The Supreme Court has affirmed that the University Grants Commission Regulations, framed under Parliament’s exclusive legislative power over standards in higher education, override state-level university statutes. This judgment establishes a critical doctrinal boundary between central regulatory authority and state legislative autonomy in academic appointments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the appointment of Dr. S. Mohan as the first Vice-Chancellor of the Puducherry Technological University (PTU) in December 2021. The appointment followed a selection process conducted by a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019. However, the Committee did not include a nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC), as mandated by Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Additionally, the Secretary to the Government (Higher & Technical Education), who had previously served on the Governing Body of the erstwhile Puducherry Engineering College, was included as a member - raising concerns of conflict of interest.
Procedural History
- January 2021: Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under PTU Act, 2019.
- December 2021: Dr. S. Mohan appointed Vice-Chancellor for a five-year term.
- 2022 - 2023: Two writ petitions filed before the Madras High Court challenging the appointment and the validity of Section 14(5) of the PTU Act.
- December 19, 2023: High Court struck down Section 14(5) as ultra vires Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, and quashed the appointment.
- February 26, 2024: Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order, allowing Dr. Mohan to continue in office pending appeal.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the High Court’s judgment and uphold the appointment. The respondents sought to confirm the invalidity of the appointment and the statutory provision permitting it, arguing that the UGC Regulations are binding on all universities.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the composition of a Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointing a Vice-Chancellor under a state university statute must comply with the mandatory requirements of the UGC Regulations, 2018, framed under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, and whether such compliance is a condition of legislative competence under Article 246.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Counsel, argued that the PTU Act falls under Entry 25 of List III (Education), and that the UGC Regulations, being subordinate legislation, cannot override state statutes unless repugnancy under Article 254 is established. He relied on Rajiv Sarin v. State of Uttarakhand to contend that general Presidential assent to the PTU Act validated the entire statute, including Section 14(5). He further argued that Entry 66 of List I only governs academic standards, not administrative procedures like committee composition, citing Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. and T.N. Medical Officers’ Association v. Union of India.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that Entry 66 of List I grants Parliament exclusive power to determine standards in higher education, including the qualifications and selection process for Vice-Chancellors. They relied on Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. and University of Delhi v. Raj Singh to argue that the inclusion of a UGC nominee and exclusion of conflicted members are integral to maintaining national standards. They further emphasized that Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat established that UGC Regulations have statutory force and any deviation renders appointments void. They rejected the applicability of Article 254, noting that the PTU Act and UGC Regulations operate under different legislative heads.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the constitutional distribution of legislative powers under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule. It held that while Entry 25 of List III grants concurrent power to legislate on education, such power is expressly subject to Entries 63 - 66 of List I. Entry 66, which empowers Parliament to determine standards in institutions for higher education, is not merely about academic metrics but encompasses the entire framework of appointments that affect institutional integrity.
"The inclusion of a UGC nominee being an integral component of the standards prescribed for appointments in higher education, any deviation therefrom strikes at the root of the scheme envisaged under the Regulations."
The Court distinguished Kaiser-i-Hind and Rajiv Sarin, which dealt with repugnancy under Article 254, by clarifying that repugnancy applies only when both laws operate within the Concurrent List. Here, the UGC Regulations derive authority from Entry 66 of List I - an exclusive Union subject - while the PTU Act derives authority from Entry 25 of List III. Thus, the conflict is not one of repugnancy but of legislative competence: a state law cannot override a central law operating under a superior head.
The Court further held that Regulation 7.3(2) of the UGC Regulations, which prohibits members connected with the university from serving on the Search Committee, was directly violated by the inclusion of the Secretary as Pro-Chancellor. This created a clear conflict of interest, undermining the object of impartial selection.
The Court also affirmed the binding nature of UGC Regulations, noting they are subordinate legislation laid before Parliament under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, and thus form part of the statutory framework governing higher education.
The Verdict
The appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the appointment of Dr. S. Mohan was invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, in the interest of justice and to prevent disruption, the Court directed that Dr. Mohan may continue in office until the end of his five-year term in December 2026, or until a duly constituted successor is appointed, whichever is earlier.
What This Means For Similar Cases
UGC Regulations Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now treat UGC Regulations under Entry 66 as mandatory, not advisory, for all universities, whether state, private, or deemed.
- Any appointment process omitting a UGC nominee or including conflicted members is void ab initio, regardless of the university’s funding status or state legislation.
Legislative Competence Trumps Repugnancy Arguments
- Arguments based on Article 254 and Presidential assent are irrelevant when a state law conflicts with a central law under List I.
- State legislatures cannot cure ultra vires provisions by obtaining general Presidential assent; the subject matter must fall within their legislative competence.
Tenure Does Not Validate Illegality
-
Continuous service, merit, or lack of misconduct cannot validate an appointment that violates statutory standards.
-
However, courts may exercise powers under Article 142 to mitigate harsh consequences, allowing incumbents to complete tenure where removal would cause undue disruption.
-
Practitioners should audit all university appointment processes for compliance with Regulation 7.3.
-
Institutions must revise their statutes to align with UGC norms before initiating any selection process.
-
Challenges to appointments must now focus on statutory non-compliance, not procedural irregularities alone.
