PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI versus RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS

PROF. NARENDRA SINGH BHANDARI versus RAVINDRA JUGRAN AND OTHERS

The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor was invalid because it did not comply with Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 read with Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018: the appellant did not possess the requisite minimum ten years' teaching experience as a Professor (the lien period while serving on the Public Service Commission cannot be counted), and the mandatory Search-cum-Selection Committee procedure to prepare a panel of names and appointment from that panel was not followed (only one name was placed); accordingly the High Court's quashing of the appointment and issuance of a writ of quo warranto was rightly upheld.

Parties
Appellant / Vice Chancellor: Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari; Respondent No.1 (original Writ Petitioner): Ravindra Jugran
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 8184 of 2022) / Appeal Against High Court Judgment Dated 10.11.2021 Quashing the Appointment of the Appellant as Vice Chancellor
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment quashing the appointment affirmed; appointment held illegal and quo warranto upheld
Legal Topics
Appointment of Vice Chancellor, UGC Regulations 2018 Compliance, Search Cum Selection Committee and Panel Process, Quo Warranto Remedy, Eligibility and Counting of Teaching Experience
Education Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Appointment of Vice Chancellor UGC Regulations 2018 Compliance Search Cum Selection Committee and Panel Process Quo Warranto Remedy Eligibility and Counting of Teaching Experience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari

Appellant / Vice Chancellor

Ravindra Jugran

Respondent No.1 (original Writ Petitioner)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 8184 of 2022) / Appeal Against High Court Judgment Dated 10.11.2021 Quashing the Appointment of the Appellant as Vice Chancellor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor complied with Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 and Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018
  2. 2 Whether the period during which the appellant held lien while serving as a Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission could be counted as teaching experience for the minimum 10 years requirement
  3. 3 Whether proviso to Section 10(1) permitting appointment of first Vice-Chancellor allows bypassing other selection requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor was invalid because it did not comply with Section 10 of the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 read with Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018: the appellant did not possess the requisite minimum ten years' teaching experience as a Professor (the lien period while serving on the Public Service Commission cannot be counted), and the mandatory Search-cum-Selection Committee procedure to prepare a panel of names and appointment from that panel was not followed (only one name was placed); accordingly the High Court's quashing of the appointment and issuance of a writ of quo warranto was rightly upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment quashing the appointment affirmed; appointment held illegal and quo warranto upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court judgment dated 10.11.2021 quashing and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University is affirmed