ORDER : 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they have been taken together to dispose of them by common order. 2. W.P. Nos.33044/2014 is filed by Federation of Farm Universities teachers’ Association and another praying to issue writ in the nature of quo warranto declaring respondent No.3 to be the usurper of office of the Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4university of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot and forthwith oust him from the said post and redo the process of selection. 3. W.P. No.33945/2014 is filed by one Raju, one of the participants before the Search Committee for the post of Vice Chancellor of the 4th respondent-University, seeking to quash notification bearing No.GS 2 HUM 2014 dated 27.6.2014 (Vide Annexure-G). 4. W.P. No.38766/2014 is filed by petitioners therein for the relief of quo warranto declaring respondent No.3 to be the usurper of office of the Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4Karnataka Rajya Gangubai Hangal Sangeetha Matthu Pradarshaka Kalegala Viswavidyalaya and forthwith remove her from the said post and redo the selection. 5. It is stated in the petitions that, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (e) to (g) of subsection (1) of Section 26 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short ‘UGC Act’), the UGC had framed certain regulations known as University Grants Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of standards in Higher Education, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the regulations’). These regulations were notified on 30.6.2010 and they were issued in super-session of previous set of regulations issued in the year 2000. Under regulation No.1.2 of the regulations, they were made applicable to every university incorporated by or under a Central Act or a State Act and every institution including a constituent or an affiliated college recognized by the Commission, in consultation with the universities concerned under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act. Regulation 1.2 declared that these regulations would apply even to every institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Regulation 2 stipulated minimum qualifications for appointment and other service condition of university and college teachers, librarians, directors of physical education and sports, as a measure for maintenance of high standards in higher education. 6. Regulation 1.2 declared that these regulations would apply even to every institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the UGC Act. Regulation 2 stipulated minimum qualifications for appointment and other service condition of university and college teachers, librarians, directors of physical education and sports, as a measure for maintenance of high standards in higher education. 6. It is further pleaded that the consequences of failure of universities in complying with the recommendation of the Commission were indicated in regulation 3, which reads as under: “If any university 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 subsection, 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 subsection (2) of Section 25 or of any regulations made under clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of subsection (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 funds of the Commission. 7. So far as the selection of Vice Chancellor of Universities is concerned, paragraph 7 of the Annexure to the regulations states as under: “ 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 35 names by a Search Committee through a public notification 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. 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 Vice-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. 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. ” 8. It is averred that the Vice Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician with minimum of ten years 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 and for appointment to the post of professor, one should have a minimum of ten years of teaching experience, including an experience of guiding candidates for research at the doctorate level and should produce evidence of published works with a minimum of ten publications as books. In view of the above contentions, petitioners prayed to allow the petitions along with the relief as prayed for in the petitions. 9. Respondent No.3 in W.P. Nos.33044/2014 and 33945/2014 has filed statement of objections denying the allegations made in the petitions and contending that the petitioners have failed to show any statutory provisions which are alleged to have been violated so as to maintain the petitions. The UGC regulations are not applicable to the case on hand and as such, the petitions are totally misconceived. The UGC regulations are not applicable to the case on hand and as such, the petitions are totally misconceived. It is contended that respondent No.4 comes under the purview of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) which is an autonomous organization under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The ICAR is the apex body for coordinating, guiding and managing research and education in agriculture including horticulture, fisheries and animal sciences through out the country. There are about 99 ICAR institutes and 56 agricultural universities which are under the umbrella of the ICAR. Respondent No.4university comes under the ICAR and not under the UGC. The entire process of selection to the post of Vice Chancellor was conducted as per the University of Horticultural Sciences Act 2009 (for short ‘UHS Act’) and the UGC Act and the Regulations were not applicable. The notification dated 25.4.2014 shows that search committee was constituted as per Section 27(2) of the UHS Act. The circular was issued by the state government calling for applications from the persons who have worked in the cadre of professor or an equivalent post of officers for a period of ten years or more. Respondent No.3, an eminent academician was also working in equivalent and higher officers post. It is further contended that even according to the UGC, respondent No.4university is not covered under it. The extract from the website of the UGC shows that there are 213 universities, which are recognized by the UGC and the said list does not include respondent No.4university. The extract is produced as per AnnexureR6. The accreditation of respondent No.4university is done by Accreditation Board appointed by the ICAR and not by NAAC as in the case of the UGC affiliated universities. The academic syllabus of UG and PG courses are prescribed by the deans committee appointed by the ICAR. All these facts would show that UGC Act and the Regulations are not applicable to respondent No.4 and the petitions are misconceived and the same may be rejected. 10. In W.P. No.38766/2004, respondent No.3 has filed the statement of objections with similar contentions that the Regulations have no application for the selection and appointment of Vice Chancellor of the university. All these facts would show that UGC Act and the Regulations are not applicable to respondent No.4 and the petitions are misconceived and the same may be rejected. 10. In W.P. No.38766/2004, respondent No.3 has filed the statement of objections with similar contentions that the Regulations have no application for the selection and appointment of Vice Chancellor of the university. Respondent No.3 has further contended that her appointment to the said post was as per the provisions of Karnataka Rajya Gangubai Hangal Sangeetha Mattu Pradarshaka Kalegala Vishwavidyalaya Act, 2009 (Karnataka Act No.25/2009). She has further averred that she has the first class post graduate degree in Music, M. Phil. and Ph.D. for her research in the field of music. She was working as an associate professor and also head of the department of music in Maharani’s Arts, Commerce and Management College for Women, which is a government institution functioning under the Directorate of Collegiate Education. She was awarded several awards. She has authored several publications to her credit and true copy of her profile is as per AnnexureR1. Therefore, it is contended that her appointment was in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and hence, she prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the appointment of respondent No.3 as Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4university is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Regulations. As per the notification issued by the state government calling for applications from the candidates, the applicant should be in the cadre of professor with minimum experience of ten years. Respondent No.3 appointed as the Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4university, was not possessing requisite qualifications as she was not professor for a period of ten years. Hence, the appointment of respondent No.3 is also not in conformity with the requirements of notification of the state government. It is further submitted that regulations of the UGC are binding on respondent No.4university. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No.3 as the Vice Chancellor is contrary to the said Regulations. In this regard, learned Counsel drew attention of this Court to the decision in ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 and more specifically to paragraphs 42 and 45 of the said decision. In this regard, learned Counsel drew attention of this Court to the decision in ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION AND TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 4 SCC 590 and more specifically to paragraphs 42 and 45 of the said decision. The learned Counsel further referred to UGC Regulations and drew attention of this Court to regulation 1.2 and the coverage at point No.1.1.1. Lastly, it is submitted that, as the appointment of respondent No.3 is not in conformity with the statutory requirements, the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petitions. 12. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that the UGC Regulations are not made applicable to the case on the hand. The appointment of the Vice Chancellor is in accordance with UHS Act and no illegality has been committed in the appointment. As per Section 27(2) of the UHS Act, Search Committee was constituted by the state government and the said Committee had, after considering merits of respondent No.3, academic qualifications, teaching experience and also the services on the administrative side and the publication of works, recommended respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that when the Search Committee, consisting of distinguished personalities having rich experience in the field of education and other administrative aspects, had recommended respondent No.3, which had been accepted by His Excellency the Governor, now it is not permissible for the petitioners to contend that the appointment is not in accordance with the provisions of law. He further submitted that so far as the Search Committee is concerned, no mala fide was attributed. The contention of the petitioners that respondent No.3 was not possessing the requisite qualifications and the appointment is invalid, cannot be accepted. No grounds were made out by the petitioners to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.3. When the appointment of respondent No.3 was as per the recommendation of the Search Committee after assessing merits of the candidates and when no mala fide was attributed as against the members of the Search Committee, it is not a case for this Court to interfere under the writ jurisdiction for setting aside the said appointment. In this connection, learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in HARI BANSH LAL VS. In this connection, learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in HARI BANSH LAL VS. SAHODAR PRASAD MAHTO AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 9 SCC 655 and in appeal (Civil) 5897/2007 dated 13.12.2007 (M.V. THIMMAIAH VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION) and prayed to dismiss the petitions. 13. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that though there are regulations framed by the UGC and unless and until, they are adopted by the state government, they are not made applicable to the appointment of respondent No.3 as Vice Chancellor of respondent No.4university. He also submitted that, in the notification issued by the state government calling for the applications for the post of Vice Chancellor, it is not the only condition that the candidate should be in the cadre of professor for at least ten years, but he/she could also be in the equivalent post of officers for a period of ten years or more. Hence, he submitted that the contentions of the petitioners that respondent No.3 was not possessing the post of professor for a period of ten years, and hence, the said appointment was invalid, is not correct. It is also submitted that the UGC Regulations prescribe qualifications for the appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the universities and colleges. The appointment of Vice Chancellor is not coming within the purview of the said Regulations. Hence, the Regulations are not made applicable for appointment of the Vice Chancellor. He further submitted that respondent No.4university comes under the purview of ICAR, which is an autonomous organization, and hence, the regulations of the UGC are not made applicable to respondent No.4university. He referred to Section 27(2) of the UHS Act and submitted that in view of the provisions of the said Act, the state government had appointed the Search Committee which had, after assessing the merit of respondent No.3 in the field of horticultural sciences/music and performing arts, respectively and also his/her services on the administrative side and taking into account that he/she was one of the eminent academicians in the field, recommended his/her name in the panel consisting of three persons. When ever the UGC frames the regulations, they are not made automatically applicable to the universities and the state government has the option to adopt those regulations or not. When ever the UGC frames the regulations, they are not made automatically applicable to the universities and the state government has the option to adopt those regulations or not. This aspect has been already made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 8 SCC 633 . It is further contended that when the Search Committee had recommended the name of respondent No.3, their recommendation should prevail, unless and until mala fide is attributed against the members of the said Committee. 14. In Annamalai University’s case, referred above, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at para Nos.42 and 45, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “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 subsection (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 subsection (1) of Section 12A and clauses (a) and (c) of subsection (2) thereof. 45. The amplitude of the provisions of the UGC Act vis-à-vis the universities constituted under the State Universities Acts which would include within its purview a university made by Parliament also is now no longer res integra.” 15. It is no doubt true that, as per the aforesaid decision, the provisions of the UGC Act are binding on all the universities, whether conventional or open. Subsequent to the said decision, in Jagdish Prasad Sharma’s case (supra), a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “76. The learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. Subsequent to the said decision, in Jagdish Prasad Sharma’s case (supra), a larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “76. The learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, Mr. Gopal Singh, had in his submissions reiterated the views of the High Court i.e. that on mere communication, the revision of the pay of teachers and increase in the age of superannuation would not automatically become effective and that, in any event, the right to alter the terms and conditions of service of the (sic employees of the) State universities and colleges were within the domain of the State Government and till such time as it decided to adopt the same, the same would have no application to the teachers and staff of the different educational institutions in the State. “77. We are inclined to agree with such submission mainly because of the fact that in the amended provisions of Section 67(a) it has been categorically stated that the age of superannuation of non-teaching employees would be 62 years and, in no case, should the period of service of such non-teaching employees be extended beyond 62 years. A difference had been made in regard to the teaching faculty whose services could be extended up to 65 years in the manner laid down in the University Statutes. There is no ambiguity that the final decision to enhance the age of superannuation of teachers within a particular State would be that of the State itself. The right of the Commission to frame regulations having the force of law is admitted. However, the State Governments are also entitled to legislate with matters relating to education under List III Entry 25. So long as the State legislation did not encroach upon the jurisdiction of Parliament, the State legislation would obviously have primacy over any other law. If there was any legislation enacted by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, both would have to be treated on a par with each other*. In the absence of any such legislation by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, the regulations framed by way of delegated legislation have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List III Entry 25. “78. In the absence of any such legislation by the Central Government under List III Entry 25, the regulations framed by way of delegated legislation have to yield to the plenary jurisdiction of the State Government under List III Entry 25. “78. We are then faced with the situation where a composite scheme has been framed by UGC, whereby the Commission agreed to bear 80% of the expenses incurred by the State if such scheme was to be accepted, subject to the condition that the remaining 20% of the expense would be met by the State and that on and from 142010, the State Government would take over the entire burden and would also have enhanced the age of superannuation of teachers and other staff from 62 to 65 years. There being no compulsion to accept and/or adopt the said Scheme, the States are free to decide as to whether the Scheme would be adopted by them or not. In our view, there can be no automatic application of the recommendations made by the Commission, without any conscious decision being taken by the State in this regard, on account of the financial implications and other consequences attached to such a decision. The case of those petitioners who have claimed that they should be given the benefit of the Scheme dehors the responsibility attached thereto, must, therefore, fail. ” 16. In Hari Bansh Lal’s case, relied upon by the learned senior counsel for respondent No.3, paragraphs relevant for the purpose of the case are as under: “16. A writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is contrary to a statutory provision. In High Court of Gujarat vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat (three-Judge bench) Hon’ble S.B. Sinha, J. concurring with the majority view held: (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 22-23) 22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact of the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R K Jain Vs. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact of the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R K Jain Vs. Union of India, SCC Para 74) 23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Haryana.) ’ 17. xxxxxx 18. In B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. this Court held: (SCC p.754, para 49) “49. The law is well settled. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.” 17. We have also perused the decision in BASAVAIAH (DR.) VS. DR. H.L RAMESH AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “26. In J P Kulshrestha (Dr.) Vs. Allahabad University the Court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.” “27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and High Secondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) ‘29. … As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual daytoday working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.’ “28. In Neelima Misra s. Harinder Kaur Paintal the Court relied on the judgment in University of Mysore and observed that in the matter of appointments in the academic field, the court generally does not interfere. In Neelima Misra s. Harinder Kaur Paintal the Court relied on the judgment in University of Mysore and observed that in the matter of appointments in the academic field, the court generally does not interfere. The Court further observed that the High Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee and its recommendation on which the Chancellor had acted. “29. In Bhushan Uttam Khanre Vs. B.J. Medical college the Court placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of Mysore and reiterated the same legal position and observed as under: (Bhushan Uttam case, SCC p. 223, para 8) ‘8…..the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice.’ 30. xxxxx “31. In Chancellor Vs. Dr. Bijayananda Kar the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 17475, para 9) ‘9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to be decided by the academic bodies and the Selection Committees concerned which invariably consist of experts on the subjects relevant to the selection.’ 32. xxxxx 33. xxxxx 34. xxxxx 35. xxxxx 36. xxxxx 37. xxxxx “38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. ” 18. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. ” 18. On careful reading of the factual aspects of the matter as also the decisions relied upon by both the sides, it would appear that, even according to the petitioners, no mala fide is attributed to the members of the Search Committee in recommending the name of respondent No.3 for appointment as the Vice Chancellor in the respective university. 19. For the grant of relief of certiorari as prayed for in the petitions, the petitioners have to show that the statutory requirements for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor were not complied with. On perusal of the material on record and the decision of larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma’ case, the legal position is that the provisions of the UHS Act are made applicable to the case on hand and not the UGC Regulations. As per the provisions of Section 27(2) of UHS Act, the state government had constituted the search committee, which had, after considering the merits, academic distinctions and the published works of respondent No.3, recommended his/her name on the panel consisting of three names. All the statutory requirements have been followed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in making such appointment. When the appointment is as per the recommendations of the Search Committee, which consisted experts in the field of education and the technical aspects, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by such experts. There is no merit in the petitions and accordingly, all the three petitions are dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petitions, all pending I. As. do not survive for consideration. They are also accordingly dismissed.