Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000054-000055 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 6499/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Both judges concurred |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms High Court’s decision |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law; statutory interpretation; higher-education regulation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The UGC Regulations, 2018, framed under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution and enacted by Parliament, prescribe mandatory standards for Vice-Chancellor appointments that bind State legislation under Entry 25, List III. Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, which omitted the UGC Chairman’s nominee and included a connected Government Secretary, contravened Regulation 7.3’s requirements and is ultra vires. Because the UGC Regulations occupy an exclusive field, the repugnancy doctrine under Article 254 does not arise. The appointment made under the invalid provision is unsustainable, but, in equity, the incumbent may continue until his normal tenure ends or a new compliant selection is made. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Puducherry legislature enacted the PTU Act providing a Search-cum-Selection Committee without a UGC nominee and with a Government Secretary linked to the university. A public advertisement and panel of three were prepared; the Lieutenant Governor appointed the incumbent Vice-Chancellor. Two writ petitions challenged the omission of the UGC nominee; the High Court struck down Section 14(5) but allowed continuity until June 2024. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and State universities when interpreting UGC Regulations and State statutes under Entries 66 and 25 of the Seventh Schedule |
| Persuasive For | Administrative bodies and selection committees in central and deemed universities |
| Follows | Precedents in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi |
| Distinguishes | Repugnancy framework of Article 254; clarifies it is inapplicable where Central and State laws fall under different Schedule entries |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- UGC Regulations under Entry 66, List I, cannot be diluted by a State Act under Entry 25, List III.
- A Search-cum-Selection Committee must include the UGC Chairman’s nominee and exclude members connected with the university.
- Repugnancy under Article 254 applies only when both laws occupy the Concurrent List.
- Supreme Court may permit an incumbent to continue despite statutory invalidity, using Article 142 to prevent administrative vacuum.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Legislative Distribution: Entry 66, List I grants Parliament exclusive power to determine standards in higher education; Entry 25, List III allows State regulation of education but subject to List I entries.
- Statutory Force of UGC Regulations: Framed under UGC Act (Sections 26(1)(e), (g)), Regulations have binding, overriding effect on State enactments in their field.
- Mandatory Composition: Regulation 7.3 requires a UGC nominee in the Search Committee and bars connected members. Section 14(5) of the PTU Act omitted the former and included the latter.
- Repugnancy Inapplicable: Doctrine under Article 254 arises only when Central and State laws both relate to a Concurrent List subject; here, UGC Regulations derive from List I.
- Remedy & Equity: Appointment under invalid provision vitiated; equity warrants continuation of incumbent until end of tenure or fresh compliant selection, to avoid disruption.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant
- Presidential assent to PTU Act was general and validates the entire Act.
- Entry 66, List I is confined to academic standards, not administrative governance which falls under Entry 25, List III.
- High Court misread Kaiser-i-Hind and Gambhirdhan.
- Incumbent is qualified, has served without issue, and should complete tenure.
Respondents
- Entry 66, List I empowers UGC to coordinate and determine standards, including composition of selection committees.
- PTU Act contravenes binding UGC Regulations; repugnancy requires invalidation.
- State lacked competence to legislate inconsistent standards; Presidential assent under Article 254 is irrelevant as Central law is under List I.
Factual Background
The Union Territory legislature enacted a Technology University Act providing for a Search-cum-Selection Committee under Section 14(5) to appoint its first Vice-Chancellor. The committee was constituted without a UGC Chairman nominee and included a Government Secretary connected to the university. After a public call and panel submission, the Lieutenant Governor appointed the incumbent. Two writ petitions challenged the committee’s composition and the statutory framework; the High Court struck down Section 14(5) as ultra vires but allowed the incumbent to continue until June 2024.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 246 & Seventh Schedule: Distribution of legislative powers—Entry 66 List I vs. Entry 25 List III.
- UGC Act, 1956: Sections 26(1)(e), (g) empower UGC to frame Regulations.
- UGC Regulations, 2018, Regulation 7.3: Mandates a UGC Chairman nominee and bars members connected with the university in Search-cum-Selection Committees.
- PTU Act, Section 14(5): Omits UGC nominee; includes Government Secretary as member—conflict with Regulation 7.3.
Procedural Innovations
- Exercised Article 142 powers to direct continuity of incumbent until end of tenure or fresh compliant selection, balancing statutory invalidity with administrative equity.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms binding authority of UGC Regulations.
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Clarifies that Article 254 repugnancy is confined to Concurrent List overlap, distinguishing from prior interpretations.