0

The competence of the state government in respect of the amendment of the Act of 1973 is not in dispute and is also not underchallenged: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

The petition sans merit and substance hence accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the CCD of the State by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of NITENDRA VAJPAYEE V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH through HON’BLE JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that the petitioner is claiming himself to be an academician in the field of education and a practicing advocate. According to him, he is a public-spirited person and interested in the maintenance of high slandered education. According to him by way of the impugned amendment, the university will not be in a position to maintain a high standard in the matter of appointment of a vice chancellor. Section 13 of the Act of 1973 prescribes the procedure of appointment of Kulpati and as per the un-amended provision and UGC regulation of 2010, the committee for appointment of Kulpati consists of one nominated person elected from the Executive Council, one person nominated by the chairman of the University Grants Commission and one person nominated by the Chancellor. It is further submitted that the Executive Council is defined under section 23 of the Act of 1973. The Executive Council is nothing but a group of academicians such as Deans, Professors, Principals and Secretaries of the Government of Madhya Pradesh or Higher Education. It is further submitted by the learned counsel Shri Samwaskar that now the state government by way of amendment in section 13(2)(i) and section 13(3) of the Act has replaced the word Executive Council by the word State Government. It means that henceforth the Executive Council of the concerned university will have no say in the matter of selection or appointment of Kulpati. This power has been snatched and taken away by the State Government to defeat the independent power of the Executive Council to work for the betterment of the education in the university. No useful object is sought to be achieved by making such an amendment in section 13 of the Act. It is further submitted that clause 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulation 2010 highlights the importance of the search committee and mandates the inclusion of such members who are persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education. The apprehension of the petitioner that the state government may send representatives without verifying his expertise or experience in the field of education and selection of Kulpati or he may not be an eminence in the sphere of the higher education hence the petitioner has approached this court under such apprehension challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid notification.

JUDGEMENT
In this case, the competence of the state government in respect of the amendment of the Act of 1973 is not in dispute and is also not underchallenged. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless. We have no reason to believe that while appointing a person to be a member of a search committed under the amended section of 13(2)(i) and sub-section (3) of the Act of 1973 by the State Government he shall not be a person of eminence in the sphere of higher education. Under un-amended provision the nominee of by the Executive Council of the concerned University was bound to be connected in any manner with such University or its colleges, hence the State Government has made amendment in the statute to achieve complete independence of search committee and to avoid scope biases and favoritism as per 7.3.0 (II) of the UGC Regulation 2010. Now while preparing the panel, the search committee would give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance. In view of the above discussion, the petition sans merit and substance hence accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the CCD of the State.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat