UGC regulations prevail over state varsity laws
The difficult to answer legal question whether the UGC Regulations shall prevail over the State university laws has been answered clearly by the Supreme Court (SC) once again in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v Dr. Rajasree M.S. & Ors.
In the judgement, the SC categorically holds the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the state universities should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations if the regulation is in conflict with the State’s University Act.
Therefore, the SC declared the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram, done in violation of the UGC Regulations, as void ab initio and set aside the appointment order.
SC dealt with identical question earlier too
The SC considered Identical question earlier in Gambhirdan K Gadhvi v The State Of Gujarat, and Kalyani Mathivanan v K V Keyaraj and Ors.
In the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel University, Gujarat, the SC specifically held that the appointment of Vice Chancellor cannot be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations, even if the State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, compared to the criteria prescribed in the relevant UGC Regulations.
The SC further held in the above judgement that the State Act if not on a par with the UGC Regulations, must be amended to bring it on a par with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then the applicable UGC Regulations, which is a subordinate legislation forming part of the central legislation & placed in Parliament for its scrutiny and indirect recognition, shall prevail. The apex court added that the UGC Regulations become part of the State’s university act.
Central law will prevail if it conflicts with the state’s
The SC also held that in case of any conflict between the State legislation and the Central legislation, the UGC Regulations shall prevail by applying the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution, as the subject education comes under the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution.
The para 53 of the judgement in Kalyani Mathivanan (supra), it is observed that the State legislation which is in conflict with the Central legislation, including the subordinate legislation made by the Central legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, would be inoperative to the extent it is repugnant with the central statute.
Appointment against UGC Regulation void
In paragraph 56 of the judgement in Anindya Sundar Das & Ors, while considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University the SC held that in view of the decision in the case of Gambhirdan K Gadhvi (supra), even if the provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would have to be as per the UGC Regulations.
Therefore, any appointment of Vice Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio. The UGC Regulations shall become part of the statute framed by Parliament and, therefore, shall prevail over the state’s statute.
In view of the above two binding judgements of the SC, any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio.
If there is any conflict between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail, as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India, to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant.
Kerala adopted UGC Regulations in 2010
Since Kerala State has adopted the UGC Regulations vide order dated 10.12.2010, the UGC Regulations have preference over the university statutes enacted by the state.
Further reading
