Supreme Court Affirms UGC Regulations Supremacy in Vice-Chancellor Appointments
The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing the mandatory nature of University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations-2018 for appointing Vice-Chancellors across universities. In a significant ruling, the apex court declared that any decision inconsistent with these regulations is legally untenable and invalid, establishing clear precedence for higher education governance nationwide.
Madras High Court Decision Upheld
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's December 19, 2023 decision that set aside the appointment of S Mohan as Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University (PTU). The High Court had previously ruled that any action or decision by a university inconsistent with the binding provisions of the UGC Regulations is legally untenable, striking down Section 14(5) of the PTU Act as ultra vires the UGC Regulations.
UGC Regulations Override State Laws
The Supreme Court clarified that the UGC Regulations-2018 on the constitution of search-cum-selection committees for Vice-Chancellor appointments are traceable to Parliament's powers to make laws governing higher education. The court emphasized that these regulations override any state law made in this respect, establishing a uniform national standard for academic leadership appointments.
The bench specifically noted: "The PTU Act was required to operate in strict conformity with the UGC Regulations, 2018, which stipulate that the search-cum-selection committee must necessarily include one nominee of the Chairman, UGC. The inclusion of a UGC nominee being an integral component of the standards prescribed for appointments in higher education, any deviation therefrom strikes at the root of the scheme envisaged under the Regulations."
Legal Arguments and Court's Reasoning
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, along with Advocates G Balaji and Arzu Paul appearing for Mohan, vehemently contended that the High Court judgment was contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation and inconsistent with factual records. However, the Supreme Court found these arguments unpersuasive.
The court elaborated: "Deviations from the mandatory requirements of the UGC Regulations, 2018 not only vitiate the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee but also strike at the statutory framework governing appointments to the office of Vice-Chancellor, thereby rendering such appointments legally vulnerable."
Transition Arrangement for Current Incumbent
Despite setting aside Mohan's appointment, the Supreme Court provided a practical transition arrangement. The bench directed that Mohan may continue to hold the Vice-Chancellor position until the end of his normal tenure in December 2026 or until a new Vice-Chancellor is selected according to proper legal procedures, whichever occurs earlier. This interim arrangement mirrors the Madras High Court's earlier allowance for continuity despite invalidating the appointment.
Broader Implications for Higher Education
This judgment establishes several critical precedents:
- National Standards Prevail: UGC Regulations take precedence over conflicting state university laws
- Mandatory Compliance: Universities must strictly adhere to UGC committee composition requirements
- Legal Vulnerability: Appointments made without following UGC guidelines are subject to judicial review and potential invalidation
- Transitional Justice: Courts may allow incumbents to continue temporarily while ensuring proper procedures are followed for future appointments
The ruling reinforces the centralized framework for maintaining quality standards in India's higher education system while acknowledging practical considerations during leadership transitions.
