Kerala High Court
Professor (Dr) Sreejith P.S vs Dr. Rajasree M.S on 2 August, 2021
Author: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021/11TH SRAVANA, 1943
W.A NO.514 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.02.2021 IN WP(C).NO.33004/2019
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PROFESSOR (DR) SREEJITH P.S.
AGED 60 YEARS
"ASHTAPATHY", KANIYANKUNNU, EAST KADUNGALLOOR,
U.C. COLLEGE P.O, ALUVA-683 102, KERALA.
BY ADV SHYAM KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DR. RAJASREE M.S.
T.C. 20/1679(1), MITHILA, SASTRI NAGAR, KARAMANA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 002, NOW WORKING AS
VICE CHANCELLOR OF APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY, CET CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016.
2 THE CHANCELLOR,
APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
KERALA RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
3 APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,
CET CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016, REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGISTRAR.
4 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 2 ::
5 THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG,
NEW DELHI-110 002
BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
BY SRI.A.J.VARGHESE, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SHRI.ELVIN PETER, SC, APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
SRI.K.K.RAVINDRANATH, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, COUNSEL FOR THE CHANCELLOR OF
UNIVERSITIES IN KERALA
SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2021, THE COURT ON 02.08.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 3 ::
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33004/2019 is the appellant before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.2.2021 of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The writ petition was one seeking the issuance of a writ of Quo-Warranto to declare the appointment of the 1st respondent as Vice Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapurm, as void ab initio and for other incidental reliefs. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:
The appellant holds an Engineering Degree from the Kerala University, an MTech Degree from IIT, Kanpur and a PhD from IIT, Chennai in the discipline of Mechanical Engineering. He joined the Cochin University of Science and Technology as Reader [Associate Professor] and the Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering in 2000. He was a Professor for 13 years and a Dean of the Faculty of Engineering for three years. After his retirement on 31.5.2019, on attaining 60 years of age, he was appointed as Principal of the Rajagiri College of Engineering. Just prior to his retirement, the W.A.No.514/2021 :: 4 ::
appellant had responded to Ext.P6 Notification dated 21.12.2018 that invited applications for selection to the post of Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. The said Notification was the second Notification issued during 2018, and while the petitioner had responded to the earlier Notification dated 30.7.2018 inviting applications and had been invited for a conversation in connection with the selection procedure, those proceedings were subsequently abandoned, and a fresh Notification [Ext.P6] was issued calling for applicants for the said post. This time round, the appellant was not invited for any conversation, and on 19.2.2019, the 1st respondent was appointed as the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. Ext.P7 order dated 19.2.2019 is the order appointing the 1st respondent as Vice Chancellor. It would appear that the appellant, on coming to know about the appointment of the 1 st respondent, made various attempts to get information regarding the 1st respondent's credentials, and notwithstanding the letter written by him seeking information, he was only able to get limited information to the effect that out of 26 applicants, only 22 were found eligible for the post, and of these, only five persons including the 1st respondent, were shortlisted for further scrutiny. The appellant was not included among those shortlisted. Thereafter, in W.A.No.514/2021 :: 5 ::
the proceedings that took place on 19.2.2019, the members of the Search Committee, who could not unanimously agree on a panel of atleast three names, separately recommended the 1 st respondent for selection as the Vice Chancellor. It was the said recommendation that found acceptance with the Chancellor in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the '2015 Act'].
2. In the writ petition, the challenge of the appellant was mainly threefold. Firstly, it was contended that the composition of the Search committee itself was flawed, in that, the Search Committee constituted by the University comprised inter alia the Chief Secretary, who, according to the appellant, does not qualify as a person "eminent in the sphere of education" as mandated under clause 7.3.0 (ii) of Ext.P2 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"]. It is further contended that the said person does not also meet the criteria of being one who is "not connected W.A.No.514/2021 :: 6 ::
in any manner with the University". Secondly, it was contended that instead of a nominee of the UGC Chairman, the University had included a nominee of the AICTE as the second member of the Search Committee, and this was not in accordance with the UGC Regulations that held the field. Thirdly, with regard to the manner in which the Search Committee made its recommendations, it was contended that the Committee did not furnish the essential evaluation of the candidates along with the required panel to the 2nd respondent Chancellor, but chose to send only a single name to him for approval. This procedure, according to the appellant, was based on an erroneous interpretation of Section 13(4) of the 2015 Act, and against the purport of the said provision.
3. Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent appointee, 3rd respondent University and the 4th respondent State Government.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent, it was pointed out that the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 13 of the 2015 Act and not based on the UGC Regulations. In particular, it was pointed out that the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [UGC Act] itself had no W.A.No.514/2021 :: 7 ::
provision regulating the appointment of Vice Chancellors since the Vice Chancellor was not a teaching staff of the University. It followed, therefore, that the UGC Regulations, 2010, dealing with the Vice Chancellor's appointment was itself ultra vires the parent Act. It was also pointed out that the exclusion of the appellant from the short list was known to him as early as on 19.2.2019, but he had failed to challenge the exclusion immediately thereafter.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent University, it was pointed out that Ext.P2 UGC Regulations of 2010 were amended in 2013, and a copy of the amendment was produced as Ext.R3(a). It was contended that inasmuch as the procedure for appointment of Vice Chancellor was amended, to make it clear that the constitution of the Search Committee could also be in accordance with the respective University Act/Statutes, even if the UGC Regulations were to be treated as binding on the University, the amendment of 2013 made it clear that the University was free to follow the procedure prescribed under the 2015 Act. That in the instant case, inasmuch as the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 13 of the 2015 Act, there was no illegality or irregularly in the composition of the Search Committee. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the W.A.No.514/2021 :: 8 ::
State Government adopts the same stand as that of the University, and reiterates that the constitution of the Search Committee was in accordance with the provisions of the 2015 Act, and further, that the recommendation of a single name by all members of the Committee was also in compliance with the provisions of the 2015 Act.
6. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that under the UGC Act, the consequence of breach of any Regulations framed by the UGC was that the UGC could take steps to cancel the affiliation of the University concerned. Inasmuch as the UGC had not taken any such action against the University, it was apparent that the UGC itself did not find the constitution of the Search Committee in accordance with Section 13 of the 2015 Act, to be objectionable. The learned Judge also took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalayani Mathivanan v. K.G. Jeyaraj and Others - [(2015) 6 SCC 363] to find that the UGC Regulations, in the instant case, were not mandatory, and although the State Government had specifically adopted the UGC Regulations 2010, since the UGC had not deemed it necessary to take any action against the University for alleged breach of the Regulations, the decision of the University to appoint the 1 st W.A.No.514/2021 :: 9 ::
respondent as the Vice Chancellor, did not call for any interference. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Before us, although the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Shyam Krishnan vehemently reiterated the threefold contentions in the writ petition, we felt that unless the appellant was able to establish that the UGC Regulations in question were binding on the respondent University, and had the effect of overriding the statutory provisions by which the University was otherwise bound, the other contentions urged by the learned counsel did not merit consideration. This was, more so because, we found that while the UGC Regulations 2010 were in fact adopted by the State Government, Regulation 7.3.0 of the said Regulations that dealt with the qualification and selection procedure of the Vice Chancellor was subsequently amended in 2013, and the amended Regulations had not been specifically adopted by the State Government. The learned counsel for the appellant, when confronted with the said fact, contended that the non-adoption of the 2013 amendment was of no legal significance since it merely amended the UGC Regulations 2010 without superseding it. According to the learned counsel, the adoption by W.A.No.514/2021 :: 10 ::
the State Government of the UGC Regulations 2010 was sufficient to cover even the amendments made thereto in 2013. The contention, in other words, is that, so long as the State Government had adopted the UGC Regulations 2010, it has to be assumed that the adoption by the State Government applied automatically, and without anything more, to all the subsequent amendments effected to the said Regulations. The contention of Sri.S.Krishnamurthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, on the other hand, is that the UGC Regulations issued under Section 26 of the UGC Act are binding upon the University even without an adoption by the State Government. According to him, the UGC Regulations trace their validity to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and the University Statute, being a legislation traceable to Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, must necessarily be subject to the Regulations framed by the UGC. In his view, therefore, there is no requirement for adoption by the State Government for the UGC Regulations to be treated as mandatory and binding on the University. By extension of that argument, he submits that any subsequent amendment to the Regulations also, does not require any adoption by the State Government.
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 11 ::
8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents, and perused the relevant statutory provisions and the judgments relied upon during the course of hearing. We have also gone through the argument notes submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and respondents. In Kalayani Mathivanan (supra), the Supreme Court considered a challenge to the appointment of a Vice Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University. The issue involved was whether the UGC Regulations 2010 that prescribed eligibility criteria for the post, prevailed over the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Madurai Kamaraj University Act, which criteria the appointee in that case had admittedly met. On the issue of conflict, if any, between the UGC Act and Regulations and the University Statute, in the matter of appointment of a Vice Chancellor, it was held as follows at paragraphs 54 to 57:
"54. The question that now arises is whether any of the provisions of the State legislation (University Act, 1965) and the Statutes framed thereunder is in conflict with the Central legislation i.e. the UGC Act, 1956 including the UGC Regulations, 2010.
55. We find that the post of Vice-Chancellor under the University Act, 1965 is a post of an officer. The UGC Act, 1956 is silent about this aspect. The UGC Regulations, 2000 are also silent in regard to the post of Vice-Chancellor. The provisions regarding Vice- Chancellor have been made for the first time under the UGC Regulations, 2010.
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 12 ::
56. We have noticed and held that UGC Regulations, 2010 are not applicable to the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature unless State Government wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein. In this connection, one may refer to Para 8(p)(v) of Appendix I dated 31-12- 2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010.
57. It is also not the case of the respondents that the Scheme as contained in Appendix I to the Annexure of the UGC Regulations, 2010 has been adopted and implemented by the State Government. It is also apparent from the facts that the University Act has not been amended in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010 nor was any action taken by UGC under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956 as a consequence of failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of the Commission under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956."
Thereafter, referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court in Suresh Patilkhede v. Chancellor, Universities of Maharashtra
- [(2012) SCC OnLine Bom 2005], that found that Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 are traceable to Section 12(d) of the UGC Act, 1956, and are therefore only recommendatory in nature, the Supreme Court found as follows in paragraph 62:
"62. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold:
62.1. To the extent the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Central legislature under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central legislation and would be inoperative.
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 13 ::
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. The 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 are 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, the 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 the State legislation and the Statutes framed under the 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."
9. In the instant case also, we find that the UGC Regulations prescribing a method of appointment of Vice Chancellor and prescribing qualifications for an appointee to the said post, cannot override the provisions of the University Statute unless the Regulations have been adopted by the State Government. Although it is not in dispute that the UGC Regulations 2010 were adopted by the State Government through Ext.P4 Government Order dated 10.12.2010, the said Regulations were amended vide Notification W.A.No.514/2021 :: 14 ::
dated 13.6.2013 [Ext.R3(a)] whereby clause 7.3.0 was amended to read as follows:
7.3.0. VICE CHANCELLOR:
i. Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organization.
ii. The selection of Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification of a panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public notification 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. The constitution of the Search Committee could be as per the Act/ Statutes of the concerned university. [Emphasis supplied] iii. The Visitor/ Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. iv. The conditions of services of the Vice Chancellor shall be as prescribed in the Act/Statues of the university concerned in conformity with the Principal 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.
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 15 ::
It is also not in dispute before us that the amended Regulations as above were not specifically adopted by the State Government. Thus, even though the 2013 amendment of the UGC Regulations 2010, introduced only minimum changes as regards constitution of the Search Committee, the larger issue that confronts us is as to whether the amended Regulations can be seen as adopted by the State Government, merely because the Principal Regulations of 2010 was adopted and the amendments thereto in 2013 were by way of substitution ?
10. We are of the view that, even if it can be argued that the legal effect of the substitution brought about through the amendment of 2013, is to make the amended Regulations effective from the date of Notification of the Principal Regulations of 2010, the act of adoption by the State Government is a specific one that can only be in respect of a Regulation as it stood at the time of its adoption. In other words, the identity of the Regulation that was adopted by Ext.P4 Government Order has since changed through the 2013 amendment, and therefore, the adoption in Ext.P4 Government Order cannot be seen as covering the amended Regulation. This is all the more so because, the amended Regulation was not brought to the notice of the State Government W.A.No.514/2021 :: 16 ::
that had to apply its mind to the Regulation before exercising its discretionary power to adopt it. Further, with the amendment of the UGC Regulations 2010, in 2013, Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 ceased to exist and was replaced instead by Regulation 7.3.0 as contained in the 2013 amendment and this latter Regulation was not specifically adopted by the State Government. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the adoption of the UGC Regulations 2010 would automatically apply even to the amended Regulations. In taking this view, we are fortified by the finding of the Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court in Madhu Bahuguna v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Others - [2010 SCC Utt 18]. In that case, the High Court considered an amendment of a regulation in the UGC Regulations 2010 that prescribed a scoring system for selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The amendment was effected in 2013, and the amended Regulation was not specifically adopted by the State Government. The court therefore held the amended Regulation to be merely directory and not mandatory in character. The relevant findings are at paragraphs 50 to 57 of the judgment which read as follows:
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 17 ::
"50. By notification dated 04.05.2016, Regulation 3.0.0 to 3.9.0 and 4.4.0 to 4.6.3 of the 2010 Regulations were amended prescribing different qualifications for appointment to various posts.
Para 4 of the notification dated 04.05.2016 stipulates that the existing Tables I to IX, under Appendix-III of the 2010 Regulations regarding computation of API score for appointment and promotion of teachers and other academic staff in the Universities/Colleges/Institutions also stood amended. The 2016 Regulations makes no reference to Regulations 6 of the 2010 UGC Regulations, and has left Regulation 6, of the 2010 UGC Regulations, as amended in 2013, unchanged.
51. The adoption order dated 29.12.2016 also refers to the Director, Higher Education having informed that, by Government Order dated 30.09.2011, the provisions relating to the determination of educational qualifications, mentioned in the 2010 UGC Regulations, had been made applicable. Para 4 of the said letter stipulates that the Government Order issued earlier (evidently the order dated 30.09.2011), regarding the minimum educational qualifications for the post of Lecturer (Assistant Professor), shall be deemed to be amended/changed. While it is no doubt true that the adoption order dated 29.12.2016 states that the Governor had granted approval for applying/adopting all the provisions/Rules amended through the UGC notification dated 04.05.2016, one particular sentence in the Government order cannot be read out of context to mean that it is not the amendment to Clause 3 alone, but that the 2016 Regulations has been adopted in its entirety.
52. Clause 6.0.2 of the 2010 UGC Regulations was substituted by the 2013 amendment and the substituted Clause 6.0.2 also required the University to adopt the Regulations for selection committees and selection procedures through their respective statutory bodies incorporating the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS) at the institutional level for University Departments and their Constituent colleges/affiliated colleges (Government/Government- aided/Autonomous/Private Colleges) to be followed transparently in all selection processes.
53. The scoring system proforma based on Academic Performance Indicator (API) as provided in Tables 1 to 9 of Appendix-III to the 2010 UGC Regulations as amended in 2016, are referrable to Clause 6.0.1 of the 2010 UGC Regulations.
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 18 ::
54. An Appendix to Statutory Regulations is similar to a schedule to an enactment. It is well settled that the Schedule is as much a part of the statute, and is as much an enactment, as any other part. (Flower Freight Co. Ltd v. Hammond; R. v. Legal Aid Committee No.1 (London) Legal Aid area, ex p Rondel, Metropolitan Police Commr. v. Curran; Attorney General v. Lamplough, Ujagar Prints (II) v. Union of India) To simplify the presentation of statues, it is the practice for their subject-matter to be divided, where appropriate, between Sections and Schedules, the former setting out matters of principle, and introducing the latter, and the latter containing all matters of detail. This is purely a matter of arrangement, and a Schedule is as much a part of the Statute, and as much an enactment, as is the Section by which it is introduced. (Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edn., Vol. 36, para 551; Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). Consequently, Appendix-III must be read together with Regulation 6 of the 2010 UGC Regulations as amended in 2013, and since Regulation 6 of the 2013 Regulation has not been adopted, Appendix-III cannot be said to have bee adopted in isolation.
55. In the context,it must also be borne-in-mind that expressions in a Schedule cannot control or prevail against the express enactment, in case of any inconsistency between the Schedule and the enactment, the enactment would prevail, and if any part of the Schedule cannot be made to correspond it must yield to the Act. (Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd.). There are two principles or rules of interpretation which ought to be applied to the combination of an Act and a Schedule, and a Statutory Rule/Regulation and its appendix. If the Act (Regulation) says that the Schedule (Appendix) is to be used for a certain purpose, then the Act and the Schedule (Regulation and its Appendix) must be read as though the Schedule (Appendix) were operating for that purpose and, if the language of the Section (Regulation) can be satisfied without extending it beyond that purpose, it ought to be done. (IRC v. Gittus; Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; CIT v. Calcutta National Bank Ltd.) In case of a conflict between the body of the Act and the Schedule (or the body of the Regulation and the Appendix), the former prevails. (Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) It is only if Regulation 6 of the 2010 UGC Regulations, as amended in 2013, had been adopted by the Government Order dated 29.12.2016, can Appendix-III also be said to have been adopted, and not the opposite. Appendix-III could not have been adopted without adopting Regulation 6, nor was it so adopted.
W.A.No.514/2021 :: 19 ::
56. In Kalyani Mathivanan the Supreme Court held that the provisions made for the first time under the UGC Regulations, 2010 were not applicable to Universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature, unless the State Government wished to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein; in this connection, reference could be made to Para 8(p)(v) of Appendix I dated 31.12.2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010; it was also not the case of the respondents that the Scheme, as contained in Appendix I to the Annexure of the UGC Regulations, 2010, had been adopted and implemented by the State Government; and it was also apparent that the State Universities Act had not been amended in terms of the UGC Regulations, 2010 nor was any action taken by UGC under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956 as a consequence of the failure of the University to comply with the recommendations of the Commission under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956.
57. The Supreme Court, in Kalyani Mathivanan, concluded by holding that to the extent the State Legislation is in conflict with the Central Legislation, including Subordinate Legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, it shall be repugnant to the Central Legislation and would be inoperative; the UGC Regulations, though subordinate legislation, had a binding effect on the universities to which it applied; the UGC Regulations, 2010 were mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all Central universities and colleges thereunder, and the institutions deemed to be universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC; the UGC Regulations, 2010 are directory for universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State legislation as the matter had been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme; thus, the UGC Regulations, 2010 are partly mandatory and partly directory; where the UGC Regulations, 2010 have not been adopted by the State Govt., the question of conflict between the State legislation and the Statutes framed under the Central legislation does not arise; once they are adopted by the State Government, the State legislation should be amended appropriately; and, in such a case also, there shall be no conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation. Since Paragraph 6 of the 2010 Regulations, as amended in 2013, has not been adopted by the Government of Uttarakhand, the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in Kalyani Mathivanan, would require the table in Appendix-III to the 2016 Regulations, prescribing a scoring system for selection of candidates for appointment to the W.A.No.514/2021 :: 20 ::
posts of Assistant Professors, to be treated as directory and not mandatory in character."
11. We cannot also accept the contention of Sri.S.Krishnamurthy, the learned Standing Counsel for the UGC, that the UGC Regulations, inasmuch as they pertain to the appointment of Vice Chancellor, will automatically bind the University without any specific adoption by the State Government.
The said argument runs counter to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Kalayani Mathivanan (supra), in the context of appointment of Vice Chancellors.
In the result, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, and for the reasons stated therein, as supplemented by the reasons in this judgment, we dismiss the Writ Appeal.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE prp/