UGC Regulations| Chairperson Of Governing Body Can't Delegate His Power To Preside Over Selection Committee For Selection Of Principal: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held that the Chairperson of Governing Body cannot delegate his power to preside over the Selection Committee for selection of Principal.
The Court held thus in a writ petition filed by Assistant Professor against Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University seeking her appointment as the Principal of Maharashtra College of Education, Aurangabad.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar observed, “If we look to the Composition of Selection Committee, the Chairperson of the governing body has to be the Chairperson. There is no stipulation that the Chairperson can nominate his representative. The presence of the Chairperson appears to be indispensable and there is a rationale behind the same. There can not be Selection Committee in absence of a Chairperson, who is suppose to be of the Chairman of governing body.”
Advocate A.S. Deshpande appeared on behalf of the petitioner while AGP P.S. Patil appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner contended that she was qualified as M.A., M.Ed. and Ph.D and worked as Assistant Professor with the respondent college since 1989. She became Professor in the year 2019 and in 2021, the college published an advertisement for filling up the posts of Principal, thereby inviting applications from the eligible candidates. She being qualified and eligible, responded to the advertisement and submitted her candidature. She was interviewed by duly constituted Selection Committee and thereafter, she being the meritorious and suitable candidate, the President issued an appointment order pursuance to the recommendation of Selection Committee.
The proposal for grant of approval to the petitioner’s appointment was submitted by the college to the University. The University pointed out certain deficiencies in the proposal and the deficiencies were removed within time. Thereafter, the respondent University issued the communication rejecting the proposal, giving reason that in absence of President/Chairman of the governing body, the Selection Committee was invalid. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner was before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of parties noted, “The literal construction of UGC Regulations is plain and unambiguous. Therefore, the interpretation sought to be advanced on behalf of the petitioner that once the quorum of 5 members is available, presence of Chairperson is not required cannot be accepted. When composition of the Selection Committee is specifically prescribed under the UGC regulations, presence of Chairperson, who is also Chairman of the governing body is mandated, then it would be difficult to accept petitioner’s contention that Chairperson’s nominee can replace him.”
The Court added that pertinently, there is no provision enabling Chairman to delegate his power to preside over Selection Committee constituted under UGC (University Grants Commission) regulations.
“It is trite that, if law provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, that has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. … President is suppossed to be one of the members of enquiry committee. He is not given the independent status of Chairman as prescribed under UGC Regulation. Therefore, interpretation of Rule 36(2)(b) adopted by this court cannot be mutatis-mutandis applied while interpreting UGC Regulation prescribing composition of Selection Committee for the post of Principal”, it further said.
The Court also observed that the contention of the petitioner that once the quorum of five members is available at the meeting of Selection Committee, presence of Chairperson in person is not required, cannot be accepted.
“If the guidelines prescribes that Selection Committee should consist of a Chairperson, in absence of Chairperson, the meeting of the selection committee cannot be termed as valid. The University, in the impugned communication has given reason that the constitution of the Selection Committee was not in tune with the UGC Regulations and, therefore, declined to accord approval to the selection of the petitioner. We do not find any discrepancy in the reason recorded by the University in the impugned order”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Dr. Smt. Naveed-Us-Sahar v. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Through Its Registrar and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:7215-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate A.S. Deshpande
Respondents: AGP P.S. Patil, Advocates S.S. Thombre, and P.S. Dighe.
