualified  according  to  its  standards or qualifications, as the case may  be,  although  the  applicant  satisfies  the  standards or qualifications laid down by the  Central  law,  they  act  unconstitutionally.  So  also when the State authorities de-recognise or  disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying  the standards or requirement laid down by them,  although  it  satisfied  the  norms  and  requirements  laid  down  by  the  Central  authority,  the  State  authorities  act  illegally.”

35. In  Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P.  and  others,  (1999)  7  SCC  120, a  Constitution  Bench  of  five  

Judges dealt with the State competence under List III Entry 25  to  control or  regulate higher  education which  is subject  to  

standards laid down by the Union of India. The Court noticed  

that the standards of higher education can be laid down under  

List I Entry 66 by the Central Legislation and held as follows:

“35. The legislative competence of Parliament  and the legislatures of the States to make laws  under  Article  246  is  regulated  by  the  VIIth  Schedule  to  the  Constitution.  In  the  VIIth  Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of  List II gave to the State an exclusive power to  legislate on

“education including universities, subject to  the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66  of List I and Entry 25 of List III”.

Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of  List III was amended with effect from 3-1-1976  as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment  Act  of  1976.  The  present  Entry  25  in  the  Concurrent List is as follows:

Page 41

41

“25.Education, including technical education,  medical  education  and  universities,  subject  to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and  66  of  List  I;  vocational  and  technical  training of labour.”

Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of  List I. Entry 66 of List I is as follows:

“66.  Coordination  and  determination  of  standards  in  institutions  for  higher  education  or  research  and  scientific  and  technical institutions.”

Both the Union as well as the States have the  power  to  legislate  on  education  including  medical  education,  subject,  inter  alia,  to  Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down  standards in institutions for higher education  or  research  and  scientific  and  technical  institutions  as  also  coordination  of  such  standards. A State has, therefore, the right to  control education  including medical  education  so long as the field is not occupied by any  Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot,  while  controlling  education  in  the  State,  impinge on standards in institutions for higher  education. Because this is exclusively within  the purview of the Union Government. Therefore,  while prescribing the criteria for admission to  the institutions for higher education including  higher  medical  education,  the  State  cannot  adversely affect the standards laid down by the  Union  of  India  under  Entry  66  of  List  I.  Secondly, while considering the cases on the  subject it is also necessary to remember that  from  1977,  education,  including,  inter  alia,  medical and university education, is now in the  Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate  on admission criteria also. If it does so, the  State will not be able to legislate in this  field, except as provided in Article 254.

36. It would not be correct to say that the  norms for admission have no connection with the  standard of education, or that the rules for  admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List  III.  Norms  of  admission  can  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  standards  of  education.  Of  course, there can be rules for admission which  are consistent with or do not affect adversely

Page 42

42

the standards of education prescribed by the  Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of  List I. For example, a State may, for admission  to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down  qualifications in addition to those prescribed  under  Entry  66  of  List  I.  This  would  be  consistent with promoting higher standards for  admission  to  the  higher  educational  courses.  But any lowering of the norms laid down can and  does have an adverse effect on the standards of  education  in  the  institutes  of  higher  education.  Standards  of  education  in  an  institution  or  college  depend  on  various  factors. Some of these are:

(1) the calibre of the teaching staff; (2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a  

high level of education in the given  span of time;

(3) the student-teacher ratio; (4) the ratio between the students and the  

hospital  beds  available  to  each  student;

(5) the calibre of the students admitted to  the institution;

(6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or  hospital facilities for training in the  case of medical colleges;

(7) adequate accommodation for the college  and the attached hospital; and

(8) the  standard  of  examinations  held  including the manner in which the papers are  set and examined and the clinical performance  is judged.

37. While  considering  the  standards  of  education in any college or institution, the  calibre of students who are admitted to that  institution or college cannot be ignored. If  the students are of a high calibre, training  programmes can be suitably moulded so that they  can receive the maximum benefit out of a high  level  of  teaching.  If  the  calibre  of  the  students is poor or they are unable to follow  the instructions being imparted, the standard  of teaching necessarily has to be lowered to  make them understand the course which they have  undertaken; and it may not be possible to reach  the levels of education and training which can

Page 43

43

be  attained  with  a  bright  group.  Education  involves a continuous interaction between the  teachers  and  the  students.  The  pace  of  teaching, the level to which teaching can rise  and the benefit which the students ultimately  receive, depend as much on the calibre of the  students as on the calibre of the teachers and  the  availability  of  adequate  infrastructural  facilities. That is why a lower student-teacher  ratio  has  been  considered  essential  at  the  levels  of  higher  university  education,  particularly when the training to be imparted  is  a  highly  professional  training  requiring  individual  attention  and  on-hand  training  to  the pupils who are already doctors and who are  expected  to  treat  patients  in  the  course  of  doing their postgraduate courses.”

36. In  Annamalai  University  vs.  Secretary  to  Government,  Information and Tourism Department and others, (2009) 4 SCC 590,  

this Court observed that UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in  

exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh  

Schedule  to  the  Constitution  of  India  whereas  the  Open  

University  Act was  enacted by  Parliament in  exercise of  its  

power under Entry 25 of List III.  It was held that in such  

circumstances the question of repugnancy between the provisions  

of the said two Acts, does not arise. The Court while holding  

that  the  provisions  of  the  UGC  Act  are  binding  on  all  the  

Universities held as follows:

“40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in  exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I  of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of  India  whereas  the  Open  University  Act  was  enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power  under  Entry  25  of  List  III  thereof.  The  question of repugnancy of the provisions of the  said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It is  true that the Statement of Objects and Reasons  of  the  Open  University  Act  shows  that  the

Page 44

44

formal system of education had not been able to  provide  an  effective  means  to  equalise  educational opportunities. The system is rigid  inter  alia  in  respect  of  attendance  in  classrooms. Combinations of subjects are also  inflexible.

42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding  on  all  universities  whether  conventional  or  open.  Its  powers  are  very  broad.  The  Regulations framed by it in terms of clauses  (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of  Section 26 are of wide amplitude. They apply  equally to open universities as also to formal  conventional  universities.  In  the  matter  of  higher education, it is necessary to maintain  minimum standards of instructions. Such minimum  standards of instructions are required to be  defined  by  UGC.  The  standards  and  the  coordination  of  work  or  facilities  in  universities must be maintained and for that  purpose required to be regulated. The powers of  UGC under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are  very broad in nature. Subordinate legislation  as is well known when validly made becomes part  of the Act. We have noticed hereinbefore that  the  functions  of  UGC  are  all-pervasive  in  respect of the matters specified in clause (d)  of sub-section (1) of Section 12-A and clauses  (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof.”

37. The aforesaid judgment makes it clear that to the extent  the State Legislation is in conflict with Central Legislation  

including  sub-ordinate  legislation  made  by  the  Central  Legislation  under  Entry  25  of  the  Concurrent  List  shall  be  repugnant to the Central Legislation and would be inoperative.  

38. The  question  that  now  arises  is  whether  any  of  the  provisions of the State Legislation (University Act, 1965) and  

statutes  framed  thereunder  is  in  conflict  with  the  Central  

Legislation i.e. UGC Act, 1956 including UGC Regulations, 2010.

Page 45

45

39. We find that post of Vice-Chancellor under the University  Act, 1965 is a post of an Officer. The UGC Act 1956 is silent  

about this aspect. The UGC Regulations, 2000 are also silent in  

regard to post of Vice-Chancellor. Provisions regarding Vice-

Chancellor  have  been  made  for  the  first  time  under  UGC  

Regulations, 2010.

We have noticed and held that UGC Regulations, 2010 is  

not applicable to the Universities, Colleges and other higher  

educational institutions coming under the purview of the State  

Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt and implement  

the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein. In this  

connection, one may refer paragraph 8(p)(v) of Appendix-I dated  

31st December,  2008  and  Regulation  7.4.0  of  UGC  Regulations,  

2010.

40. It  is also  not the  case of  the respondents  that the  Scheme  as  contained  in  Appendix-I  to  the  Annexure  of  UGC  

Regulations, 2010 has been adopted and implemented by the State  

Government. It is also apparent from the facts that University  

Act has not been amended in terms of UGC Regulations, 2010 nor  

was any action taken by the UGC under Section 14 of UGC Act,  

1956 as a consequence of failure of University to comply with  

the recommendations of the Commission under Section 14 of the  

UGC Act, 1956.

41. Almost  similar  Public  Interest  Litigation  was  filed

Page 46

46

before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay  being  Public  

Interest Litigation (Lodging) NO.80 of 2011  Suresh Patilkhede  

vs. The Chancellor, Universities of Maharashtra (supra). In the  

said  case  the  writ  petitioner  challenged  the  appointment  of  

Search Committee for recommending the panel of suitable person  

for  selection  of  Vice-Chancellor  of  Pune  University  on  the  

ground  that  the  appointment  of  the  Search  Committee  by  the  

Chancellor in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of  

the Maharasthra University Act is not in conformity with the  

provisions of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 made  

under the UGC Act.

42. In  the  said  case  also,  State  of  Maharashtra  and  the  Chancellor of Pune University while opposing the writ petition  

had taken a plea that UGC Regulations, 2010 being in the nature  

of  subordinate  Legislation  cannot  override  the  provisions  of  

Section 12 of the Maharashtra University Act, 1994, which is a  

preliminary Legislation made by the State Legislature. In the  

said case the Bombay High Court held:  

“16………Applying the aforesaid test of “direct  impact on the standard of Education” and the  principles  laid  down  in  the  aforesaid  decisions,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the  qualifications  and  the  method  of  appointment  for  the  post  of  Pro-Chancellor  and  Vice- Chancellor of a University cannot be considered  as having “direct impact on the standards of  education.

17.  We are, accordingly, of the considered  view that Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0 of UGC  Regulations for  appointment of  Pro-Chancellor  and Vice-Chancellor of the University governed

Page 47

47

by UGC Act cannot be treated as falling under  Clauses (e) and (g) of Section 26(1) of the UGC  Act, 1956.”

The Bombay High Court further held:

“46. As already held by us, Regulations 7.2.0  and  7.3.0  of  UGC  Regulations,  2010  are  traceable to Section 12(d) of UGC Act, 1956.  The same are not without any authority of law  but  at  the  same  time,  they  are  merely  recommendatory  in  nature  and,  therefore,  neither  the  State  Legislature  nor  the  State  Government  is  bound  to  accept  the  same.  Accordingly, when the State Government issued  order dated 15th February, 2011 at Exhibit ‘F’  enumerated those regulations which are adopted  by the State Government out of UGC Regulations,  2010, the State Government decided not to adopt  Regulations  7.2.0  and  7.3.0.  We,  therefore,  find considerable substance in the argument of  learned Advocate General that non-adoption of  directory Regulation 7.3.0 would not render the  State legislation or the Government order dated  15th February, 2011 invalid or unconstitutional.

47. To sum up-

(i) Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations,  2010 is not traceable to clause (e)  or  clause  (g)  of  Section  26(1)  of  the  University  Grants  Commission  Act, 1956.

(ii) The  source  of  making  Regulation  7.3.0  of  UGC  Regulations,  2010  is  Section  12(d)  and  (j)  of  UGC  Act,  1956.  However,  since  Section  12(d)  and  (j)  of  UGC  Act  merely  enables  UGC  to  make  recommendations  to  Universities,  Regulation  7.3.0  has  to be treated as recommendatory in  nature.

(iii) Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations,  2010 being a subordinate legislation  under  an  Act  of  Parliament  cannot  override plenary legislation enacted  by  the  State  Legislature  and,  therefore,  also  Regulation  7.3.0

Page 48

48

does not override, Section 12 of the  Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.”

43. We do not agree with the finding of the Bombay High Court  that  Regulation  7.3.0  of  the  UGC  Regulations,  2010  is  not  

traceable to clause (e) or (g) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act,  

1956. We also refuse to agree that Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC  

Regulations, 2010 being a sub-ordinate legislation under the Act  

of  Parliament  cannot  override  the  preliminary  legislation  

enacted by the State Legislature. However, the finding of the  

Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as  

recommendatory in nature is upheld in so far as it relates to  

Universities and Colleges under the State Legislation.

44. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold: (i) To the extent the State Legislation is in conflict  

with  Central  Legislation  including  sub-ordinate  

legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry  

25  of  the  Concurrent  List  shall  be  repugnant  to  the  

Central Legislation and would be inoperative.

(ii) The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses  

of  Parliament,  though  a  sub-ordinate  legislation  has  

binding effect on the Universities to which it applies.

(iii)UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and  

other academic staff in all the Central Universities and  

Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be  

Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the

Page 49

49

UGC.

(iv)  UGC  Regulations,  2010  is  directory  for  the  

Universities,  Colleges  and  other  higher  educational  

institutions under the purview of the State Legislation  

as the matter has been left to the State Government to  

adopt and implement the Scheme.

Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and  

is partly directory.  

(v) UGC  Regulations,  2010  having  not  adopted  by  the  

State Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between State  

Legislation  and  Statutes  framed  under  Central  

Legislation does not arise. Once it is adopted by the  

State Government, the State Legislation to be amended  

appropriately.  In  such  case  also  there  shall  be  no  

conflict between the State Legislation and the Central  

Legislation.

45. In view of the reasons and finding as recorded above, we  uphold  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan  as  Vice-

Chancellor,  Madurai  Kamaraj  University  as  made  by  the  G.O.

(1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2)Department, Government of Tamil  

Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 and set aside the impugned common  

judgment and order dated 26th June, 2014 passed by the Division  

Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Writ Petition  

(MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of 2013.

Page 50

50

The appeals are allowed but in the facts and circumstances of  

the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

………………………………………………………………………J.               (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)

………………………………………………………………………J.  (N.V. RAMANA)    

NEW DELHI, MARCH 11, 2015.