No Illegality In Orders Of Governor Appointing Vice Chancellors In Eleven State Universities: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that there is no illegality in the orders passed by the West Bengal Governor appointing Vice Chancellors in the eleven universities run by the State.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed, “The writ petitioner has miserably failed to point out as to what is the public interest which has been affected and curiously enough the State of West Bengal which did not raise any objection to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Chancellor has now toed the line of the writ petitioner and outrightly supporting the case of the writ petitioner and virtually stepped into the shoes of the writ petitioner. Therefore, are well justified in forming an opinion that the writ petitioner has been used as a tool with a view to indirectly challenge the orders issued by the Hon’ble Chancellor. However, we do not wish to go deep into this matter and we leave it as such as we are satisfied that there is no illegality in the orders issued by the Chancellor in favour of the private respondent herein and a writ of quo-warranto would not lie.”
The Bench said that when the final decision is with the consultor, the manner, method, and mode of consultation must be left with the consultor and the consultee cannot dictate terms to the consultor that the consultation has to be in a particular mode or methodology.
Senior Advocate Abhratosh Majumder appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocates Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay and Jaydip Kar, Advocates Surajit Nath Mitra, Soumya Majumder, Arunava Banerjee, and N.C. Bihani appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
A writ petition was filed by a professor having 41 years of teaching experience seeking issuance of a writ of quo-warranto to declare that the respondents do not have a right to hold office of Vice-Chancellor and to quash their appointments. It was submitted that the various enactments under which the Universities were established provide the methodology by which the Vice Chancellors will be appointed to the University. The petitioner stated that in 2022, the State appointed 24 Vice Chancellors to the 24 universities, and the said appointments, as well as the validity of the West Bengal University Laws Amendment (Act), 2012 and the West Bengal Laws Amendment (Act), 2014, were challenged.
The aforesaid petition was allowed and there were also other directions issued as to how the Vice Chancellors must be appointed in terms of the relevant provisions. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court but the appeal got dismissed and thereafter the State made several amendments bringing the State Universities Act in tune with the UGC Regulations, 2018, by passing the West Bengal Universities Laws (Amendment Ordinance), 2013. The petitioner alleged that the Chancellor of the respondent Universities without consultation with the Minister-in-charge had made a series of appointments of Vice Chancellors.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “… consultation is a process which requires meeting of minds between the parties involved in the process of consultation on the material facts and points to evolve a correct or at least satisfactory solution. Therefore, for a consultor and a consultee to hold consultation, there should be exchange of views. If one of the parties is rigid the question of commencing a dialogue or consultation does not arise as one of the parties has already made up its mind.”
The Court further noted that when the consultee takes a definite stand and communicates the same to the consultor, all that the consultor can do is to take the said opinion as the final opinion of the consultee and then proceed to take a final decision in the matter.
“… when the Minister-in-charge takes such a rigid view, the question of the consultor namely the Hon’ble Chancellor inviting the Minister in-charge for a dialogue or consultation is a fait-accompli and a wasted effort as no results will emanate thereby”, said the Court.
The Court also said that the Special Commissioner is not empowered to nullify an order passed by the Chancellor and that the order passed by the Special Commissioner is a clear inroad and interference with the exercise of the powers of the Chancellor which needs to be deprecated.
“It is not for the Special Commissioner to state that the appointment of Vice Chancellor cannot be accepted as valid appointment. Unfortunately, the Special Commissioner has not appreciated the tone, tenor and purpose for which the order dated 31st March, 2023 were issued in favour of the private respondents authorising them to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Vice Chancellor of the respective universities. Therefore, the proceedings of the Special Commissioner dated 12th June, 2023 is wholly devoid of jurisdiction and cannot be enforced”, held the Court.
It further observed that the State University rightly understood the scope of the order issued by the Chancellor and rightly said the professor of the University of Technology has not accepted the pay and allowances of the position of the Vice Chancellor.
“The court is at a loss to understand as to why the Special Commissioner has lost sight of this interpretation which has been rightly made by the University of Technology as communicated by the Registrar. Thus, by holding that the communication of the Special Commissioner dated 12th June, 2023 and a similar communication to the other universities are without jurisdiction, we hold that the incumbent professors who have been authorised to perform the duties of the Vice Chancellor of the respondent universities shall be entitled to draw the pay and allowances as applicable to the post held by them prior to issuance of the orders but would be entitled to draw the allowance, if any, applicable to the Vice Chancellor authorised to perform as a Vice Chancellor of the respective universities”, held the Court.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Sanat Kumar Ghosh v. The Chancellor, University of Kalyani and Others
