The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Bengal government, the Bengal governor and the UGC to each suggest three to five names for a court-appointed “search committee” to select full-term vice-chancellors at a time the governor had made it a practice to handpick candidates of his choice for the jobs.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta gave the direction after an application moved by the state’s counsel, Astha Sharma, brought on record that both the chancellor and the UGC had failed to respond to communications/reminders from the government seeking a nominee from them to constitute the search-and-selection committee so regular VCs could be appointed.
The state’s application further complained that the registrars of the various universities were instructed not to attend a review meeting by the state upon orders from Raj Bhavan.
The counsel for the chancellor told the court that correspondence was not made since the state education minister had made comments about the chancellor.
The bench took exception to the fact that higher education in the state was being made a mockery of.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the Mamata Banerjee government, submitted that the top court should constitute a committee to put an end to the controversy.
The bench agreed to the suggestion and passed the directions. The court asked the state, the chancellor and the UGC to submit their respective panels by September 25 and listed the matter for further hearing on September 27. That day, it is expected to constitute the search committee from the suggested names and proceed with regular appointments.
On August 21, the bench had issued notices on the Bengal government’s appeal challenging the appointment of officiating VCs made by governor C.V. Ananda Bose, in his capacity as chancellor, allegedly without consulting the state government.
The court passed the directions while dealing with a special leave petition filed by the Bengal government through its department of higher education against a June 28 order by a division bench of Calcutta High Court dismissing a public interest litigation against the chancellor and others, where the petitioner had sought quashing of the appointment/authorisation of interim VCs in various state universities.
The Bengal government had supported the PIL and opposed the appointments.
The governor had made the said appointments in 13 universities allegedly without consulting the state government, which triggered a political slugfest between the government and the governor.
In the SLP, the Bengal government through state counsel Astha Sharma said that the impugned judgment had been passed by the high court “in utter disregard to the fact that any such appointment as per the Governing provisions must strictly be made in ‘consultation’ with the Minister/State Govt., which is conspicuously missing from the appointments of Vice-Chancellors to various Universities, and such a unilateral act of the Chancellor is perverse, illegal and arbitrary”.
According to the state, it had supported the contentions raised by the PIL since it established the violation of rules that necessitate “Satisfaction of the State Govt.” for the appointment of a VC.
According to the state, the appointment of VCs is governed solely by the respective state Acts and the said Acts had no provision for “authorising” any person to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a VC.
“Accordingly, no distinction could be made by the high court between ‘appointment’ and ‘authorising’, as has been sought to be done vide the impugned order, and thus consultation was mandatory, which has been given a go-by in the appointments so made in the instant case,” the state said.
It added: “The strict procedure which was to be mandatorily followed by the Chancellor as the appointing authority has been completely brushed aside vide the impugned order herein.”
