Reappointment to a tenure post must rest on independent statutory discretion, not fresh selection or governmental dictation.

Reappointment to a tenure post is permissible where the enabling statute so provides, because a fixed term does not by itself exclude a further term in the same office. The outer-age limit in Section 10(9) applies to initial appointment and does not extend to reappointment under Section 10(10), which specifically contemplates an incumbent's eligibility for reappointment. Reappointment is also distinct from a fresh appointment and does not require the same search-cum-selection process unless the statute expressly says so. A designated statutory authority must exercise its own independent judgment; if the Chancellor acts on the State Government's request rather than independently, the reappointment is vitiated as contrary to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post; (ii) whether the outer-age limit under Section 10(9) applied to reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor; (iii) whether reappointment had to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10; and (iv) whether the Chancellor abdicated his statutory power by acting on the State Government's request.

Issue (i): whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a tenure post.

Analysis: A tenure post ends with expiry of the term, but the statute may still provide for a further appointment to the same office. The concept of reappointment signifies continuation for another term where the enabling provision so permits. The existence of a fixed tenure does not, by itself, exclude reappointment.

Conclusion: Reappointment is permissible even in respect of a tenure post.

Issue (ii): whether the outer-age limit under Section 10(9) applied to reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor.

Analysis: Section 10(9) governs the eligibility of a person at the stage of initial appointment, while Section 10(10) governs the incumbent Vice-Chancellor after appointment and expressly makes the incumbent eligible for reappointment. Reading the age bar into the reappointment provision would add a limitation the legislature did not express and would defeat the object of the reappointment clause.

Conclusion: The outer-age limit under Section 10(9) does not apply to reappointment under Section 10(10).

Issue (iii): whether reappointment had to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10.

Analysis: The statutory scheme and the UGC Regulations prescribe a search-cum-selection process for appointment, but the reappointment provision contains no such procedural mandate. Reappointment upon expiry of the first term is not the same as a fresh appointment and does not require reopening the entire selection process or constituting a new selection committee.

Conclusion: Reappointment did not have to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10.

Issue (iv): whether the Chancellor abdicated his statutory power by acting on the State Government's request.

Analysis: A statutory power vested in a particular authority must be exercised by that authority on its own judgment and not at the behest of an extraneous body. The sequence of events showed that the reappointment was prompted by the State Government's intervention, and the Chancellor did not exercise an independent decision-making judgment. This vitiated the process of reappointment.

Conclusion: The Chancellor abdicated his statutory power and the reappointment was vitiated.

Final Conclusion: The reappointment notification could not stand, as the decision-making process was contrary to law and was tainted by extraneous governmental interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute empowers a designated authority to make a reappointment, that authority must exercise an independent statutory discretion; procedural requirements for initial appointment do not automatically govern reappointment unless the statute so provides, and extraneous governmental dictation invalidates the decision.

---