Manoj Kumar Chauhan vs State Of U.P. and others delivered on 17 March 2015

 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Case :- WRIT – A, No. - 8189 of 2015 

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Chauhan

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Ors. 

Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Narain Singh, Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :-
C.S.C.,Anurag Khanna, Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate 

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, J.

The Registrar of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, which is governed by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 19732, has filed this petition for quashing the orders dated 21 October 2014, 28 October 2014, 14 November 2014, 1 December 2014, 4 December 2014 and 13 January 2015 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University.

The petitioner, who was working as the Secretary of Muzaffarnagar Development Authority, was posted as the Registrar of the University by order dated 28 February 2014 passed by the State Government exercising powers under Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh State Universities (Centralised) Service Rules, 19753. He joined as the Registrar of the University on 2 March 2014. The Vice-Chancellor of the University issued an order dated 21 October 2014 relieving the petitioner, who had been working as the Registrar of the University, with immediate effect.

The senior-most Deputy Registrar was further directed to officiate as the Registrar of the University. This order was followed by an order dated 28 October 2014. The Vice-Chancellor directed that no files should be placed before the petitioner without taking approval from the Vice-Chancellor because even after the order dated 21 October 2014, the petitioner was continuing to function as the Registrar of the University and was asking for files from the Department. The Vice-Chancellor of the University also passed an order dated 14 November 2014 directing all the Assistant Registrars/Deputy Registrars/Section Officers not to place any document or file before the petitioner who had already been relieved.

The Special Secretary in the Department of Higher Education, however, issued an office order dated 29 November 2014 that the order dated 21 October 2014 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University relieving the petitioner has been withdrawn by the State Government and that the petitioner would continue to function as the Registrar of the University as he had been appointed by the State Government and could be removed only by the State Government. The petitioner was directed to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order passed by the State Government. The petitioner, pursuant to the aforesaid order, took charge from the officiating Registrar on 30 November 2014 and informed the State Government of this fact by the communication dated 1 December 2014.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University, however, sent a communication dated 1 December 2014 to the Special Secretary, Department of Higher Education in the State Government pointing out that the State Government was not vested with any power to withdraw an order passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University and, therefore, the order dated 29 November 2014 was not acceptable to the University. The State Government was asked to refer the matter to the Chancellor of the University and it was stated that the University would implement the order to be passed by the Chancellor of the University. This communication was followed by an office order dated 1 December 2014 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. It was stated that the Vice-Chancellor had declined to accept the joining of the petitioner as the Registrar of the University pursuant to the order dated 29 November 2014 of the State Government and, therefore, the files of the University should not be submitted to the Registrar of the University. Thereafter, another order dated 4 December 2014 was issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. After making reference to the earlier orders dated 21 October 2014 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the order dated 29 November 2014 passed by the State Government and the communication dated 1 December 2014 of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, it was directed that since the convocation of the University was likely to be held on 6 December 2014, Professor Navin Chandra Lohni shall discharge the duties of the Registrar of the University till the senior-most Deputy Registrar returned from leave or a regular Registrar was appointed in the University. Such order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University exercising powers under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(6) of the Act.

Thereafter, an order dated 13 January 2015 was passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University directing that in the absence of the Acting-Registrar, the senior-most Deputy Registrar Dr. Dev Raj shall perform the functions of the Registrar of the University.

In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the letter dated 10 February 2015 sent by the Under-Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, has been enclosed. The letter refers to the earlier communication dated 21 October 2014 sent by the Vice-Chancellor, the communication dated 29 November 2014 sent by the State Government for withdrawal of the order relieving the petitioner and for permitting him to function as the Registrar of the University as also the communication dated 4 December 2014 sent by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. It then states that under the provisions of the Act, the power to appoint the Registrar vests with the State Government and, therefore, the power to remove the Registrar is not vested with the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Accordingly, it has been stated that the action of the University in depriving the Registrar of the University from functioning is void.

The main issue, therefore, that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Vice-Chancellor of the University can relieve a duly appointed Registrar by the State Government under the provisions of the Act.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Sri M.N. Singh, submitted that in view of the provisions of section 16 and the Rules made under section 17 of the Act, the power to appoint a Registrar of the University is vested with the State Government. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in terms of Rule 36(2) of the Rules the power to start disciplinary proceedings and to impose the punishment of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank shall vest in the State Government and the Vice-Chancellor has the power to impose any other punishment. However, such action has not been taken by the Vice-Chancellor and a simple order relieving the petitioner from the post of Registrar has been issued by the Vice-Chancellor despite repeated directions from the State Government that he does not have the authority to do so. It is his submission that the aid of section 13 (1)(a) of the Act cannot be taken by the Vice-Chancellor for exercising a power which does not vest with him. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the aid of section 13(6) of the Act, which deals with urgent matters requiring immediate action, cannot also be taken as such a power can be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor of a University in respect of a power which vests with any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it and it does not confer a power on the Vice-Chancellor to deal with a matter which is required to be dealt with by the State Government.

Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna, however, defended the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor. Elaborating his submissions, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer of the University who exercises general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and it is while exercising such a power that the Vice-Chancellor had passed the impugned orders. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors.4. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the word “supervision” used in section 13(1))(a) of the Act is akin to 'superintendence' which would include the power to forbear from doing a thing or directing some one else to do that thing in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors.5. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that likewise the word “control” used in section 13(1)(a) of the Act includes something in addition to mere superintendence and would mean control over the conduct and discipline of the Registrar in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bardakanta Mishra Vs. High Court of Orissa & Anr.6 and Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu & Ors.7.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.

The Officers of the University have been defined in section 9 of the Act. They include, amongst others, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University. Section 12 of the Act provides that the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall be appointed by the Chancellor. The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor of the University are contained in section 13 of the Act and the relevant provisions are as follows :

"13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor.--
(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive
and academic officer of the University and shall--
(a) exercise general supervision and control over the
affairs of the University including the constituent
Colleges and the Institutes maintained by the
University and its affiliated and associated colleges ;
…......................

(4) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to
ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this
Act, the Statutes and Ordinance and he shall, without
prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor under
Sections 10 and 68 possess all such powers as may be
necessary in that behalf.
…......................

(6) Where any matter other than the appointment of
teacher of the University is of urgent nature requiring
immediate action and the same could not be
immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority
or other body of the University empowered by or
under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor
may take such action as he may deem fit and shall
forthwith report the action taken by him to the
Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other
body who or which in the ordinary course would have
dealt with the matter :

Provided that no such action shall be taken by
the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of
the Chancellor, if it would involve a deviation from
the provisions of the Statutes or the Ordinances :

Provided further that if the officers, authority or
other body is of opinion that such action ought not to
have been taken, it may refer the matter to the
Chancellor who may either confirm the action taken
by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it
in such manner, as he thinks fit and thereupon, it shall
cease to have effect or, as the case may be, take effect
in the modified form, so however, that such annulment
or modification shall be without prejudice to the
validity of anything previously done by or under the
order of the Vice-Chancellor :

Provided also that any person in the service of
University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the
Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section, shall have the
right to appeal against such action to the Executive
Council within three months from the date on which
decision on such action is communicated to him and
thereupon, the Executive Council may confirm,
modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor.”

Section 16 of the Act deals with the Registrar of the University. It provides that the Registrar shall be appointed in accordance with, and his conditions of service shall be governed by, Rules made under section 17 of the Act. Section 16 of the Act is reproduced below :-

“16. The Registrar.--(1) The Registrar shall be a
wholetime Officer of the University.

(2) The Registrar shall be appointed in accordance
with, and his conditions of service shall be governed
by, rules made under Section 17.

(3) The Registrar shall have the power to authenticate
records on behalf of the University.

(4) The Registrar shall be responsible for the due
custody of the records and the common seal of the
University. He shall be
ex officio Secretary of the
Executive Council, the Court, the Academic Council
and the Admissions Committee and of every Selection
Committee for appointment of teachers of the
University, and shall be bound to place before these
authorities all such information as may be necessary
for transaction of their business. He shall also perform
such other duties as may be prescribed by the Statutes
and Ordinances as required, from time to time, by the
Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor but he shall
not, by virtue of this sub-section be entitled to vote.
…...........

6) The Registrar shall not be offered nor shall he
accept any remuneration for any work in the
University save such as my be provided for by rules
made under Section 17.”

Section 16 (A) of the Act which deals with the Controller of Examinations, provides that the Controller of Examinations shall be appointed by the State Government and section 16 (B) deals with the duties of Registrar with respect to examinations in certain Universities. It provides that in Universities to which the provisions of section 16 (A) do not apply, the duties of the Controller of Examinations shall be discharged by the Registrar and with respect to such Universities, the Registrar shall be deemed to be the Controller of Examinations for the purposes of the Act.

The relevant provisions of sections 16(A) and 16(B) of the Act are quoted below :-

“16-A. The Controller of Examination.--(1) This
section applies only to the Universities of Lucknow,
Allahabad, Gorakhpur and Kanpur and to any other
University specified in that behalf by the State
Government by notification in Official Gazette.

(2) The Controller of Examination shall be a whole
time officer of the University.

(3) The Controller of Examination shall be appointed
by the State Government by a notification published in
the Official Gazette and his remuneration and
allowances shall be paid by the University.
…........................

16-B.
Duties of Registrar with respect to
examinations in certain Universities.--
In the
Universities to which the provisions of Section 16-A
do not apply, the duties of the controller of
Examinations shall be discharged by the Registrar and
with respect to such Universities the Registrar shall be
deemed to be the Controller of Examinations for the
purposes of this Act.”

Section 17 of the Act deals with centralisation of services of Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars. It provides that the State Government shall by rules made by notification in the official gazette, provide for creation of a separate service of Registrars, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars, common to all the Universities and regulate the recruitment to and the conditions of service of persons appointed to any such service. Section 17 of the Act is reproduced below :

“17. Centralisation of services of Registrars,
Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars.--
(1) The State Government shall by rules made by
notification in the Official Gazette, provide for the
creation of a separate service of Registrars, Deputy
Registrars and Assistant Registrars, common to all the
Universities and regulate the recruitment to and
conditions of service of persons appointed to any such
service:

Provided that any rules made under this subsection
may be made retrospectively to a date not earlier
than October 31, 1975.

(2) When any such service is created, the persons then
serving on the administrative posts of Registrars,
Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars if
confirmed before May 14, 1973 shall be absorbed in
the service finally, and other persons serving on the
said posts may, if found suitable, be absorbed in such
service either provisionally or finally, and if, in the
latter case, any person is not absorbed finally, then this
services shall be deemed to have been terminated on
payment of one month's salary as compensation.

(3) Where any person referred in sub-section (2) is
absorbed in the service, the conditions of service
applicable to him shall not be less advantageous than
those applicable to him before his absorption, except
that he shall be liable to transfer from one University
to another :

Provided that such absorption in the service
shall not operate as a bar against holding or continuing
to hold any disciplinary proceeding against a member
of the service in respect of any act committed before
the date of such absorption.

(4) All rules made under this section shall, as soon as
may be after they are made, be laid before each House
of the State Legislature, while it is in session for a
total period of not less than thirty days extending in its
one session or more than one successive sessions and
shall unless some later dated is appointed, take effect
from the date of their publication in the Gazette
subject to such modifications or annulments as the two
Houses of the Legislature may during the said period
agree to make, so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice
to the validity of anything previously done
thereunder.”

In exercise of the powers vested under section 17 (1) of the Act, the State Government has framed the Rules. The Centralised service, as provided for in Rule 3, consists of : (i) Registrars; (ii) Deputy Registrars; and (iii) Assistant Registrars. Rule 6 provides for source of recruitment, absorption and termination of service of existing officers and is as follows :

“6. Source of recruitment, absorption and
termination of service of existing officers.--
Subject
to the provisions of Rule 7 –
(a) thirty-three percent of the posts of Registrar, all
posts of Deputy Registrar and thirty-three percentage
of the posts of Assistant Registrar shall be filled in by
promotion in the manner laid down in Rule 20 : and

(b) the remaining posts of Registrar and Assistant
Registrar shall be filled in by direct recruitment in the
manner laid down in Part V :

Provided that any fractions, obtained up to calculation
of percentage in accordance with clause (a) shall be
ignored :

Provided further that notwithstanding anything
contained in this rule, the State Government may
appoint any Government Servant on deputation to any
of the posts of the Centralised Service for a period not
exceeding three years.”

Rule 7 provides for absorption of existing officers. The qualification for recruitment to any post in the centralised service is contained in Part-IV of the Rules. The procedure for direct recruitment is contained in Part-V of the Rules, while the procedure for promotion is contained in Part-VI. Rule 21 deals with appointment and is as follows :

“21. Appointment.--(1) On the occurrence of
substantive vacancies, the Government shall make
appointment to the various posts in the Centralised
Service from the list prepared under Rule 19 or Rule
20, as the case may be.

(2) The Government may also make appointment in
temporary vacancies for a period exceeding six weeks
from among the persons from the list prepared under
Rules 19 and 20.

(3) If no approved candidate is available for
appointment the Government may either make a
temporary appointment by deputation of an officer
serving under the State Government or may appoint a
candidate who is eligible under the rules for
permanent recruitment to the Centralised Service. No
such appointment shall extend beyond the period of
one year without consultation with the Commission.

(4) If a vacancy arise in any post for a period not
exceeding six weeks, temporary arrangement may be
made by the Vice-Chancellor concerned by
appointment of a person eligible under the rules.”

Rule 36 deals with disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 36 provides that the power to start disciplinary proceedings and to impose the punishment of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank on the members of the centralised service shall vest in the State Government and for other punishments shall vest in the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Rule 36 is quoted below :

“36. Disciplinary proceedings.--(1) Subject to such
modifications as the State Government may make
from time to time and subject to the provisions of subrules
(2) to (9), the rules relating to disciplinary
proceedings, appeals and representations against
punishment, applicable to the employees of the State
Government shall
mutatis mutandis apply to the
members of the Centralised Service.

(2) The power to start disciplinary proceedings and to
impose--

(a) the punishment of dismissal or removal from
service or reduction in rank of the members on the
Centralised Service shall vest in the State
Government; and

(b) other punishments shall vest in the Vice-Chancellor
of the University in which the member of
such service is for the time being posted :

Provided that it shall be necessary to consult the
Commission before passing an order imposing any of
the punishments referred to in clause (a).

(3) Where disciplinary proceedings against a member
of the Centralised Service have been started in
accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2)--

(a) by the Vice-Chancellor and after the completion of
inquiry, he comes to a provisional conclusion that a
punishment referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (2) is
called for, he shall refer the case along with his
findings and recommendations to the State
Government for orders;

(b)) by the State Government and, during or after the
completion of inquiry, it comes to a provisional
conclusion that a punishment to which clause (b) of
sub-rule (2) applies is called for, it shall refer the case
to the Vice-Chancellor who shall pass such orders as
he deems fit, and shall send a report of the action
taken to the State Government.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules
(1) to (3), the State Government may direct the Vice-
Chancellor of a University in which any member of
the Centralised Service is for the time being posted to
start disciplinary proceedings against him and to
inform it of the result thereof or, as the case may be,
refer the case to the State Government for its final
orders under clause (a) of sub-rule (3).

(5) Where the Vice-Chancellor of any University
wants to start disciplinary proceeding against a
member of the Centralised Service, who has been
transferred to some other University, he shall submit a
report to the State Government to that effect, and
thereupon, the State Government may--

(i) itself proceed in accordance with clause (a) of subrule
(2); or
(ii) direct the Vice-Chancellor of the first-mentioned
University to start and conclude the inquiry in
accordance with clause (b) of the said sub-rule or, as
the case may be, refer the case to the State
Government for its final order under clause (a) of subrule
(3); or
(iii) direct the Vice-Chancellor of the University in
which such member is for the time being posted to
start and conclude the inquiry against such member
and inform the State Government of the result thereof
or, as the case may be, refer the case to the State
Government for its final order under clause (a) of subrule (3).

(6) Where the Vice-Chancellor of a University is
competent to start disciplinary proceedings under this
rule, he may hold the inquiry himself or may appoint
any other officer of the University for the purpose.

(7) The State Government may, at any stage, transfer
any proceedings under this rule from one officer to
another officer in the same University, or from the
Vice-Chancellor of one University to the Vice-
Chancellor of any other University and, unless any
direction is issued to the contrary, the officer or the
Vice-Chancellor to whom such proceedings are
transferred shall continue the proceedings from the
stage at which it was so transferred.

(8) During the course of inquiry under this rule, the
Vice-Chancellor or the officer appointed by him as
inquiry officer under sub-rule (6) may exercise all the
powers of the inquiring authority under the Uttar
Pradesh Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of
Attendance of Witnesses and Production of
Documents) Act, 1976.

(9) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,
it shall be lawful for the State Government to direct
that the disciplinary proceedings against any member
of the Centralised Service may be started in respect of
any act or omission relating to the period before the
date of his absorption in such service under Rule 7 and
thereupon the provisions of sub-rules (1) to (8) shall

mutatis mutandis
apply.”

It is, therefore, clear that the Rules provide for a complete procedure for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the centralised service consisting of the Registrar, Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars. The Registrar has to be appointed in accordance with, and his conditions of service shall be governed by the Rules made under section 17 of the Act. Rule 6 of the Rules framed by the State Government under section 17 of the Act provides for the manner in which the appointments have to be made. The number of vacancies which have to be filled-in by promotion or by direct recruitment have been specified and the second proviso to Rule 6 stipulates that the State Government may appoint any Government servant on deputation to any of the post to centralised service for a period not exceeding three years. The petitioner, who is a P.C.S. Officer, was sent on deputation by the State Government. The Vice-Chancellor is not the appointing authority of the members of the centralised service which includes the Registrar of a University. Under Rule 21, it is the State Government which has to make the appointments.

The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner had been sent by the State Government to the University on deputation, the Vice-Chancellor of the University does not have the power to relieve him and direct that the Deputy Registrar shall function as the Registrar of the University, while the contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-University is that in view of the provisions of section 13(1)(a) and section 13(6) of the Act, the Vice-Chancellor while exercising general supervision and control over the affairs of the University, has the power to relieve the Registrar of the University and direct that the Deputy Registrar of the University shall discharge the duties of the Registrar.

The submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner deserves acceptance. It is not the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-University that the State Government does not have the power to appoint the Registrar of the University. His contention is that the Vice-Chancellor of the University can relieve the Registrar of the University in view of the provision of section 13 (1) (a) of the Act which provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University. Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act does not confer any power on the Vice-Chancellor to exercise general supervision and control over such affairs of the University over which the Vice-Chancellor does not have the jurisdiction. As noted above, the State Government alone is the appointing authority of the Registrar. Section 16 deals with the Registrar and specifically provides that the Registrar shall be appointed in accordance with, and his conditions of service shall be governed by, Rules made under section 17. Under the second proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules, the State Government may appoint any government servant on the post of Registrar of the University. The petitioner had been appointed as the Registrar of the University under the proviso to Rule 6 of the Rules. Under Rule 36, only the State Government can start disciplinary proceedings and impose the punishment of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank. It is a settled principle that when the Act prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised only by that body and cannot be exercised by others unless it is delegated. The Supreme Court in Marathwada University Vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan examined whether the Vice-Chancellor of the University, in view of the provisions of section 11 (6) of Marathwada University Act, 1974 which provides that it shall be lawful for the Vice-Chancellor as the principal executive and academic officer to regulate the work and conduct of the officers and of the teaching, academic and other employees of the University, could take disciplinary action against the officers of the University when such a power was vested under section 24 in the Executive Council of the University. The Supreme Court held that the Vice-Chancellor cannot take disciplinary action for removal of the officers because such a power was specifically vested with the Executive Council. The relevant observations are as follows :

“Counsel for the appellant argued that the
express power of the Vice-Chancellor to regulate the
work and conduct of officers of the University implies
as well, the power to take disciplinary action against
officers. We are unable to agree with this contention.

Firstly, the power to regulate the work and conduct
of officers cannot include the power to take
disciplinary action for their removal
. Secondly, the
Act confers power to appoint officers on the Executive
Council and it generally includes the power to remove.
This power is located under Section (xxix) of the Act.
It is, therefore, futile to contend that the Vice
Chancellor can exercise that power which is conferred
on the Executive Council.
It is a settled principle
that when the Act prescribes a particular body to
exercise a power it must be exercised only by that
body
. It cannot be exercised by others unless it is
delegated.
(emphasis supplied)

A Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management of R.K. College, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar & Anr. Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut & Ors.9 examined whether the Vice-Chancellor of the University could, under sections 13 (1) and 13 (6) of the Act, supersede the Committee of Management of an affiliated college and appoint an Administrator. The Full Bench observed that it is the State Government alone which has such a power under section 13 of the Act and, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor cannot supersede the management of an affiliated college and appoint an Administrator. The relevant observations
are :-

“With great respect, we are unable to share the
view expressed therein. We have seen that the
Universities Act does not confer power to supersede
the management of a college, on any officer, authority
or other body of the University. If an officer, authority
or other body of the University itself has no power to
supersede the management of a college and appoint an
Administrator, we fail to understand how the Vice-
Chancellor could exercise such powers by calling into
assistance the emergency power conferred upon him
under Section 13(6). The Vice-Chancellor is statutory
authority. His power must be located within the scope
of the Universities Act. He has no jurisdiction to
exercise any power which has not been expressly or
impliedly conferred upon him.”

The aforesaid decisions clearly hold that the Vice-Chancellor of a University can only exercise that power which is conferred upon him by the Act and he cannot exercise a power which is specifically conferred on the State Government.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Sahiti (supra) does not help the respondents. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Vice-Chancellor of the University had the jurisdiction under section 12 (2) and 12 (3) of Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act to order reverification of the answer scripts. Sub-section (2) of section 12 provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University and give effect to the decisions of all the authorities of the University. Though sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 12 of Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act are similar to sub-sections (1) and (6) of section 13 of the Act but it was not the case that the power of re-evaluation of the answer books was vested in any other authority or the State Government. It is in this context that the Court held that re-evaluation of the answer scripts, in the absence of any specific provision, is perfectly legal and permissible and the Vice-Chancellor could exercise such a power. As noticed above, the Vice-Chancellor does not have the power to remove the Registrar of the University or to order that he shall stand relieved. The provisions of Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act will, therefore, not come to the aid of the Vice-Chancellor for exercising such a power. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra (supra), Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh (supra) and J.A.C. Saldanha (supra) would also, for the same reason, not help the respondents.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University does have a limited jurisdiction under rule 36 (2) (b) to start disciplinary proceedings and to impose punishment other than the punishments enumerated in rule 36 (1) (2) (a) but such a power to start disciplinary proceedings has not been resorted to by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. In such circumstances, the Vice-Chancellor of the University could not have issued any direction for relieving the petitioner who had been duly appointed as the Registrar of the University by the State Government. The State Government was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, justified in directing that the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University shall stand withdrawn and the petitioner should be permitted to work as a Registrar of the University.

It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the impugned orders dated 21 October 2014, 28 October 2014, 14 November 2014, 1 December 2014, 4 December 2014 and 13 January 2015.

Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the orders dated 21 October 2014, 28 October 2014, 14 November 2014, 1 December 2014, 4 December 2014 and 13 January 2015 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University are set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to work as the Registrar of the University.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

Date:17.03.2015  

                            (Vinod Kumar Misra, J.)                                                                           (Dilip Gupta, J.)