Incidental statutory power supports withdrawal of lecturer approval where the academic regulatory scheme and valid reasons justify action.

The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and university statutes were read to give the Vice-Chancellor supervisory authority over academic standards, including incidental power to withdraw or cancel approval of a lecturer's appointment when justified. That power was upheld because approval formed part of the continuing regulatory scheme, and action taken pursuant to the Chancellor's direction was not beyond jurisdiction. Allegations of mala fides and bias were rejected as vague and unsupported by particulars, and pending proceedings under section 108 did not bar compliance with the Chancellor's communication. A conviction involving moral turpitude was treated as a valid basis for withdrawal of approval in the academic interest of the University.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Vice-Chancellor had implied power to withdraw or cancel approval granted to the petitioner's appointment as lecturer. (ii) Whether the impugned order was vitiated by mala fides, bias, or the pendency of proceedings under section 108 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

Issue (i): Whether the Vice-Chancellor had implied power to withdraw or cancel approval granted to the petitioner's appointment as lecturer.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 and the university statutes shows that the Vice-Chancellor is the principal academic and executive officer, charged with ensuring observance of the Act, Statutes and Regulations and with maintaining academic order and standards. Approval of a Selection Committee recommendation is not a mere one-time, irrevocable act; it is part of a regulatory framework governing affiliated colleges and teachers. Reading the provisions harmoniously, and applying the principle that an express statutory power carries incidental and necessary powers to make it effective, the Vice-Chancellor was held competent to withdraw or cancel approval where justified, particularly when the Chancellor directed action in the matter.

Conclusion: The Vice-Chancellor did have the power to withdraw or cancel the approval, and the challenge on want of jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was vitiated by mala fides, bias, or the pendency of proceedings under section 108 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

Analysis: The allegations of mala fides and bias were found to be vague and unsupported by particulars connecting the challenged order with any hostile act by the Vice-Chancellor. The order was traced to the Chancellor's communication directing consideration of the petitioner's conviction and was passed after pending consideration over a substantial period. Pendency of a reference under section 108 did not bar action where the Chancellor had already issued directions and the University was required to comply. The conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude was treated as a valid ground for withdrawal of approval in the academic interest of the University.

Conclusion: The challenge based on mala fides, bias, and pendency of section 108 proceedings was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit and the impugned withdrawal of approval was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the university statute confers wide supervisory powers on the Vice-Chancellor and approval of a teacher's appointment is integral to the academic regulatory scheme, the power to grant approval includes the incidental power to withdraw or cancel it for valid reasons, and vague allegations of mala fides cannot defeat such action.

---