Quo Warranto Against Vice-Chancellor Appointment for Breach of Binding UGC Eligibility and Selection Rules

A writ of quo warranto lies against a public office appointment made in breach of binding statutory regulations. The post of Vice-Chancellor is a public office, and the UGC regulations, having statutory force, governed eligibility and the constitution of the Search Committee where the State university had adopted the Central pay scheme and received Central assistance. Those regulations required at least ten years' teaching experience as Professor and a Search Committee including a nominee of the UGC Chairman. Because the appointment was made without compliance with those requirements, and the State statute did not displace the Central regulatory framework, the appointment was void and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was liable to be quashed in quo warranto proceedings for want of compliance with the University Grants Commission regulations on eligibility and Search Committee composition.

Analysis: A writ of quo warranto lies where an appointment to a public office is contrary to statutory provisions. The post of Vice-Chancellor is a public office. The University Grants Commission regulations made under the parent Act have statutory force as subordinate legislation. Where the State had adopted the Central pay scheme and the university was receiving Central assistance, the State and the university were bound to follow the UGC regulatory framework. The relevant regulations prescribed a minimum of ten years' teaching experience as Professor and required a Search Committee comprising, inter alia, a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC. The State university statute did not prescribe comparable qualifications, and the impugned appointment was made through a Search Committee that did not conform to the UGC requirements. In the event of conflict, the Central regulatory regime prevailed by operation of the constitutional principle of repugnancy.

Conclusion: The appointment was contrary to the binding UGC regulations and could not be sustained. The writ of quo warranto was warranted, and the appointment was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public office under a State university is governed by binding UGC regulations prescribing eligibility and selection procedure, an appointment made in breach of those regulations is amenable to quo warranto and is void.

---