Statutory appointment power remained with the Chancellor; State Government reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor was impermissible.

The amended Calcutta University statute continued to vest appointment power in the Chancellor, while the reappointment provision only made an incumbent eligible for a further term subject to specified conditions. The deletion of language linking reappointment to the full fresh selection process did not shift the appointing authority to the State Government, and the vacancy-filling provision was not applicable to reappointment. The removal of difficulty power could not be used to bypass the statutory mechanism or alter the Act's substance, and the binding UGC Regulations likewise required appointment by the Visitor/Chancellor. A re-appointment made by the State Government was therefore without authority of law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government could re-appoint the Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University under the amended university statute or by invoking the removal of difficulty power, and whether the re-appointment was liable to be struck down as contrary to the statutory scheme and the UGC Regulations.

Analysis: The amended statutory scheme distinguished between appointment, reappointment, continuation after expiry of term, temporary appointment, and filling of vacancy. The power of appointment continued to vest in the Chancellor under Section 8(1)(b), while Section 8(2)(a) only made an incumbent eligible for reappointment for another term subject to the satisfaction of the State Government and past academic excellence and administrative success. The deletion of the words linking reappointment to the provisions of Section 8 did not shift the appointing power to the State Government; it only removed the requirement of following the fresh selection procedure under Section 8(1). Section 8(6) concerned filling of a vacancy and did not govern reappointment. The State Government could not use Section 60 to bypass the specific mechanism in Section 8, since a removal of difficulty power cannot alter the substance of the Act or usurp an express statutory function. The UGC Regulations also required appointment of the Vice-Chancellor by the Visitor/Chancellor and, being binding subordinate legislation, reinforced the conclusion that an appointment by the State Government was impermissible.

Conclusion: The re-appointment made by the State Government was without authority of law and could not be sustained; the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme left the power of appointment and reappointment with the Chancellor, and the State Government could not validate its action by resort to the removal of difficulty clause or by departing from the binding UGC regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly vests the appointing power in one authority, a separate eligibility condition for reappointment does not transfer that power to another authority, and a removal of difficulty clause cannot be used to override the statutory scheme or defeat binding subordinate legislation.

---