Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vipin Saini vs Himachal Pradesh Private Educational ... on 4 August, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 2128 of 2022
Decided on: August 4, 2023
________________________________________________________
.
Vipin Saini ...........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory
Commission ....Respondent
________________________________________________________
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.
of
For the Respondents : Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Advocate
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
rt Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 23.12.2020 passed by the respondent Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission (hereinafter, 'Commission') whereby petitioner came to be declared ineligible to be appointed as Vice Chancellor, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following reliefs:
"i. To Issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the letter No. HP-PERC/427/General Instructions/2017-10201 to 10217 dated 28-08-2020 (Annexure P-6), HP- PERC/427/General Instructions/2017-11264 to 11280 dated 22-09-2020 (Annexure P-8), HP-
PERC/427/General Instructions/2017-12058 to 12074 dated 20-10-2020 (Annexure P-10), HP-
PERC/427/MMU/Vol-V/2020-12747 dated 11-11-2020 (Annexure P-11), HP-PERC/427/MMU/Vol-V/2020-13390 dated 23-12-2020 (Annexure P-13) issued by the respondent as illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary & against 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 2
the mandate of this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
ii. Issuance of direction to the respondents to re-
.
store/install the petitioner as Vice Chancellor.
iii. Issuance of direction to the respondents to publish apology in the news papers.
iv. Issuance of direction to the respondents to pay damages to the petitioner as this Hon'ble court deems fit."
of
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr.Kush Sharma learned rt counsel for the petitioner, is that the Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission (hereinafter, 'Commission') wrongly declared the petitioner to be ineligible for being appointed as a Vice Chancellor on the ground that he had acquired Doctor of Philosophy degree in the year 2010, which was an essential qualification for appointment as Vice Chancellor as per UGC Regulations, 2018.
3. While making this court peruse averments contained in the petition and documents annexed therewith, Mr. Sharma, submitted that the petitioner herein was appointed as a Professor vide office order dated 2.8.2006 issued by Chairman, BR Nahata College of Pharmacy, Mandsaur Madhya Pradesh and thereafter, he worked as a Professor in various UGC approved institutions, as is evident from detailed information furnished by the petitioner to the Commission, Annexure P-
9. Perusal of aforesaid document reveals that after being appointed as a Professor in 2006, petitioner kept on rendering his services as a Professor in various institutions and subsequently in the year 2016, he ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 3 was appointed as Vice Chancellor of Maharshi Markandeshwar University, Kumarhatti, Solan. Document further reveals that prior to .
appointment as Vice Chancellor and Professor in Maharshi Markandeshwar University Kumarhatti, petitioner was working as a Professor, Dean and Principal, in M.M. College of Pharmacy, Maharishi Markandeshwar (Deemed to be University) Mullana, Ambala, Haryana with effect from 5.5.2011 to 6.11.2016, Before that, petitioner worked of as Principal in MJRP College of Helth Care an dAllied Sciences, Faculty of Healthcare and Allied Sciences, Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole
4. rt University, Jaipur, Rajasthan from 6.11.2009 to 4.5.2011.
If the detail furnished by the petitioner is read in its entirety, it clearly emerges that the petitioner had been working as a Professor in various educational institutions recognized by UGC since the year 2006. However, after his being appointed as Vice Chancellor of MMU Kumarhatti, aforesaid institution was inspected by expert committee constituted by Commission, which after having perused record, found appointment of the petitioner as Vice Chancellor of the said institution not in accordance with regulations framed by UGC.
5. Perusal of Annexure P-11, dated 11.11.2020, reveals that the petitioner was not found to have possessed minimum qualification at the time of his joining as Vice Chancellor of Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Kumarhatti. Petitioner had completed his Ph.D. in the year 2010, which is an essential qualification for appointment as a Professor as per UGC Norms 2018. Since in the case at hand, petitioner completed Ph.D. in the year 2010, and he was appointed as Vice ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 4 Chancellor of Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Kumarhatti in the year 2016, Commission vide communication dated 23.12.2020 .
(Annexure P-13) held his appointment to be in violation of UGC Regulations 2018 and accordingly declared him to be unfit for the post in question.
6. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the of petitioner is that petitioner stood appointed as Professor in the year 2006 and at that time, there was no condition that a person aspiring to rt be a Professor should possess Doctor of Philosophy degree. To substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Sharma invited attention of this Court to UGC Regulations, 1998 (page 161), clause 4.1.0, whereof deals with appointment of Professor and provides as under:
"4.0.0 Direct Recruitment 4.1.0 Professor An eminent scholar with published work of high quality actively engaged in research with 10 years of experience in postgraduate teaching, and/or experience in research at the University/National Level institutions, including experience of guiding research at doctoral level Or An outstanding scholar with established reputation who has made significant contribution to knowledge."
7. Mr. Sharma submitted that UGC Regulations 1998remained in force till 2010 but even in those guidelines, it was not necessary for a person to have qualification of Ph.D. for becoming Professor rather, an outstanding professional, with established reputation in the relevant ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 5 field, who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned /allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials .
was also eligible to be appointed as Professor. To buttress said submission he invited attention of this court to UGC Regulations-2010, relevant portion whereof reads as under:
4.1.0 Professor A.(i) An eminent scholar with Ph.D. qualification(s) in the concerned/allied/relevant discipline and published work of of high quality, actively engaged in research with evidence of published work with a minimum of 10 publications as book sand/or research/ policy papers rt (ii) A minimum of ten years of teaching experience in University/college, and/or experience in research at the University/national level / institutions/industries, including experience of guiding candidate for research at doctoral level
(iii) Contribution to educational innovation, design of new curricula and courses and technology-mediated teaching learning process.
(iv) A minimum score as stipulated in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) set out in this Regulation in Appendix Iii Or B. An outstanding professional, with established reputation in the relevant field, who has made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned /allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials.
8. Having carefully perused provisions/regulations contained in UGC Regulations 1998 and 2010, with regard to eligibly for being appointed as a Professor, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that till UGC ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 6 Regulations 2010 were in existence, which were subsequently replaced by UGC Regulations 2018, person aspiring to be a Professor .
was not essentially required to possess Ph.D. degree. As per UGC Regulations 1998, an eminent scholar with published work of high quality, actively engaged in research with ten years of experience in postgraduate teaching, could be appointed as Professor.
9. As per UGC Regulations 2010, apart from the aforesaid of regulations as provided in UGC Regulations 1998, an outstanding professional, with established reputation in the relevant field, who has rt made significant contributions to the knowledge in the concerned /allied/relevant discipline, to be substantiated by credentials, could also be appointed as a Professor.
10. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as a Professor for the first time in 2006 that too, in educational institution duly recognized by University Grants Commission and thereafter he kept on serving in various institutions recognized by the UGC in the capacity of a Professor.
11. No doubt, in the case at hand, petitioner had completed his Doctor of Philosophy degree in the year 2010 and thereafter, he was appointed as Vice Chancellor in the year 2016 but definitely, his appointment as Vice Chancellor in Maharshi Markandeshwar University Kumarhatti District Solan, could not be held to be not in accordance with UGC regulations by Commission on the ground that since the petitioner completed Doctor of Philosophy degree in 2010, he was not eligible to be appointed as a Professor because, to become ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 7 Professor, Ph.D. degree is a must. Precisely, the Commission was of the view that since, petitioner completed his Ph.D. in the year 2010, he .
could not be appointed as a Professor prior to such date and his appointment as a Professor in the year 2006, is of no consequence, rather same being in violation of UGC Regulations deserves to be ignored.
12. At this stage, Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Advocate for the of Commission, while inviting attention of this court to UGC Regulations 2010, submitted that clause 3.7.0 (page 184), suggests that Ph.D. was rt mandatory qualification for appointment as Professor and for promotion as Professor. Having perused the same, there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Advocate that in the year 2010 a person aspiring to be appointed as a Professor, was required to possess Doctor of Philosophy degree. However, in the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a Professor in the year 2006, when UGC Regulations 1998 were in vogue. There is no such provision in UGC Regulations 1998, which makes Ph.D. degree mandatory for being appointed as a Professor. Once, it is not in dispute that the petitioner stood appointed as a Professor in the year 2006 and thereafter he kept on serving in that capacity in various institutions, subsequent change in qualification for the post of Professor made in the year UGC Regulations 2010 is of no consequence as far as petitioner is concerned. Necessarily a person appointed as Professor after 2010, was required to have Ph.D. degree. Since, the petitioner stood appointed as Professor prior to framing of UGC Regulations ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 8 2010, condition if any with regard to possession of Ph.D. is of not much importance in the case of the petitioner .
13. Careful perusal of proceedings of meeting of Experts Committee, who inspected the record to find out eligibility of the petitioner as Vice Chancellor of Maharishi Markandeshwar University, reveals the that petitioner was not found to fulfill the qualification for the post of Vice Chancellor, as per UGC Regulations dated 18.7.2018 of whereby admittedly under clause 7.3, a person having experience of ten years could only be appointed as Vice Chancellor. Clause 7.3 of "7.3 rt UGC Regulations 2018 reads as under:
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 organization 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 9 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.
iii. The visitor/Chancellor, shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search-cum- Selection Committee.
iv. The terms of office of the Vice-Chancellor shall form part of the services period of the incumbent making him/her eligible for all service related benefits."
of
14. As per said regulation, a person having minimum experience of ten years as Professor can be only appointed as Vice Chancellor, rt which petitioner definitely had, prior to his having been appointed as Vice Chancellor of Maharshi Markandeshwar University Kumarhatti in the year 2016. While passing impugned order, Experts Committee constituted by the Commission has nowhere held appointment of the petitioner as a Professor in 2006 to be bad in law, rather, it completely ignored aforesaid aspect and held the petitioner ineligible to be appointed as Vice Chancellor.
15. At the cost of repetition it may be observed that before promulgation of UGC Regulations 2010, petitioner stood appointed as Professor and at the time of petitioner being appointed as Professor in 2006, UGC Regulations 1998 were in force, where it was not necessarily required for person aspiring to Professor to have degree of Ph.D..
16. Leaving everything aside, petitioner was appointed as a Vice Chancellor in the year 2016 and as such, his appointment otherwise ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 10 could only be tested as per UGC Regulations 2010 which were in vogue at that time, but definitely not in terms of UGC Regulations 2018, .
17. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of clause 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010, which deals with appointment of Vice Chancellor, of UGC, which are reproduced below:
"7.3.0 Vice Chancellor i. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-
of chancellors. The Vice Chancellor to be appointed should be distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of rt experiment 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 Penal 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 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.::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS 11
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 the 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."
18. As per aforesaid provision, person having minimum experience of ten years as a Professor of University could be appointed as a Vice of Chancellor. Since, in the year 2016, petitioner had minimum experience of ten years as Professor, he rightly came to be appointed as Vice Chancellor in the year 2016.
rt
19. As per UGC Regulations 1998, person aspiring to be Professor was otherwise not required to have Ph.D. degree as has been clarified in earlier part of order, meaning thereby appointment of the petitioner as a Professor in the year 2006, was valid and if it so, it is factually incorrect on the part of the respondent to observe in Annexure P-13 that the petitioner was found to be ineligible at the time of appointment as Vice Chancellor in the year 2016.
20. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made supra, this court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. Annexures P-11 and P-13 are quashed and set aside. No costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 4, 2023 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 05/08/2023 20:33:41 :::CIS