TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1260
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 60 of the Act. As a consequence, the order issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal on 27 August 2021 re-appointing the incumbent VC of Calcutta University was set aside. The High Court has held that the VC had no authority to hold that office on the basis of the order of appointment. Both the State of West Bengal and Dr. Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee, the VC whose appointment has been set aside, are in appeal. 2. By a notification dated 28 August 2017, the Chancellor of Calcutta University appointed Professor Dr. Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as the VC of Calcutta University. The notification was in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 8(1)(a) read with Section 8(2)(a) of the Act. The term of appointment was for a period of four years with effect from the date on which she joined office or until she attained the age of sixty-five or until further orders, whichever is the earliest. 3. The term of office of the VC was to end on 27 August 2021. The State government in the Higher Education Department submitted proposals for the re-appointment of the VC for a period of four years to the Chancellor on 4 June 2021 and 17 June 2021 which were not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Article 14 of the Constitution; (vi) The appointment of the VC by the State was contrary to the UGC (Minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in University and Colleges and measures for the maintenance of standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2018. UGC Regulations 7. The petition was opposed on behalf of the State government by submitting that: (i) In terms of the unamended provisions of Section 8, the procedure prescribed in Sub-section (1) has to be followed for re-appointment; (ii) This position was altered by the 2019 amendment to the Act; (iii) The appointment and re-appointment of a VC stand on a different footing and the power of reappointment is vested with the State government and not the Chancellor; (iv) Even if the Chancellor is the re-appointing authority, he has no discretion once a recommendation is made by the State government upon its satisfaction; and (v) Since the Chancellor has not taken any action in terms of Section 8(2)(a), the State government had no option but to re-appoint the incumbent VC by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 60. 8. The incumbe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the removal of difficulties arising in giving effect to the provisions of the statute. 11. Apart from the reasoning based on the provisions of the Act, the Division Bench held that the UGC Regulations envisage that the appointment of a VC can be made only by a Visitor/Chancellor. This in the view of the High Court came in the way of the State government making the appointment and, in this context, it relied upon a judgment of this Court in Ghambirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179. 12. On behalf of the Petitioners before the High Court, it was urged during the course of those proceedings that the same procedure which was provided for appointment of a VC Under Section 8(1) was required to be followed at the time of re-appointment. On the other hand, the State government relied on the amended provisions of Section 8(2)(a). On this point, the High Court disagreed with the Petitioner and noted that amended Section 8(2)(a) which provides for the re-appointment of a VC for another term does not require that the procedure prescribed in Section 8(1) should be followed for re-appointment. In the amendment of 2019, the expression "following the provisions of Sub-secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the official Gazette on 27 August 2019. As a result of the amending enactment, amendments were made to the seven state enactments governing state universities. Section 8(2)(a) as it stood prior to the amendment which was brought about in 2019, was in the following terms: (2)(a) The Vice-chancellor shall hold office for a term of four years or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, and shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of four years or till he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier, following the provisions of Sub-section (1). Sub-section (2) of Section 8 as amended reads as follows: (2)(a) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period of four years appointed as such in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1), and shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years subject to the satisfaction of the State Government and on the basis of his past academic excellence and administrative success established during his term of office in the capacity of Vice-Chancellor, or till he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier. Section 8(2)(b) as amended is in the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Higher Education Department and sought certain clarifications on some issues not related directly with the subject matter... 18. In its counter affidavit filed before the High Court, the State government submitted that in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, the State government considering "the past academic excellence and the administrative success" of the incumbent VC recommended her re-appointment for a further term of four years or until she attains the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. The State government submitted that since the VC had already been appointed for an earlier term there was no requirement of a fresh search committee for the purpose of a reappointment. However, according to the State government, the Chancellor was not in agreement with the interpretation of the amended provisions since the State government opined that when a reappointment was proposed under amended Section 8(2)(a) there was no necessity of undergoing a further selection process. The State government urged that Section 8(2)(a) only postulates satisfaction of the State government and does not require the concurrence of the Chancellor. In other words, according to the State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reappointment of the VC was forwarded to the Chancellor by the State government. 21. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the VC submitted that: (i) Section 8(6) does not stand with Section 8(2) because in terms of Section 8(6) the appointment of a VC is to be made in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) in terms of which the three-member search committee has to be constituted; (ii) The judgment of the High Court in the present case specifically holds that the procedure which is prescribed by Section 8(1)(b) of constituting the search committee does not apply to a reappointment; and (iii) Section 8 envisages distinct situations namely: a. Appointment of a VC by the Chancellor out of a panel of three names recommended by the Search Committee constituted by the State government; b. Reappointment in respect of which the power is vested in the State government Under Section 8(2)(a); c. Extension of the term of a VC beyond the expiration of the term of office Under Section 8(2)(b) by the Chancellor in consultation with the Minister; d. A temporary appointment of the VC which is m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in a three judge Bench, Justice SB Sinha, held that: 22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact on the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of India, SCC para 74.) 23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana.) 25. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. (2006) 11 SCC 731, the limitations of the writ of quo warranto were elaborated upon by a two judge Bench of this Court. The court observed: 49. [...] The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordance with the law. Accordingly, the rival contentions must be analyzed by dealing with the scheme of the statutory provisions governing the appointment and reappointment of the VC. 29. Section 8 of the Act envisages several situations: (i) Appointment of a VC (Section 8(1)(b)); (ii) Reappointment of a VC (Section 8(2)(a)); (iii) Continuation of the term of a VC upon the expiry of the term of office (Section 8(2)(b)); and (iv) Appointment of a person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the VC, occasioned by a. The temporary inability of the VC to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the office by reasons of leave, illness or other causes; and b. A vacancy occurring in the office of VC upon the death, resignation, removal, expiry of term of office or otherwise. (Section 8(5)). 30. Section 8 makes provisions for firstly, the conditions of eligibility for holding the office of a VC; secondly, the term for which the office would be held; thirdly, the procedure for appointment; and fourthly, who has the power to make the appointment. 31. The conditions of eligibility for holding the post of VC are sti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a VC shall be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years "subject to the satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of his past academic excellence and administrative success established during his term of office in the capacity of VC". 35. In other words, Section 8(2)(a) establishes, firstly, the eligibility of a VC for reappointment for another term of four years; the expression "another term" signifying that the new term will be in addition to the earlier term of four years; and, secondly, the requirement that the eligibility for reappointment would be subject to the satisfaction of the State government on the basis of academic excellence and administrative success during the period when the individual held office of VC. Significantly, Section 8(2)(a) is a provision which prescribes the term, namely, the initial term of four years and if an incumbent is reappointed, a further period of four years. Moreover, Section 8(2)(a) stipulates the conditions subject to which the VC would be eligible for reappointment for another term of four years. 36. Section 8(2)(a) is sought to be interpreted by the Appellants as indicating that the power of reappointm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er provided in Section 8, which obviously included Section 8(1). Deletion of those words in Section 8(2)(a), as amended, would mean that the procedure which has been prescribed for making the appointment of a VC, namely the appointment of a search committee and the preparation of a panel, would not be attracted in the case of a reappointment. In the case of a reappointment, a VC who has completed a term of four years would be eligible subject to the satisfaction of the State government and on the basis of their past academic excellence and administrative record during the term of office held as a VC. Significantly, Section 8(2)(a) speaks of the satisfaction of the State government and past academic excellence and administrative success during the term of office. Fulfilment of those conditions makes a person eligible for being reappointed as a VC. 41. It is a settled principle of law that a statute must be read to avoid a construction which would make certain provisions or terms meaningless or redundant. In Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273, a Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated the dictum in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that: The proposal dated 4.6.2021 emanating from the State Government seeking reappointment of Prof. Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee, Vice Chancellor of Calcutta University for second term of four years, is not in consonance with the applicable statutory prescriptions as is amply reflected in the note dated 2.8.2021. I need to indicate here that without being a participant in selection, and consequent selection, as incumbent Vice Chancellor cannot get another term in view of Section 8(2)(a) of the Calcutta University Act 1979. 45. It would be appropriate to also analyse whether the re-appointment of the VC has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment, by setting up a selection committee Under Section 8(1) of the Act, as indicated by the Chancellor. 46. Section 8(6) stipulates the manner in which a vacancy in the office of the VC which occurs by reason of death, resignation, expiration of the term of office, removal or otherwise shall be filled up. The provision indicates that such vacancy shall be filled up in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 8. Section 8(6) has to be read in conjunction with Section 8(1) since the former expressly r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demands on the time of the Legislature and the endurance and skill of the draftsman, it is well nigh impossible to foresee all the circumstances to deal with which a statute is enacted or to anticipate all the difficulties that might arise in its working due to peculiar local conditions or even a local law. This is particularly true when Parliament undertakes legislation which gives a new dimension to socio-economic activities of the State or extends the existing Indian laws to new territories or areas freshly merged in the Union of India. In order to obviate the necessity of approaching the Legislature for removal of every difficulty, howsoever trivial, encountered in the enforcement of a statute, by going through the time-consuming amendatory process, the Legislature sometimes thinks it expedient to invest the Executive with a very limited power to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in the statute, for making its implementation effective, without touching its substance. That is why the "removal of difficulty clause", once frowned upon and nick-named as "Henry VIII clause" in scornful commemoration of the absolutist ways in which that English King got the "difficul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 7.3 states that: 7.3 Vice Chancellor: [...] (iii) The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee. 55. In Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2022) 5 SCC 179, the Sardar Patel University Act 1955, expressly vested the power of appointment of the Vice Chancellor in the State government (instead of the Chancellor). Despite the appointment being in terms of the statutory provisions of the Sardar Patel University Act 1955, the Court issued a writ of quo warranto setting aside the appointment of the Vice Chancellor by relying upon the UGC Regulations 2018. This Court, holding that the UGC Regulations were binding, held that: 49. Therefore, when the appointment of Respondent 4 is found to be contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018 and the UGC Regulations are having the statutory force, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case to issue a writ of quo warranto and to quash and set aside the appointment of Respondent 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the SP University. 50. It cannot be disputed that the UGC Regulations are enacted by the UGC in exercise o....