JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, Sri A.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 2/University, Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4/UGC. Facts:- 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent No.1 has been appointed as the Interim (first) Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.2-University (a new University), i.e. Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh State University, Aligarh (for short ‘RMPSS University’) by a Government Order No.600/ lRrj -1-2021-16(26)/2019 dated 30.12.2021, issued in exercise of powers conferring under Section 4(1-B) of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the U.P. Act, 1973’). The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a relief in the nature of a writ of Quo Warranto to declare appointment of the respondent No.1 as void ab-initio and consequently to quash and set it aside on the ground that the appointment of the respondent No.1 is contrary to Para 7.3 of 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, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UGC Regulations, 2018’). Submissions on behalf of petitioner:- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under: (i) As per Para-7.3 of 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UGC Regulations, 2010’), a person to be appointed as Vice Chancellor, amongst other qualifications, must have 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. Since as on the date of appointment, the respondent No.1 was having less than ten years experience as a Professor in a University, therefore, his appointment is void ab-initio. Since as on the date of appointment, the respondent No.1 was having less than ten years experience as a Professor in a University, therefore, his appointment is void ab-initio. (ii) Para 1.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 provides that it 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. Para 1.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 provides that the Regulations shall come into force with immediate effect. Based on the aforesaid two Paras 1.2 and 1.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010, it is submitted that even if any State Law provides minimum qualification/experience in conflict with the Regulations, 2010 for the post of Vice Chancellor, then to the extent of conflict, the State Law shall be void and Para 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 shall prevail in view of the Article 254 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Para 7.3(1) of 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, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the UGC Regulations, 2018’), is identical to Para 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 and as such even if the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018 are applied, still the appointment of the respondent No.1 would be void ab-initio inasmuch as he does not possess the minimum required qualification for the post of Vice Chancellor. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (a) Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran and others, 2022 (16) SCALE 410 (Paras-12 and 13) (b) State of West Bengal vs. Anindya Sundar Das and others, AIR 2022 SC 3902 (Paras-52 to 56) (c) Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and others, 2022 (15) SCALE 377 (Paras 8.1 to 8.5) (d) Gambhirdan K. Gadhavi vs. State of Gujrat and others, (2022) 5 SCC 179 (Paras-32, 33, 36, 48, 49, 50 and 51) 5. Rajasree M.S. and others, 2022 (15) SCALE 377 (Paras 8.1 to 8.5) (d) Gambhirdan K. Gadhavi vs. State of Gujrat and others, (2022) 5 SCC 179 (Paras-32, 33, 36, 48, 49, 50 and 51) 5. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 submits as under: (i) The controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 16.11.2015 in Writ-A No.62753 of 2015 (Amrit Prasad vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) in which in similar circumstances, a coordinate bench of this court has held that since the Regulations, 2010 have not been adopted by the State Government in the matter of selection of Vice Chancellor, therefore, Para 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 or the UGC Regulations, 2018 shall not apply. (ii) The aforesaid judgment in the case of Amrit Prasad (supra) being a judgment of this Court by a bench of equal strength, therefore, it is binding upon this bench and this bench cannot take a different view except that in the event of disagreement, it may refer the matter to a larger bench. Submissions on behalf of respondents:-(iii) There is a vast difference between the provisions of UGC Regulations, 2010 and the UGC Regulations, 2018. While Para 1.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 made the applicability of the Regulations to every universities etc., Para-1.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 framed in supersession in all the earlier Regulations is differently worded as under: “1.2 Every university or institution deemed to be University, as the case may be, shall as soon as may be, but not later than within six months of the coming into force of these Regulations, take effective steps for the amendment of the statutes, ordinances or other statutory provisions governing it, so as to bring the same in accordance with these Regulations.” (iv) Pursuant to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and specifically with reference to Para 1.2 thereof, the State Government has issued a Government Order No.600/Seventy-1-2019-16(114)/2010 dated 28.06.2019 adopting the UGC Regulations, 2018 to a limited extent. This GO specifically provides with regard to Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor as under: ^^8- mŸkj izns'k jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e&1973 es dqyifr ,ao izfr&dqyifr dh fu;qfDr dh izfØ;k dk mYys[k gS] tks ;Fkkor ykxw jgsaxsA 11& ^dksM vkQ izksQs'kuy bfFkDl^ lEca/kh fofu;e fo'ofo|ky; rFkk egkfo|ky; ds f'k{kd laoxZ] iqLrdky; laoxZ] 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk ,oa [ksy funs'kdksa ds lEca/k esa ykxw gksaxs fdUrq izfr dqyifr ,oa dqyifr ds lEca/k esa mŸkj izns'k jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 1973 ds izkfo/kku gh izHkkoh gksaxsA vr% izfr dqyifr ,oa dqyifr ds lac/k esa dksM vkQ izksQs'kuy bfFkDl^ lEca/kh fofu;e dks ykxw fd;s tkus ij v/;;u dj fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk^^ (v) In the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 8 SCC 633 (Para-72), a three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “72. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are concerned, they have their own problems which are localised and stand on a different footing from the other States, none of whom who appear to have the same problem. Education now being a List III subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by the UGC. It is only natural that if they wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have to abide by the conditions as laid down by the Commission.” (vi) Thus, in view of the law laid down by three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others (supra), the State of Uttar Pradesh is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State or follow the regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956 and if the State of U.P. wishes to adopt it, then it has to abide by the conditions as may be laid down by the Commission. In so far as the appointment of Vice Chancellor and Pro-Vice Chancellor is concerned, State Government has issued the aforesaid government order dated 28.06.2019, therefore, Para 7.3 of the UGC Regulation shall not be applicable for appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor with reference to para 1.2 of the said Regulations. In so far as the appointment of Vice Chancellor and Pro-Vice Chancellor is concerned, State Government has issued the aforesaid government order dated 28.06.2019, therefore, Para 7.3 of the UGC Regulation shall not be applicable for appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor with reference to para 1.2 of the said Regulations. (vii) In the case of Kalyani Mathivanan vs. K.V. Jeyaraj and others, (2015) 6 SCC 363 (Paras-62 and 63), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “62. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold: 62.1.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. 62.2. The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a subordinate legislation has binding effect on the Universities to which it applies. 62.3. 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 UGC. 62.4. The 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 are partly mandatory and is partly directory. 62.5. The UGC Regulations, 2010 having not been adopted by the State of Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between State legislation and the Statutes framed under Central legislation does not arise. Once they are 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. 63. 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 9-4-2012 and set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 26-6-2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in K.V. Jeyaraj v. Chancellor of Universities, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 2701. 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 9-4-2012 and set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 26-6-2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in K.V. Jeyaraj v. Chancellor of Universities, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 2701. The appeals are allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” (viii) A writ of Quo Warranto lies only when the appointment is made of an ineligible person and in conflict with the relevant rules/statute. Since the appointment of the respondent No.1 has been made in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and also since in Section 4(1-B) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, no experience has been provided for appointment of the first Vice Chancellor of the University and the appointment is an interim appointment, therefore, a writ of Quo Warranto shall not lie as the respondent No.1 is the first Vice Chancellor of the University. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Hari Bansh Lal vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors, (2010) 9 SCC 655 . (ix) Question of repugnancy with reference to proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India does not come into picture inasmuch as the UGC Regulations, 2018 itself have left the State for adoption of the Regulations. The position also stood clarified by a three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others (supra). The judgments on the proposition relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is of two judges bench while the judgment in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others (supra) is by a three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequently, it shall have precedence over the aforesaid two judgments on the limited question of repugnancy. (x) The entire writ petition is based on the UGC Regulations, 2010 while the UGC Regulations, 2018 are in force. 6. Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018 being mandatory in nature has to be complied with while making appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor. 7. Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 6. Sri Rizwan Ali Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the provisions of the UGC Regulations, 2018 being mandatory in nature has to be complied with while making appointment on the post of Vice Chancellor. 7. Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 3 adopts the aforenoted submissions made by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1. 8. Sri A.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 also adopts the submissions made by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 as aforenoted. 9. Learned counsels for the parties have not made any other submissions except those aforenoted. Discussion and Findings: 10. Appointment of the respondent No.1 was made by the State Government by the above referred Government Order dated 30.12.2021 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(1-B) of the U.P. Act, 1973. For ready reference, Section 4(1-B) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the Government Order dated 30.12.2021 for appointment of the petitioner as Interim (First) Vice-Chancellor, are reproduced below: “Section 4(1-B) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 2013:- 4(1-B) in relation to the Universities to be established under sub-section (1- A) – (a) the State Government shall appoint interim officers of the Universities (other than the Chancellor) and shall constitute interim authorities of such Universities in such manner as it thinks fit.; (b) the officers appointed and members of the authorities constituted under clause (a) shall hold office until the appointment of officers or the constitution of the authorities in accordance with clause (c) or such other earlier date as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf : Provided that the State Government may, by notification extend the term of the members of such authorities for a period not exceeding one year. (c) the State Government shall take steps for the appointment of officers and constitution of authorities of such Universities in accordance with the provisions of this Act, so that the same may be completed before the expiry of the respective terms of the interim officers and members under clause (b). (c) the State Government shall take steps for the appointment of officers and constitution of authorities of such Universities in accordance with the provisions of this Act, so that the same may be completed before the expiry of the respective terms of the interim officers and members under clause (b). Government Order for appointment of the respondent No.1:- mRrj izns'k 'kklu mPp f'k{kk vuqHkkx&1 la[;k&2344@lRrj&1&2021&16¼26½@2019 y[kuÅ % fnukad 30 fnlEcj 2021 vkns'k mŸkj izns'k jkT; fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e] 1973 dh/kkjk&4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1&[k½ ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq;s izks0 pUnz'ks[kj] gsM ,.M Mhu QsdsYVh vkQ ykW] nhun;ky mik/;k; xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky;] xksj[kiqj dks jktk egsUnz izrki flag jkT; fo'ofo|ky;] vyhxढ dk vUrfje ¼izFke½ dqyifr fu;qDr fd;s tkus dh Jh jkT;iky lg"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA eksfudk ,l0 xxZ vij eq[; lfpoA^^ 11. The respondent No.2 – University has been established under the U.P. Act, 1973 by the Uttar Pradesh Universities (111th Amendment) 2019 (U.P. Act No.20 of 2019) and it has been provided that until the First Statutes of the respondent No.2-University are made under Section 50, the Statutes of the University of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, as in force immediately before the establishment of the said University shall apply to it subject to such adaptations and modifications as the State Government may, by notification, provide. Similar provisions by amendment regarding first ordinance of the respondent No.2 – University, have been made by the aforesaid Amendment Act. 12. Thus, it is undisputed that the appointment of the respondent No.1 has been made as Interim (First) Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.2 – University by a Government Order dated 30.12.2021 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the aforequoted provisions in Section 4(1-B) of the U.P. Act, 1973. Therefore, the aforesaid appointment of the respondent No.1 as Interim (First) Vice Chancellor of the newly created University (respondent No.2) cannot be said to be an appointment contrary to the statutory provisions. Thus, a writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued. 13. That apart, B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage Board Employees’ Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) (Paras-43 and 97(c)), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “43. Whether a Writ of Quo Warranto lies to challenge an appointment made "until further orders" on the ground that it is not a regular appointment? 13. That apart, B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage Board Employees’ Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) (Paras-43 and 97(c)), Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “43. Whether a Writ of Quo Warranto lies to challenge an appointment made "until further orders" on the ground that it is not a regular appointment? Whether the High Court failed to follow the settled law that a Writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued unless there is a clear violation of law? The order appointing the appellant clearly stated that the appointment is until further orders. The terms and conditions of appointment made it clear that the appointment is temporary and is until further orders. In such a situation, the High Court, in our view, erred in law in issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto. The rights under Article 226 can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for Habeas Corpus. 97(c). The Writ of quo warranto does not lie if the alleged violation is not of a statutory provision.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Apart from above, in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others vs. State of Bihar an others, (2013) 8 SCC 633 (Para-72), Hon’ble Supreme court while considering the provisions of the UGC Regulations framed under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, in the context of the State of Uttar Pradesh observed that State Government shall be bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by the UGC, if it wishes to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956. Para-72 in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others (supra) (SCC), is reproduced below: “59. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are concerned, they have their own problems which are localised and stand on a different footing from the other States, none of whom who appear to have the same problem. Education now being a List III subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by UGC. Education now being a List III subject, the State Government is at liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the Regulations framed by UGC. It is only natural that if they wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have to abide by the conditions as laid down by the Commission.” 15. In Paragraphs-6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (State of Uttar Pradesh), it has been stated as under: “6. That respondent no. 1 under Section 4(1-b) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 by Government Order dated 30.12.2021 was appointed as the Interim (First) Vice Chancellor of Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh State University, Aligarh (herein after referred as university). A copy of the Government Order dated 30.12.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-2 of this counter affidavit. 7. That the U.P. State University Act 1973 in Section 4(1-b) for establishment of new universities and alteration of the area or names of university, provides for Interim appointment of officers to be made by the State Government. A copy of the Section 4(1-b) of the U.P. State University Act, 1973 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No. C-3 of this counter affidavit. 9. That the provisions of the University Grants Commission Regulation 2010 and 2018 for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor at the Universities not been adopted by the State Government, thus is not applicable either for the interim or regular appointment of the Vice Chancellors of the State Universities governed by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. 10. That the Government order dated 28.06.2019 which relates to the adoption of the U.G.C. regulation, 2018 in paragraph no. 2 (8) mentions that provisions for the appointment of Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor of the State University shall be the same as mentioned in the U.P. State University Act, 1973. A copy of G.O. dated 28.06.2019 is annexed herewith and marked asAnnexure No. CA- 4 of this counter affidavit. 11. That the U.G.C. Regulations for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor not been adopted by the State Government, interim (First) appointment of respondent no. A copy of G.O. dated 28.06.2019 is annexed herewith and marked asAnnexure No. CA- 4 of this counter affidavit. 11. That the U.G.C. Regulations for the appointment of the Vice Chancellor not been adopted by the State Government, interim (First) appointment of respondent no. 1 by the State Government at Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh State University, Aligarh made in provisions of the U.P. State University Act, 1973 being lawful and bonafide deserve to be upheld. The writ petition being devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.” 16. The aforesaid Government Order dated 28.06.2019 was specifically referred and relied by learned counsels for the respondents in their arguments but no reply was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. Thus, so far as the appointment of the respondent No.1 as Interim (First) Vice-Chancellor is concerned, the State Government by the Government Order No.600/lRrj-1-2019-16(114)/2010 dated 28.06.2019, has specifically provided in para-8 thereof that the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice Chancellor as provided in the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 shall continue to be applicable. The aforesaid government order was issued with reference to the UGC Regulations, 2018. Thus, so for as the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor is concerned, the State Government has not adopted the UGC Regulations, 2018 and instead decided that the provisions of State Universities Act, 1973 shall remain applicable. Similar view has been taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 16.11.2015 passed in Writ-C No.62753 of 2015 (Amrit Prasad vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) while considering the UGC Regulations, 2010. The aforesaid view also finds support from the three judges bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma and others (supra). 17. So far as the judgments relied by the petitioner in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2022) 5 SCC 179 (paras 2.4 and Para-29), Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran and others, 2022 (16) SCALE 410 (para-9) and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and others, 2022 (15) SCALE 377 (Paras-2.3 and 8.5) are concerned, we find that in all these judgments, an important fact was that the concerned State Government have adopted the relevant UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. 18. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran and others, 2022 (16) SCALE 410 (para-9) and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. vs. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and others, 2022 (15) SCALE 377 (Paras-2.3 and 8.5) are concerned, we find that in all these judgments, an important fact was that the concerned State Government have adopted the relevant UGC Regulations, 2010/2018. 18. For all the reasons aforestated, the appointment of the respondent No.1 as Interim (First) Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No.2 – University being in terms of the provisions of Section 4(1-B) of the U.P. State Universities 1973, is neither illegal nor contrary to the statutory provisions. Therefore, a writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued. The writ petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed.