The Division bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh affirmed that the Vice-Chancellor must be appointed from a panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

The Supreme Court also noted that

(1) No advertisement was issued prior to appointing the appellant as vice chancellor,

(2) His name was not recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee,

(3) His selection was not made by a panel of persons recommended by the Search-and-Selection Committee,

(4) He was not appointed as vice chancellor from the panel of names recommended by the Search and Selection Committee.

The bench also addressed the contention that he was the most meritorious person, and having been satisfied that he was the most suitable and meritorious person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor by the State Government.

In light of recent decisions in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat and Others, State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 831, and Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. and Others 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871, the bench said:

"It may be true that the appellant might have a very good or bright academic career. However, at the same time, it cannot be said that he was the most meritorious person, as his case was not compared with other meritorious persons. Therefore, the state government had no opportunity to compare his case with that of other eligible and meritorious candidates. As observed hereinabove and as per the requirement of Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and even as per Section 10 of the University 22 Act, 2019, the selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, and the members of such a search-cum-selection committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the university concerned or its colleges. The Search Committee shall give proper weightage to academic excellence, etc., when preparing the panel, and the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor from the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.The reason behind this seems to be that the person who is ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor has his case compared with other eligible and meritorious candidates who were part of the panel recommended by the Search Committee. In the present case, such a procedure has not been followed at all. "The merit of the appellant has not at all been compared with other eligible meritorious persons who may be more meritorious than the appellant."

One of the arguments advanced was that it was a case of the appointment of the first Vice-Chancellor, and thus, under the proviso to Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019, the procedure for appointment as Vice-Chancellor as provided under Section 10 is not required to be followed, and it is open for the State Government to appoint the university's first Vice-Chancellor.

Case Details:

Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs Ravindra Jugran

CA 8184 OF 2022 

Read the Complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/28409/28409_2021_5_1503_39581_Judgement_10-Nov-2022.pdf