Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.2 It was submitted that the moot question that arises for consideration in the present case is that if the State law does not provide for eligibility criteria for appointment as Vice Chancellor, whether the UGC Regulations would occupy the field. It was submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the UGC Regulations are only directory and not mandatory, one has to consider the significance of a directory provision. The attention of the court was invited to the dictionary meaning of the words, 'directory' and 'mandatory', viz., directory means permissive and mandatory means imperative. It was pointed out that directory enactment means when a statute is passed for the purpose of enabling something to be done, and prescribes the way in which it is to be done, it may be either an absolute enactment or a directory enactment. The difference between the two is that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially. It was contended that thus, even if the UGC Regulations are only directory, they are required to be fulfilled substantially. To fortify his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Prof. M. Ramaswamy, Professor of Constitutional Law in the Faculty of Law v. Miss Manju Bakhru, A.I.R. 1963 Punjab & Haryana 419, for the proposition that some rules are vital and go to the root of the matter; they cannot be broken; others are only directory and a breach of them can be overlooked provided there is substantial compliance with the rules read as a whole and provided no prejudice ensues; and when the legislature does not itself state which is which, judges must determine the matter and, exercising a nice discrimination, sort out one class from the other along broad based, common sense lines. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363, wherein the court held thus, "62. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold:

7. Opposing the petition, Mr. D.C. Dave, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent university submitted that the issue involved in this case moves in a very narrow compass inasmuch as the controversy involved in this case is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (supra). It was submitted that the petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto on the ground that the appointment of the sixth respondent is in breach of the statutory provisions as embodied in the SPU Act and the UGC Regulations. According to the learned counsel, section 10 of the SPU Act does not prescribe any qualification for being appointed as Vice Chancellor and therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the UGC Regulations would be applicable for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of the respondent University. Reference was made at length to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (supra) to submit that the Supreme Court, in a similar set of facts, had upheld the appointment of the appellant therein and had set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, whereby it had quashed the appointment of the appellant therein holding that the post of Vice Chancellor is a part of academia, viz., teaching staff and the UGC Regulations, 2010 will prevail over the State enactment, viz. the University Act and the Statutes framed there under in the event of conflict. The attention of the court was invited to the provisions of section 11 of the Madurai Kamraj University Act, 1965, as reproduced in the above decision to point out that the same is more or less in pari materia with section 10 of the SPU Act. It was submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the UGC Regulations, 2010 are not applicable to the universities, colleges and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of the State Legislature unless the State Government wishes to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions therein. It was submitted that the court has also agreed with the finding of the Bombay High Court in Suresh Patilkhede v. Chancellor, Universities of Maharashtra, (2012) 6 All M.R. 336, that regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 has to be treated as recommendatory in nature insofar as it relates to the universities and colleges under the State Legislation. Emphasis was laid upon the following part of the decision in the case of Kalyani Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj (supra) :

"2. The aforesaid writ petitions were preferred by K.V. Jeyaraj and I. Ismail respondents/writ petitioners praying for issuance of a writ of quo warranto directing the appellant - Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan to show cause under what authority she continues to hold the office of the Vice- Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University.
3.By the impugned judgment the High Court held that the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan did not satisfy the eligibility criteria stipulated by the UGC Regulations of Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC Regulations, 2010') for appointment as Vice-Chancellor and non- fulfillment of such eligibility criteria cannot be completely white washed on the specious plea that the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 are not mandatory. The High Court set aside the order of appointment of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan and allowed the writ petitions.
5.Challenging the selection of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan, two separate writ petitions were preferred by Dr. K.V. Jeyaraj, and Dr. I. Ismail, who were aspirants to the said post, respondents herein. The said challenge was mainly on the ground that as per UGC Regulations, 2010, the person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of 10 years' experience as Professor in a University system or 10 years' of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research/academic organization and Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan does not satisfy the said criteria. The High Court took up both the writ petitions together for disposal and by the judgment and order allowed the writ petitions and set aside the appointment order of appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor.