Visitor Not Merely A Titular Head; Appointment Of Person As CMJ University's Chancellor By Sponsor Valid Only Upon Visitor's Approval: SC
The Court was deciding Civil Appeals against the Judgment of the Meghalaya High Court’s Division Bench, quashing the Single Judge’s Judgment.
The Supreme Court while upholding a Dissolution Order against the CMJ University, held that the Visitor is not merely a titular head and the appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals challenging the Judgment of the Meghalaya High Court’s Division Bench by which it quashed the Single Judge’s Judgment and remanded a case to take appropriate decision regarding the validity of the Order dissolving the Chander Mohan Jha (CMJ) University within 6 months.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, "Under the framework of the Act, it is clear that for the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University, the Sponsor is not the sole authority, and the Visitor also plays a pivotal role. The Visitor is not merely a titular head and the appointment of any person as Chancellor by the Sponsor would attain validity only upon the approval of the Visitor. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the Visitor’s approval was never granted for the appointment of the Chancellor of the University."
The Bench reiterated that if a statute provides for the approval of the higher Authority, the Order cannot be given effect to unless it is approved and the same remains inconsequential and a dead letter in the eyes of law.
Brief Facts
The Single Judge of the High Court had quashed and set aside the Order passed by the Meghalaya Government, dissolving the University and also quashed the show cause notices issued to the University by the State Government. In this case, a trust namely Chandra Mohan Jha (CMJ) Foundation was registered at Shillong, Meghalaya in 2004 and the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly enacted the Chandra Mohan Jha University Act, 2009 to established and incorporate the CMJ University in the State. The Board of Trustees of CMJ Foundation appointed Chander Mohan Jha as the Chancellor of the University and thereafter, a letter was sent to the Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, seeking approval of the Visitor for the appointment of Chancellor. As per Section 13(1) of the Act, the Meghalaya Government was holding the ex-officio position of Visitor of the CMJ University.
Since approval for the appointment of the Chancellor was not forthcoming despite several reminders, a letter was sent by the Appellants to the State Government, asserting that “In case the approval is not granted by the Visitor by 25th April, 2010, it would be deemed that the approval of Chancellor has been granted by the Visitor.” However, no response was received and then the State Government accorded sanction for the establishment of the University in accordance with the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines. In 2013, the Visitor sent letters to the Appellants, seeking some information and highlighting that the appointment of the Chancellor was irregular since the same was never approved. On perusal of the records/information submitted by the Appellants, the Visitor noticed certain serious anomalies and non-conformity with the State Act, Regulations, and Rules and hence, it issued some directions which were to be mandatory complied with by the University.
Multiple Proceedings
Being aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Single Judge and as the decision was not in their favour, they filed a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court and it directed the State Government to take appropriate action within 3 months. The State Government then issued a show cause notice to the Appellants but it found their replies untenable. Hence, the State issued an Order, dissolving the CMJ University with immediate effect. Challenging this, the University filed a Writ Petition which was allowed by the Single Judge.
Being aggrieved, the State filed an Intra-Court Writ Appeal and the Division Bench vide an Interim Order, stayed the operation of the Single Judge’s Order. The University approached the Supreme Court via SLP and an interim stay was granted on the Division Bench’s Order. The Writ Appeal pending before the Meghalaya High Court was transferred to the Gauhati High Court, which remanded the case to the Meghalaya High Court’s Single Bench for a fresh adjudication. The Appellants again approached the Supreme Court and their Appeal was allowed. The case was transferred to the Division Bench which remanded the case to the Single Judge and this was challenged before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “It is trite that in the absence of any statutory flavour, a provision cannot be interpreted to create a legal fiction in such eventuality, and creating a fiction through judicial interpretation may amount to legislation, which is exclusively the domain of legislature.”
The Court referred to the Judgment in the case of Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2017), in which it was held that judicial review lies against a decision-making process and not against the decision itself.
“… we hold that the procedure prescribed under Section 14(1) of the Act for the appointment of the Chancellor was not duly followed. Consequently, the appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University was rightly declared to be invalid and non-est in the eyes of law by the Division Bench of the High Court and the impugned judgment to this extent, does not suffer from any infirmity”, it further held.
The Court was of the view that the Dissolution Order was passed with strict adherence to the procedural requirements outlined under Section 48 of the Act, and in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
“… we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was fully justified in quashing and setting aside the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, which had invalidated the dissolution order dated 31st March, 2014 and the show cause notices dated 12th November, 2013 and 24th January, 2014. We fully concur with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in upholding the validity of the procedure followed by the State Government and the dissolution order itself”, it added.
The Court also said that the remand to the Single Judge was entirely unjustified and unwarranted and that the controversy in this case had been exhaustively examined and conclusively determined on merits by the Division Bench, leaving no substantive questions or unresolved issues for redetermination by the Single Judge and as such, there was no requirement for fresh consideration of the case on merits by the Single Judge.
“On the touchstone of the precedents discussed above, once the Division Bench had approved the procedure adopted by the State, in passing the dissolution order, the exercise of remand would be nothing short of an empty formality. Therefore, the order of remand is legally flawed and untenable. ... We, therefore, hold that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration on merits”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal of the University, allowed that of the State, and affirmed the Dissolution Order.
Cause Title- CMJ Foundation and Others v. State of Meghalaya and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 211)
Appearance:
Senior Advocates Anupam Lal Das, Suryanarayana Singh, AORs Anne Mathew, Pragati Neekhra, Vinod Kumar Tewari, Advocates Philemon Nongbri, Ahanthem Henry, A. Rohen Singh, Aditya Bhanu Neekhra, Atul Dong, Aniket Patel, Pramod Tiwari, Vivek Tiwari, Priyanka Dubey, Bhoopesh Pandey, Manindra Dubey, and Saumya Mishra.
