Any decision inconsistent with UGC Regulations for appointing V-C legally untenable: Supreme Court

Appealing against this, Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, and Advocate G Balaji and Arzu Paul appearing for Mohan “vehemently and fervently contended” before the Supreme Court “that the impugned judgment is contrary to the settled principles of statutory interpretation and inconsistent with the factual situation obtaining from record”.

The SC, however, upheld the HC decision. “The PTU Act was required to operate in strict conformity with…the UGC Regulations, 2018, which… stipulate that the search-cum-selection committee must necessarily include one nominee of the Chairman, UGC. 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 SC said these “deviations from the mandatory requirements of the UGC Regulations, 2018 not only vitiate the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee but also strike at the statutory framework governing appointments to the office of Vice-Chancellor, thereby rendering such appointments legally vulnerable.”

The SC, however, directed that he (Mohan) may continue to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor till the end of his normal tenure in December 2026 or till a new vice-chancellor is selected in accordance with law, whichever is earlier.

The HC, too, had allowed Mohan to continue even though it set aside his appointment.