Introduction

The landmark judgment in Professor (Dr) Sreejith P.S v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. (2022 INSC 1135) by the Supreme Court of India has set a definitive precedent regarding the appointment of Vice Chancellors in Indian universities. This case revolved around the legality of appointing Dr. Rajasree M.S. as the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, based on alleged non-compliance with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2010, versus the State's own University Act, 2015. The appellant, Dr. Sreejith P.S., challenged the appointment, arguing that procedural lapses rendered the appointment void ab initio.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court of Kerala initially dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr. Sreejith P.S., upholding the appointment of Dr. Rajasree M.S. as Vice Chancellor, citing the precedence set by Kalyanji Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj, (2015) 6 SCC 363. The High Court opined that unless the UGC Regulations are explicitly adopted by the State Government, the State's University Act takes precedence.

Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, drawing upon recent decisions such as Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS, Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022, overturned the High Court's stance. The Supreme Court emphasized that when State Governments adopt UGC Regulations, these regulations hold supremacy over conflicting State legislation under Article 254 of the Constitution, especially since education is a subject in the Concurrent List.

In this specific case, the Supreme Court found that the Search Committee constituted for the Vice Chancellor appointment did not comply with the UGC Regulations, as it recommended only one candidate instead of the mandated panel of three to five names. Consequently, the appointment was declared illegal and void ab initio, thereby quashing the High Court's previous orders and allowing the writ petition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Supreme Court relied heavily on two pivotal cases:

• Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat: This case established that UGC Regulations, when adopted by a State, become part of the subordinate legislation and thus hold supremacy over conflicting State Acts.
• STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS, Civil Appeal No. 6706 of 2022: This recent judgment reinforced the principle that any conflict between State legislation and Central regulations invoked by Article 254 results in the Central regulations prevailing, especially in the domain of education.

Additionally, the Supreme Court referenced the earlier decision in Kalyanji Mathivanan v. K.V. Jeyaraj but clarified its position in light of the newer judgments, thereby refining the legal stance on the issue.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal contention centered around whether the State Government had adopted the UGC Regulations, thereby making them binding over the State's University Act. The Supreme Court meticulously examined the adoption status of the UGC Regulations by the State, noting that the State had indeed adopted them as per the order dated 10.12.2010. Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that the subsequent amendment to the UGC Regulations, even if not formally adopted by the State, does not negate the applicability of the original Regulations.

The Court applied the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, which dictates that in cases of conflict between Central and State laws on subjects in the Concurrent List, the Central law prevails to the extent of the conflict. Since education falls under this ambit, and the State had adopted the UGC Regulations, the latter took precedence.

Moreover, the Court scrutinized the composition of the Search Committee, finding that recommending only one candidate violated both the UGC Regulations and the State's University Act, which require a panel of three to five nominees. This procedural lapse was sufficient grounds to deem the appointment void.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for higher education governance in India:

• Primacy of UGC Regulations: States adopting UGC Regulations must adhere strictly to them, ensuring that subordinate legislation overrides conflicting State Acts.
• Procedural Compliance: Institutions must follow the exact procedural requirements outlined in UGC Regulations for appointments, especially for key positions like Vice Chancellors.
• Enhanced Accountability: The judgment promotes transparency and accountability in administrative processes within universities, reducing the scope for arbitrary appointments.
• Uniformity Across States: By reinforcing the supremacy of UGC Regulations, the judgment paves the way for more standardized governance across Indian universities.

Future cases involving administrative appointments in educational institutions will likely reference this judgment to assert the necessity of compliance with UGC Regulations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Professor (Dr) Sreejith P.S v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. serves as a crucial affirmation of the supremacy of UGC Regulations over State University Acts when the former are adopted by the State. This decision not only reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedural norms in academic appointments but also ensures that the quality and integrity of educational institutions are maintained across India. By invalidating the appointment of a Vice Chancellor based on procedural lapses, the Court has underscored the non-negotiable nature of regulatory compliance, thereby setting a robust precedent for governance in higher education.