Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1037 (MAD)

G. Balasubramanian v. K. Ravindran

2021-03-23

M.M.SUNDRESH, S.ANANTHI

body2021
JUDGMENT : M.M. SUNDRESH, J. (Prayer in all the Writ Appeals: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5304 of 2019, dated 20.12.2019.) 1. All these appeals are against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, filed by different respondents in the Writ Petition. Hence, they are appositely disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Tamil University, Thanjavur, is recognised under Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and accordingly, included under Section 12(B) of the said Act and has been receiving Central Assistance from the Commission. Pursuant to the tenure of the Vice-Chancellor coming to an end on 04.08.2018, the Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.51, Tamil Development and Information (T.D.2.1) Department, dated 12.03.2018, prescribing qualification for the said post. Under Section 12 of the Tamil University Act, 1982, such an appointment shall be made by the Hon'ble Chancellor from and out of the three names to be recommended by the Search Committee, that is constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 12. It shall consists of five persons, nominated by the Hon'ble Chancellor, Government, Senate of the University and the Syndicate. Of the above, two nominations may be done by the Syndicate of the University. The procedure for nomination of Syndicate and Senate nominee for Search Committee meant for the appointment of Vice-Chancellor has been given by the Statutes of the Tamil University framed under the Act with specific reference to Chapter xxv, which is as under: ''3(1). Each member of the Senate shall have a right to nominate not more than one person who is not a member of any of the authorities of the University, to the said Committee. Similarly, each member of the Syndicate shall have a right to nominate not more than two persons who are not members of any of the authorities of the University to the said Committee.'' Thus, the aforesaid Statute, which deals with the Committee for Recommending a Panel for Vice-Chancellorship, speaks nomination of person, who is not a member of any of the authorities of the University qua a member of the Senate and so also the Syndicate. Thus, there is no difficulty in holding that the definition “is not a member of any of the authority of the University” was only mean a person, who is actually at the relevant point of time a member of the any of the authority of the University and thus, not a past member. 3. Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, provides for the following qualifications: ''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 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.'' Regulations 7.4.0 mandated the Universities and State Governments to modify their Acts or Statutes in tune with the same within 6 months of adopting such Regulations. We appositely reproduce the above said Regulation hereunder: ''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.'' 4. Thereafter, 2013 Regulations came with effect from 13.06.2013. We appositely reproduce the above said Regulation hereunder: ''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.'' 4. Thereafter, 2013 Regulations came with effect from 13.06.2013. Clause 7.3.0 of the said Regulations, which speaks of selection of Vice- Chancellor with reference to sub-clause (ii) makes a departure by leaving the discretion to the concerned University qua constitution of such Committee. Following is the relevant part of the aforesaid provision: ''The constitution of the Search Committee could be as per the Act statutes of the concerned University.'' 5. The Tamil University Amendment Act came into effect from 07.08.2017 by amending the parent Act introduced in the year 1982. Subsection (2) of Section 12 underwent substitution in the following manner.: ''(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the Committee shall consist of — (i) a nominee of the Chancellor, who shall be a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or any High Court or an eminent educationist; (ii) a nominee of the Government, who shall be a retired or serving officer of the State Government not below the rank of Principal Secretary to Government or an eminent educationist; (iii) a nominee of the Senate who shall be an eminent educationist; and (iv) two nominees of the Syndicate who shall be eminent educationists.'' The proviso to the aforesaid provision mandated that a person so nominated shall not be a member of any of the authorities of the Universities or shall not be connected with the University or any College or any recognised Institution of the University. This proviso deal with the Statute at the time of nomination of a person to the Search-cum-Selection Committee. 6. Accordingly, a Government Order was passed in G.O.(Ms)No.145, Tamil Development and Information (T.D.2.1) Department, dated 02.07.2018, resulting in the constitution of Search Committee in tune with Section 12(1)(a) of the Tamil University Act, 1982 (as amended). Few weeks thereafter, UGC Regulations, 2018 came into force from 18.07.2018. Under Regulation 7.3, the procedure for Selection of Vice-Chancellor has been prescribed, as under: ''7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR: i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Few weeks thereafter, UGC Regulations, 2018 came into force from 18.07.2018. Under Regulation 7.3, the procedure for Selection of Vice-Chancellor has been prescribed, as under: ''7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR: i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ of experience as Professor in a University or ten years’ of experience in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. ii. The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection-Committee, through a public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be persons’ of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the Search cum-Selection Committee shall give proper weightage to the 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. One member of the Search cum Selection Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.'' Thus, the Regulations provide for nomination by one member of the Searchcum- Selection Committee by the Chairman, University Grants Commission for the selection of the Vice-Chancellor of a University. 7. We may note that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was much prior to the coming into force of the aforesaid Regulations, which position is an admitted one. Applications were invited by the Search-cum-Selection Committee for the post of Vice-Chancellor on 28.07.2018. The appellant in W.A.(MD)No.10 of 2020 and respondent No.1/writ petitioner did apply. Of the 36 applications received, 10 were short-listed by the Committee, in which, both these gentlemen found their names in place. The Search-cum-Selection Committee thereafter conducted the interview and selected three persons. Of the three, the Chancellor found the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020 as suitable. The appellant in W.A.(MD)No.10 of 2020 and respondent No.1/writ petitioner did apply. Of the 36 applications received, 10 were short-listed by the Committee, in which, both these gentlemen found their names in place. The Search-cum-Selection Committee thereafter conducted the interview and selected three persons. Of the three, the Chancellor found the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020 as suitable. Of the five nominations made, Dr.M.Manivel, Department of Tamilology, School of Tamil, has admittedly got nothing to do with the University, except that he was a former Syndicate Member. He was a retired Professor of the Madurai Kamaraj University, while holding the post of Syndicate Member between 2013 and 2016. Similarly Dr.K.Karunakaran, holding the post of Vice-Chancellor of Tamil University more than a decade ago. It is nobody's case that these two gentlemen having any act or part in the Tamil University at the time of their nomination to the Search Committee. 8. Since respondent No.1/writ petitioner was not selected as a Vice- Chancellor as against the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020, he moved this Court before the learned Single Judge to quash the same. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by considering provisions, especially, proviso to Section 12 of the U.G.C. Regulations, and held that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee is improper as the words ''persons connected'' under the Proviso has to be given wider interpretation and therefore, it takes it in its ambit and person, but had past connections as well while quashing the Government Order passed appointing the appellant as Vice-Chancellor. The learned Single Judge directed the other respondents/appellants in W.A.(MD) Nos.11 and 12 of 2020 to constitute a fresh Search Committee in tune with the U.G.C. Regulations along with 12(2) of the Tamil University Act. Incidentally, the case of the writ petitioner was directed to be considered, if he is otherwise found eligible. Seeking to overturn the aforesaid decision made, these appeals are before us. 9. The learned Advocate General and the other two learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants submitted that the principle of estoppel and acquiescence will apply. Constitution of Committee was never objected or challenged by respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Merely because, he lost the race, he cannot rush to the Court and file the Writ Petition. The issue qua assessment merit does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Court. Constitution of Committee was never objected or challenged by respondent No.1/writ petitioner. Merely because, he lost the race, he cannot rush to the Court and file the Writ Petition. The issue qua assessment merit does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Court. What was applied is, the provision of the Tamil University Amendment Act. An interpretation, which was not required cannot be given. Even before the U.G.C. Regulations, dated 18.07.2018, the Search Committee was in place. The Committee found there were at least three persons better than the writ petitioner. There is no malice on fact or law is involved. The learned Single Judge has misdirected herself by relying upon the U.G.C. Regulations, which does not have an application while wrongly interpreting Section 12(2) of the Tamil University Act. 10. To buttress their submissions, reliance has been made on the following decisions: (i) Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21840 of 2013, dated 05.06.2014, in the matter of Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Others. (ii) W.P.(C) No.12030 of 2015, dated 27.03.2019, in the matter of M.K.Singh v. Chancellor, Rashtriya Sankrit Sansthan and others. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner made the submissions as recorded hereunder: Even in the U.G.C. Regulations of 2010, there is an mandate to bring the respective Act or Statute in tune with them (Regulations). U.G.C. Regulations of the year 2018 reiterated the said position on qualifications. For the reasons known, no amendment has been brought forth either by the State or the University. Though 2018 Regulations are subsequent to the creation of the Search Committee, they are admittedly before the selection. Any element of bias might arise since the selected persons are from a particular side between linguistic and literature. The past connections will also have to be taken by giving a purposeful interpretation. There is no question of estoppel, which can be put against the Statute, but in principle does not require any estoppel. The learned Single Judge having considered these aspects, there is no need to review the same. 12. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020 submitted that there is no classification as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner between linguistic and language. There is only one Department, called 'Department of Linguistic' as against the Department of Literature. 12. Mr.Isaac Mohanlal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020 submitted that there is no classification as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner between linguistic and language. There is only one Department, called 'Department of Linguistic' as against the Department of Literature. If at all, there is any bias, it can only be in favour of respondent No.1/writ petitioner, who was working in the Tamil University. The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020 was working at the Dravidian University, Kuppam, Andra Pradesh. Thus, the aforesaid submissions made cannot be countenanced. 13. We have already placed on record the relevant provisions governing. On the issue of applicability of the Tamil University Amendment Act, dated 02.08.2017, as against the University Grants Commission Regulations, we are constrained to hold that in view of 2013 U.G.C. Regulations in 7.3.0 sub-clause (ii), the constitution of the Search Committee is Act or Statute of the concerned University. Thus, there cannot be any difficulty in upholding the Search Committee, particularly, when 2018 U.G.C. Regulations came into effect from 07.08.2018. By that time, the process has begun. 14. The question as to whether the amendment of 2010 Regulations with regard to the amendment not being carried would pale into insignificance in view of the amendment made to the Tamil University Act. Not only the said enactment, the U.G.C. Regulations, 2013, has facilitated the same, making the position clear that the Act and Statute of the University would govern the field. Therefore, such a non-compliance with respect to the period mentioned would not certainly enure to the benefit of respondent No.1/writ petitioner. 15. The interpretation sought to be made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ petitioner, as approved by the learned Single Judge, also cannot be countenanced. Literal interpretation is a Rule. We have already moved back and forth from 'literal' to 'Heydon's'. The position is rather settled. Such an interpretation would amount to legislation by the Court. We are not even dealing with the case of conscious omission. If that is the position, the writ petitioner should have taken it up at the earliest point of time. To put it differently, had he been selected, certainly, he would not have raised this issue. On the objections made on the constitution of the Committee, we do not find any merit at all. If that is the position, the writ petitioner should have taken it up at the earliest point of time. To put it differently, had he been selected, certainly, he would not have raised this issue. On the objections made on the constitution of the Committee, we do not find any merit at all. In the case of Dr.M.Manivel, he was a Syndicate Member between 2013 and 2016. Similarly, Dr.K.Karunakaran went from one University to the appellant University and worked there for two years and decades ago. The words ''shall not be connected with the University or College or recognised institution of the University'' cannot be stretched, by no imagination to mean that an Ex-Syndicate Member and Ex-Vice-Chancellor would be disqualified from the Member of the Search Committee. 16. Our view is also fortified by the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21840 of 2013, dated 05.06.2014, in the matter of Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Others. We only quote the following paragraphs for better understanding: ''12. It is in this backdrop that the life members of the Senate have also been prescribed under section 18 of the Act to include all ex-Vice-Chancellors of the University including those appointed to fill a casual or temporary vacancy of the Vice Chancellor as well as every person who has given to the satisfaction of the Chancellor a sum of not less than one lac rupees in cash for the purposes of the University. Thus, in the very concept of such a huge body of Senate it cannot be said that every member of the Senate is connected with the affairs of the University or its Colleges. In fact when a person has been made life member of the Senate and has never attended the meeting of the Senate and has also undertaken to never be part of the Senate can he be also said to be connected with the affairs of the University? If such a wide proposition as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken into account, unfortunately the Chancellor is the first Ex-Officio Member of the Senate. If such a wide proposition as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken into account, unfortunately the Chancellor is the first Ex-Officio Member of the Senate. Can it be said that since the Chancellor himself is the Member of the Senate and thus, is connected with the affairs of the University he too gets disqualified in either nominating the members of the Search Committee or making appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor submitted by the Search Committee on the post of Vice Chancellor. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court even such a proposition in fact would lead to absurdity and therefore, the expression "in connection with the affairs of the University" has to be understood in the context it has been used in Section 10(1)(ii) of the Act which would mean that a person, who is dealing with the affairs of the University on day to day basis and has a capacity to influence the decision with regard to preparation of panel by the Search Committee, cannot be a member of the Search Committee. For example, a Vice Chancellor of the University, who is every day taking decision in the University, cannot be made a member of the Search Committee for selecting his successor by virtue of his being associated/ linked/ tied up with the affairs of the University. There can be any other example of a person being in connection with the affairs of the University and the College, who is in direct employment of the University or the College and therefore, has a stake or interest in the appointment of a Vice Chancellor but to an Ex-Vice-Chancellor who was made a life member and may not have even accepted such life membership either explicitly or by the conduct of not associating in any meeting of the Senate cannot be said to be a person connected with the affairs of the University/ Colleges.'' 17.Similarly, another Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.12030 of 2015, dated 27.03.2019, in the matter of M.K.Singh v. Chancellor, Rashtriya Sankrit Sansthan and others, considered the said issue, which could be seen from the following paragraphs: ''22. The requirement that a member of the Search Committee must not be connected in any manner with the university or its colleges as contained in Regulation 7.3.0(ii) of the UGC Appointment Regulations 2010 was therefore not a requisite for the Search Committee to be appointed for the Sanskrit Sansthan since this university is admittedly a public funded institution and is therefore covered by the mandate of the UGC Amendment Regulations 2014 read with Office Memorandum dated 30.07.2007 issued by the Central Government. This submission made on behalf of the UGC also rings true since letter dated 03.09.2014, whereby the Ministry constituted the Search Committee, contains a specific reference to Office Memorandum dated 30.07.2007. 23. It is not the petitioner"s case that the Government Nominee was a recipient of any grant or funding from the Ministry. As far as the relationship of the Government Nominee with the recipient is concerned, the recipient in this case being the Sanskrit Sansthan, in our opinion it cannot be said that the Government Nominee was closely related to the Sanskrit Sansthan since he was at that time Vice-Chancellor of a different university and had no proximate, on-going dealings with the Sanskrit Sansthan. At the relevant time the Government Nominee was only holding a lien over the post of Principal at the Sanskrit Sansthan. The Government Nominee was certainly a person of appropriate standing having acknowledged expertise in the relevant field, namely Sanskrit education. 24. The intent and purpose of the rule, as applied to the present case, was that the members of the Search Committee should have been independent persons who were not beholden to the Sanskrit Sansthan in a manner as would compromise their independence; and who also had knowledge of the concerned field of specialization viz. Sanskrit education. The aim was to have such persons in the Search Committee who would, with fairness and objectivity and not for any tendentious reason, recommend the best names to the Ministry for eventual appointment to the post. We have no reason to believe that the Government Nominee was in any manner beholden to, or had any unholy interest in, the Sanskrit Sansthan that would compromise his objectivity as a member of the Search Committee.'' 18. Once we hold that the law does not prohibit the aforesaid two persons to be the Members of the Search Committee, the case of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner falls to ground. Once we hold that the law does not prohibit the aforesaid two persons to be the Members of the Search Committee, the case of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner falls to ground. We do not find any likelihood of bias involved nor the contention sought to be made in respect to linguistic or literature or language has no basis. The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020 was selected as the Vice-Chancellor is not known to any of the nominees, who formed part of the Search Committee nor had any connection with the University. There are no different sides as linguistic and language. There is no such different classification as alleged. The role of the Committee was to assess and evaluate the merit and suitability of the candidates to the post of Vice-Chancellorship. While doing so, the factors required to be taken into consideration are only to assess the suitability to the said post and nothing else. The writ petitioner has not produced any material to prove bias against the Members of the Search Committee nor we find any legal malice is in existence. In their assessment, there are three persons including the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.10 of 2020, who are better than the writ petitioner. Whatever may be the constitution of the Committee, the assessment was unbiased and done on a comparative basis. Such an assessment cannot be questioned in the absence of any concrete material. Perhaps, the writ petitioner wants to raise every plea, available, being aggrieved by his non-selection. 19. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, has not considered the issue in its own perspective. The interpretation made on Section 12(2) of the Tamil University Act vis-a-vis the application of the U.G.C. Regulations cannot be sustained in the light of our discussions made. We can only note that by the very same Search Committee, the writ petitioner also got himself short-listed. Had a challenge been made by an applicant who did not find his name in the initial short listing of 10, where the respondent No.1 found place, he would have a contra stand. Thus, having considered the case in the conspectus of our above discussion, we hold the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 20. Had a challenge been made by an applicant who did not find his name in the initial short listing of 10, where the respondent No.1 found place, he would have a contra stand. Thus, having considered the case in the conspectus of our above discussion, we hold the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 20. Accordingly, these Writ Appeals are allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.12.2019, made in W.P.(MD)No.5304 of 2019 is set aside and the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.