UGC Norms Are Binding: Supreme Court Upholds Madras High Court Judgment On Puducherry Technological University VC Appointment

Considering that his tenure is due to expire in December 2026, the Court noted that there were no allegations regarding the appellant’s qualifications, integrity, or performance, and that he had served without complaint since 2021. An immediate cessation of his tenure may result in grave stigma and could be unduly harsh and for an academician, and so also avoidable disruption in the academic and administrative functioning of the University, the Court was further of the opinion.

On noting that the UGC Act, 2018 (Entry 66, List I) and the PTU Act, 2019 (Entry 25, List III) stem from different constitutional fields, so they operate in distinct domains of legislative competence, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta thus observed, “…the factual matrix does not give rise to any occasion to examine the issue of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, since the doctrine of repugnancy and the concomitant requirement of Presidential assent are attracted only where both the Central and State legislations operate within the Concurrent List. Undeniably, in the present case, the Central legislation occupies a field exclusively reserved for the Parliament under List I, and consequently the question of testing or determining repugnancy, or of curing the same by recourse to Article 254(2), does not arise at all”.

“…we are of the considered view that the findings recorded and the conclusions arrived at by the High Court in the impugned judgment do not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court”, the bench further observed.

Advocate G. Balaji, AOR appeared for the appellant, and Advocate Pooja Dhar, AOR appeared for the respondent.

In the present dispute, a writ petition was filed before the Madras High Court challenging the appointment on the ground that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018.

The Court had struck down Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 and quashed Dr. Mohan’s appointment, holding that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was improperly constituted. It did not include a nominee of the UGC Chairman, as mandatorily required under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. The High Court held that these Regulations, framed under the UGC Act pursuant to Parliament’s powers under Entry 66 of List I, set binding standards for higher education institutions.

Therefore, through an order dated 19-12-2023, finding that the selection process was illegal, but the High Court, in order to avoid a vacuum, permitted the appellant to continue in office until a duly selected incumbent assumes charge in accordance with law or until 30-06-2024, whichever was earlier.

The Supreme Court, however, while entertaining the Special Leave Petitions, through an order dated 26-02-2024 issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and as a consequence, the appellant continued to hold the post of the Vice-Chancellor.

Before the Court, the appellant argued that the State law had Presidential assent and that the composition of the search committee was an administrative matter, not an educational “standard.”

The bench rejecting this line of argument, ruled that UGC Regulations on VC appointments are part of the standards framework in higher education and override inconsistent State provisions. It further clarified that this was not a case of “repugnancy” under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, but one of legislative competence, Parliament’s field under Entry 66 prevails.

The bench permitted him to continue as Vice-Chancellor until the end of his tenure or until a new VC is appointed in accordance with UGC norms, whichever is earlier. He has also been allowed to participate in the fresh selection process. The Court further observed that Puducherry’s legislature is free to amend the PTU Act, 2019 to bring it in line with UGC Regulations.

Cause Title: Dr. S. Mohan v. The Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University & Ors. etc. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 100]

Appearances:

Appellants: G. Balaji, AOR

Respondents: M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR, Pooja Dhar, AOR Aravindh S., AOR, Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR, Vishal Agrawal, Astha Singh, Advocates.