Thread by @LiveLawIndia

BREAKING

#AppointmentofVCs

#CalcuttaHighCourt takes up a PIL complaining of alleged illegality committed by the Governor of WB acting as Chancellor of certain State Universities in appointing interim VCs without any consultation with the relevant State Ministries.

@Srinjoy77

Previously, a Division Bench of the Calcutta HC had directed the State to follow the UGC Regulations of 2018 in the appointment of VCs for State Universities.

Read more: livelaw.in/news-updates/c…

The petitioners have contended that while the Division Bench decision in Anupam Bera v State of WB, cited above, held the appointment of 24 Vice Chancellors to be unsustainable, it also emphasised on the fact that:

"... it is essential that the appointment of the… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Petitioners argued that accordingly to comply with the order and to conform with UGC Regulations, the WB government passed the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023.

In supporting the petitioners contentions Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay appearing for… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Mr Bandopadhyay relied on Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations to point out that the State Ordinance 2023 and UGC Regulations 2018 were identical when it came to appointment of Vice Chancellors.

#CalcuttaHighCourt

According to the State, since a search committee as described in the regulations above, had not yet been constituted, it would be mandatory for the Chancellor/Governor to hold a consultation with the relevant ministry in the process of selecting interim VCs for state… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

This contention is supported by the petitioners, who through this instant PIL have challenged the unilateral appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Kalyani University among 11 others by the Governor for being devoid of any legal sanction since they were appointed without any… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

It was argued that in doing so, the Governor had violated the State’s laws in this regard, and hence the State considered such appointments to be illegal, and had not yet begun remitting salaries for the office of VC to any of the 12 respondent Vice-Chancellors.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

It was further argued by the State that by virtue of various Acts for regulation of State Universities such as WB University Control of Expenditure act and the WB University administration and college regulation act 2017, the State Government had been given supervisory powers to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Finally, it was pointed out by Mr Bandhopadhyay that under Rule 8 of the aforesaid 2017 Regulations, the mode of communication between the Chancellor and University had been specified.

Mr Bandhopadhyay presented documentary evidence of previous communication by the Governor to… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

It was the case of the Petitioners as well as the State, that due process had not been followed by the Governor in the impugned appointment of the Respondent-Vice-Chancellors and that such appointments were illegal in law.

#CalcuttaHighCourt

Mr Bandhopadhyay quoted the #CJI:
“Civil servants accountable to ministers, ministers are accountable to assembly, and assembly accountable to people.”

He stated that the Governor’s actions have been without any regard for accountability, since he has unilaterally appointed VCs… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Accordingly, among other reliefs, the Petitioners prayed for a writ of Quo warranto to be issued in order to cancel the ‘illegal’ and unilateral appointment of the respondent Vice Chancellors by the Governor acting as Chancellor of the said State Universities without any… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

The respondents have questioned the maintainability of the PIL arguing that the writ petition is immature at the present stage and that the case for a Writ of quo warranto has not been made out through their case.

#CalcuttaHighCourt

Hearing to resume after lunch.

Hearing resumes

Respondent: these are specific allegations by a private individual that appointments were made without consulting the minister in charge

Respondent: state said nothing was done. But upon knowledge of appointment, the was no intimation by the state to the governor

If there was no consultation then the department would’ve complained at the first instance. There was no complaint

Respondent: it’s not as if nothing was done. The impression sought to be given is what the state says must be done. Trying to dilute chancellors authority

Respondent: allegation that appointments were made without basis and those without qualifications were appointed is the “vaguest possible allegation”

Respondent: none of the respondent VCs lack any qualifications as given under the UGC regulations and the State Laws.

In fact, these regulations are not applicable on those who are “acting” or “interim” VCs.

But still there is no merit to allegations

Respondent: there has to be someone acting as VC without which any many administrative functions of the university such as admissions cannot be carried out. That is the case for appointment “any individual” acting as VC till the appointment of a permanent VC.

Respondent: petition fails to disclose the qualifications of all appointees as well as those of the names sent by the State to the Governor

Such a withholding is a conscious choice.

Respondent: there are certain norms and the petitioner has to show that he has made appropriate research and representation in the form of RTI or others.

This is no evidence of this nature

Respondent: there is also no evidence of consultation by the state with the Governor. Such omission is a conscious choice.

The State spoke of “meeting of minds” but it includes discord and note between the state and governor which must be reflected in the record. There is no… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Respondents: Persons who are being asked to take charge of VC’s post are in case of many respondents, only temporary appointments.

They are only acting as VCs to carry out the functions of the VC.

These are not permanent appointments.

Respondent: in service law only aggrieved person can bring a cause of action. A third party cannot bring up these issues.

In this case he says some respondents are not qualified. He has no locus to claim this.

Respondent: in case when temporary appointment of VC is being done, consultation with the State Government only means that the Chancellor is informing the ministry that he is appointing a qualified person to discharge the duties of VC.

#CalcuttaHighCourt

Respondent: “Consultation does not mean concurrence.”

To make temporary appointments to vacant positions, the Chancellor has every authority in urgent cases make such appointments to ensure that the University’s function carries on smoothly.

“an ego fight cannot be put in PIL… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Petitioner: respondents have said that this is only a temporary order.

Knew they would make this argument.

Petitioner: reads out Netaji Subhash Open University Act under which the Chancellor had passed orders to appoint an interim VC.

“Chancellor shall appoint temporary VCs in case of a vacancy in consultation with the State”

Petitioner: the language used in all the impugned orders of the Governor are identical to this provision, except the part of consultation with the State

A very strange case is being made by the respondents…

Petitioner: Chancellor is indeed appointing authority. But being a creature of the statute must function within it. He cannot make appointments that are outside the scope of the Laws in this regard

Petitioner: none of the parties in this case, except one, has contended that there had been consultation with the department of the State.

The Chancellor need not agree with the state. There may be difference of opinion and the opinion of the chancellor may prevail too.

But… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Petitioner: but none of that had happened. No consultation has happened.
So my writ cannot be termed as immature.

Petitioner cites a Kerala HC case.

CJ: but this is more stringent. In this case the writ of quo warranto was denied.

Petitioner: in this case when chancellor is occupying a high office, the assumption will be that such an act is done in good faith. I am not making the case… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Petitioner: communication has to come from chancellor. When consulter is seeking consultation the communication cannot come from consulter.

CJ: but we heard that state govt sent list to governor. This is deemed to be consultation.

CJ: state sent names of own volition. Hearing doesn’t always mean personal hearing, considering his office.
Out of 40 he chose 2 so he is deemed to have taken consultees views.

CJ: assuming that this “war” goes on for another 6 years, what will we do?

Shut down all universities and let the registrars run the universities?

Petitioner: Governor is Chancellor of all State universities. A pool of candidature is sent to him for screening. Thereafter he is to consult with the state on the chosen candidates.

This is a continuous back and forth process between state and governor.

Petitioner: the pool of candidates is not the consultation but only the material for consultation

CJ: only problem is that they have identified names for all universities. What more consultation do you want?

If you had identified multiple names for every university then there can be a process.

But in this case you have identified then what consultation is left?

CJ: governor found only two suitable candidates from the list

when I became acting CJ here #CalcuttaHC, this same language viz “authorisation” was used in the office order for me as well.

(in lighter vein) No consultation, it is only a notification, no ceremony here also

Petitioner: today I have not argued in deficiencies in qualifications. It is up to them to answer through affidavits.

My submission at this stage is limited to the fact that the appointment has been made in violation of the statute.

CJ: one respondent submitted that third party has no locus to challenge

Petitioner: that is why I have chosen to seek a writ of quo warranto

CJ: we will also consider whether you have made a prima facie case.

Petitioner: credential and cause of petitioner is beyond doubt and has raised cause of substantial public importance

CJ (in lighter vein): he should form part of one search committee at least

Petitioner: do not have personal interest but substantial interest.

Judgement reserved.

Hearing concludes.