A) Abstract / Headnote

The case explores the legal dispute over appointing Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in state-aided universities of West Bengal. The discord arose between the State Government and the Governor of West Bengal, who is the Chancellor of the universities. Core issues include the constitution of Search Committees, adherence to UGC regulations, and powers exercised under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court resolved the impasse by constituting Search-cum-Selection Committees, ensuring transparency, fairness, and compliance with statutory norms. The Court appointed Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit as Chairperson for this process. The judgment emphasized independence, academic excellence, and the principles of collaborative governance.

Keywords: Vice-Chancellors, Search Committees, Article 142, UGC Regulations, West Bengal Universities.

B) Case Details

i) Judgement Cause Title:
The State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh and Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

iii) Judgement Date:
July 8, 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author:
Justice Surya Kant

vii) Citation:
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 69; 2024 INSC 469

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Constitution of India, Article 142
• West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012
• West Bengal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014
• University Grants Commission Act, 1956
• UGC Regulations, 2018

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
N/A

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Education Law, Administrative Law

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The matter originated from disagreements between the State Government of West Bengal and the Governor concerning the appointment procedures of Vice-Chancellors in 35 state-aided universities. Historically, appointments by the State were challenged as inconsistent with the UGC Act, 1956 and UGC Regulations, 2018, which demand a statutory search process. The High Court of Calcutta invalidated these appointments. The Governor’s unilateral appointment of interim VCs worsened the dispute, prompting legal intervention. The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction under Article 142 to resolve the administrative deadlock.

D) Facts of the Case

1. High Court’s Decision: The High Court invalidated appointments of 24 VCs by the State for violating UGC norms. The State amended laws to align with UGC Regulations.

2. Governor’s Action: The Governor, acting as Chancellor, appointed interim VCs without consulting the State Government.

3. State’s Response: The State criticized the Governor’s action as unconstitutional and sought clarity on appointment protocols.

4. Supreme Court’s Involvement: Amid growing unrest, the Court intervened to streamline the appointment process by establishing neutral mechanisms.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the State Government’s appointment of VCs complied with UGC Regulations.
2. Whether the Governor, as Chancellor, could independently appoint interim VCs.
3. How should Search Committees for VC appointments be constituted to ensure transparency and statutory compliance?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

The State, represented by senior counsel, argued:

1. The amendments to West Bengal University Laws incorporated UGC guidelines, validating the State’s appointments.
2. The Governor exceeded his constitutional role by appointing interim VCs without consultation.
3. State universities fall under the purview of state legislation, and unilateral actions by the Chancellor are legally unsustainable.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

The Governor, through senior counsel, contended:

1. The Governor’s role as Chancellor mandated safeguarding universities’ autonomy by appointing qualified interim VCs.
2. The State violated UGC norms, undermining academic standards.
3. The Governor’s interim measures were necessitated by administrative delays caused by State interference.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Article 142, Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass necessary orders to ensure complete justice.
2. UGC Regulations, 2018: Prescribes procedures for VC appointments, emphasizing Search Committees.
3. West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Acts of 2012 and 2014: Regulate administrative procedures in West Bengal universities.
4. Calcutta University Act, 1979: Details the procedure for appointing VCs.

I) Judgement

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Supreme Court constituted Search-cum-Selection Committees to appoint VCs for all universities in West Bengal.
2. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit was appointed as Chairperson to oversee the process.
3. The Court balanced statutory compliance with academic independence by incorporating representatives from all stakeholders.

b. Obiter Dicta
The judgment highlighted the need for cooperative federalism and the academic integrity of universities.

c. Guidelines

• The Chairperson will select experts for Search Committees, ensuring expertise and independence.
• The Chief Minister will recommend candidates for VC appointments.
• The Chancellor must finalize appointments within two weeks, barring exceptional circumstances.

J) Conclusion and Comments

The judgment exemplifies judicial intervention to resolve governance disputes while maintaining constitutional equilibrium. The procedural rigor set by the Court ensures meritocratic VC appointments, safeguarding academic integrity.

References

1. Article 142, Constitution of India.
2. UGC Act, 1956.
3. UGC Regulations, 2018.
4. West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 & 2014.
5. Calcutta University Act, 1979.