The Governor of Maharashtra & Chancellor of All Universities of Maharashtra has appointed the Vice chancellors in different Universities in Maharashtra

is violated the rules and regulations and huge corruption is committed in this appointment of Vice chancellors for exposing the corruption in appointment of Vice chancellor scam Public Interest Litigation no 888/2011 is filed before the Bombay high court Nagpur Bench Nagpur court order as follows
Court Order dated 28-2-2011

Court issues Notice to all respondents and submit reply in 4 weeks matter fixed for hearing on 15 June Court Order dated 28-2-2011 heard learned Sr.council Rajendra Tiwari former Advocate General Of Madhy pradesh assisted by Adv. Shrikant Khandalkar by petitioner it is contended by the learned senior council for the petitioner that the UGC under section 7.4.0 under the regulation prescribed the requirement for appointment of vice chancellor the search committee appointed for all the University of Maharashtra have Violated Maharashtra University Act and amendment thereof they have completely ignore the UGC act and regulation made there under while short listing and empanelling , candidates where arbitrarily shortlisted at empanel for final selection of vice chancellor. The chancellor further arbitrarily appointed vice chancellors The one of the member of search committee MR. Sahariya Principal Secretary Higher& Techinical Education Government of Maharashtra is directly connected with the affairs of University hence his membership is contravention of UGC regulation 7.4.0 Shri Nitin sambare learned Government pleader stated that he is having instruction to appear on the behalf of respondent No 1 Chancellor he is raised preliminary objection about maintainability of petition it contended that the present petitioner has been filed as PIL however same has not been treated as yet unless and until same is treated as PIL, Cognizance of petition should not be taken it is further contended that apart from this petitioner having no locus as in service matter PIL cannot be survived The respondents are hereby directed to file reply with 4 week we make it clear that the issues raised by the petitioner as well as respondent about locus and maintainability of petitioner would be consider on next date put up the matter on 4th April 2011 Sunil Mishra Ex. chairman Board of studies in Mass Communication RSTM. Nagpur University Nagpur. Petitioner 09422146767

Copy of the petition

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT NAGPUR ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO._____/2011

PETITIONER :

Sunil Mishra, s/o Gaya Prasad Mishra, aged about 42 years, occupation service Ashirwad Theatre Complex Great Nag Road Nagpur 440003.

Vs
RESPONDENTS : 1. Chancellor, Universities of Maharashtra having its office at Raj Bhawan, Malabar Hill, Mumbai 400 035

2. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary , Higher and Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 400 032. 3. University Grants Commission through its Secretary, New Delhi. 4. Sant Gadge Maharaj University, Amravati, through its Registrar, Amravati. 5. Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, through its Registrar, Aurangabad. 6. S.N.D.T. University Mumbai through its Registrar, Mumbai.

7. Dr. R.M.Welukar, Vice Chancellor, University of Mumbai, Mumbai. 8. Dr.R.K.Shevgaonkar, Vice Chancellor, University of Pune, Pune. 9. Dr.N.J.Pawar, Vice Chancellor, Shivaji University, Kolhapur, Kolhapur. 10. Dr.R.B.Mankar, Vice Chancellor, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar University, Lonere, through its Registrar, Lonere, Raigarh District. 11. Dr.V.S.Sapkal, Vice Chancellor, Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj University Nagpur, Nagpur. 12. Prof.Pandripande, Vice Chancellor, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, Aurangabad. 13. Dr.R.Krishna Kumar, Vice Chancellor, Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik. 14. Dr.A.V.Jamkar, Vice Chancellor, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
In the matter of filling up the posts of Vice Chancellors Maharashtra. The humble petitioner most respectfully sheweth to submit as under : FACTS 1. The petitioner is a citizen of India, domiciled in Nagpur permanently. He has the degree of Master of Journalism to his credit and is at present engaged in teaching as a approved Lecturer in Journalism in the Central of various Universities in

5488/2004. However. established as Centenary Rotary Club.11. therefore. Nagpur’).T. While serving the have-nots through the Rotary Club.P.India Institute of Mass Communication. S. The above said statements made by the petitioner can hardly be contradicted by any-one being matter of record. Nagpur. 1956.P. nor is he entitled to become Vice Chancellor of the University in the near future as per qualifications required by the University Grants Commission for this exalted academic office in the field of higher education. he has been engaged in the uplift of educational system in the State of Maharashtra.L.M. The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation in respect of Search Committee. No.No. the then Vice Chancellor has retired from the post and the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Apex court granted the leave and registered the case as Civil Appeal No. The number of the Public Interest Litigation filed before the Nagpur Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay was W. He is a conscientious citizen. 2009. He is active in the field of social services. concerned with the welfare of the underprivileged. constituted under the University Grants Commission Act. was preferred before the Supreme Court of India. The said regulations are to be called University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for . Nagpur. culture and education. constituted for appointment of the Vice Chancellor of Nagpur University which is now known as the Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (for short ‘the R. He has been the president of the Rotary Club. He is also interested in the efficient and justice-oriented functioning of the Government mechanism and autonomy of Universities to make them free from political clouts. University. former Chairman Ad-hoc Board of Studies in Mass Communication and Journalism Nagpur University. 2.2004 and. The petitioner is himself not interested. The petitioner came across a declaration made by the University Grants Commission of India. The petition was dismissed by the Nagpur Bench on 25. (for brevity ‘the 1956 Act’) and contained in the notification dated September. 3.1594/2005 directing an interim order to the effect that the Vice Chancellor appointed would be subject to final disposal of the Civil Appeal. being made efficient and result-oriented.

4000 per month.0. ii) The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a .2009 in terms of the Schemes/Regulations notified by the M. dated 30.10000 or Rs. with a minimum of 10 years experience as Professor in a University system or 10 years experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organization. Under the rubric “Selection And Pay-Scales Of Pro-Vice Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities” as contained in para 7. 7. 2009. integrity.Vice.01.f.12000 as the case may be.0.0. 7.8.0. 01.D. the Academic Grade Pay and the Special Allowance shall not exceed Rs.2008.Chancellor shall be adopted by the concerned University through their Act/Statute. for selection of Pro.0 of the 2009 Regulations. These Regulations. PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR: The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole time officer of the University and shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of Vice-Chancellor. the 2009 Regulations have come into force from 1. morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co-terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor.0.2. along with a Special Allowance of Rs. The said regulations have been made effective w. The posts of Pro-Vice Chancellor shall be in the Pay Band of Rs.1. Thus. their qualifications.the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations.0.4. subject to the condition that the sum total of pay in the Pay Band. academic achievements and salaries. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academic. a reference is made to the Pro-Vice Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors.3. SELECTION AND PAY SCALES OF CHANCELLOR/VICE-CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES: 7.0.H.e.R. PRO-VICE 7. VICE CHANCELLOR: i) Persons of the highest level of competence.80000.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. The said provision is reproduced hereinbelow : 7.1.2009. (for brevity ‘the 2009 Regulations’).

combination of all these processes. v) The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her eligible for all service related benefits. i. In respect of State and Central Universities. 7. the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee.5. iii) The emoluments and other conditions of service of the ViceChancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the Universities concerned in conformity with these UGC Regulations. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University. 7.0. The posts of Vice-Chancellor shall carry a fixed pay of Rs. While preparing the panel. the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence. However. There shall not be a reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for the second term in the same University. who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. appointment for another term as Vice Chancellor is admissible in other Central/State University which shall be subject to the performance evaluation of the candidate during his/her previous term by the search committee and credibility/integrity report from the appropriate agencies. The members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of national eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. The Universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations.1. University Grants Commission.75000 along with a Special Allowance of Rs.5000 per month. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad. All other eligibilities and facilities for the Vice Chancellor as provided in the . a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor. a nominee of the Chairman.5. iv) The term of office of the Vice Chancellor in Central /State Universities shall be five years and shall not hold office beyond 70 years of age. and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process. iii. ii.

has some voice in the determination of standard of teaching and examination in Universities.3. 66 of List no. which have the force of law. 4. medical education and Universities is under the control of the State Government as also the Central Govt.Act/Statute of the concerned university shall be applicable besides the pay and special allowance.66 of List 1 of Schedule VII. 5. It is. This becomes obvious when para 7.1. The Pro Vice Chancellor is officer acting . morals and institutional commitment. no doubt is left to the effect that the high offices of pro Vice Chancellor and Vice Chancellor have to be occupied by persons of the highest level of competence. appended to the Constitution of India. therefore. 65.4. vests the Parliament with exclusive authority in regard to coordination and determination of standards in Institutions for higher education for research and scientific and technical Institutions. coordinate and determine standards of higher education in the entire country.0 and 7. but subject to the provisions of entries 63. submitted that the State Government can legislate on the University education/higher education but the same has to be subject to the provisions of the 1956 Act and the regulations made thereunder. can claim an existence free from the control of the University Grants Commission. The Parliament felt that neither coordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central Govt. It is clear from the fact that no University can grant degrees unless it is recognized by the University Grants Commission and the same is contained in the Schedule appended to the 1956 Act. There is entry no. all Universities have to be under the control of the University Grants Commission which is the body representative of the Central Government to regulate. attached to the Constitution of India. Therefore.25 in the list 3 of the Schedule VII. integrity. A copy of the 2009 Regulation is filed herewith as Annexure P/1.0 in annexure P/1. 64. No University.1. therefore.0 to 7. which states that education including technical education. In order to ensure determination and standard of teaching and research the Government of India enacted the 1956 Act.0 are read in conjunction with each other. Entry no.1. Looking at the provisions as contained in para 7.

His salary is also protected but not to exceed Rs. It was always provided in all the Acts relating to Universities enacted by the Central Government or the State Government with respect to the Vice Chancellors that they were academic and executive heads of the Universities.75. In earlier times selection of Vice Chancellor used to be done with great care and circumspection observed by the Search Committees appointed by the Chancellors of the Universities. Judges or even high ranked police officers.per month.. The State of Maharashtra has enacted the Maharashtra Universities Act. no qualification was specially prescribed for selection/appointment of a Vice Chancellor of a University. as above said. At the time when the 1994 Act came into animation. A person who is not an . In spite of that it was provided in sub section (2) of section 13 to the effect that the pro Vice Chancellor shall be a person who has held the post of Professor or Principal of a college or an Institution having not less than 15 years teaching experience. 6. 7. His office is co-terminus with the office of the Vice Chancellor who recognized him for appointment as pro Vice Chancellor.5. In later years it was found and realized that it was not possible to maintain standards of higher education because the Universities were not headed by competent persons as Vice Chancellors. 8.(fixed) per month with a special allowance of Rs. However.G.under the Vice Chancellor as a whole time officer of the University he is appointed on the recommendation of the Vice Chancellor by the Executive Council/Management Council of that University. is Rs.000/.5.80.1. This became an alarming situation.per month because the salary of the Vice Chancellor as provided in Regulation 7.000/. He has been saddled with the responsibility to ensure efficiency and good order of the University. In later years it was found that post of Vice Chancellor was even given to bureaucrats.C. A Vice Chancellor used to be appointed under section 12 of the 1994 Act. The 1994 Act also provides in section 14(1) to the same effect that the Vice Chancellor shall be Principal academic and executive officer of the University responsible for development of academic programmes of the University. there was no such prescription from the U. 1994 (for brevity ‘the 1994 Act’). Section 13 thereof prescribes for manner of appointment of pro Vice Chancellor.000/.

In respect of State and Central Universities. ii) The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination of all these processes.particularly the Chancellors were indulging into the appointments of persons as Vice Chancellors who were not academically connected with the Universities to the highest level. morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. VICE CHANCELLOR: i) Persons of the highest level of competence. Since the University Grants Commission found that the State Governments . While preparing the panel.0 to 7. with a minimum of 10 years experience as Professor in a University system or 10 years experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organization. The referable portion is from 7. the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academic. The respondent no.1 in annexure P/1. 9. is reproduced below. The members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of national eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence.5.4.academician cannot ensure efficiency and good order of the University which pre relates to attainment of highest academic standards in higher education. The provision as contained in para 7. had given special attention to the appointment of Vice Chancellors of the University while prescribing high salary for the said high academic and executive office of the University.4. causing great anxiety to the intellectuals and the Governments simultaneously. . the University Grants Commission.0. integrity. is for constitution of a Search Committee to be made by the visitor or the Chancellor of the University concerned. The most important thing that has been fixed by the University Grants Commission. exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad.4. standard of University education has been falling down. 7. and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process.0.3 i.e.

The emphasis is that the members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of national eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. impartial and purely connected with the search for a person giving proper weightage to academic excellence. a nominee of the Chairman. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. However. a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor. exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad and adequate . It is so provided as it is expected of these members to be absolutely impersonal. There shall not be a reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for the second term in the same University.i. 10. iii) The emoluments and other conditions of service of the ViceChancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the Universities concerned in conformity with these UGC Regulations. iv) The term of office of the Vice Chancellor in Central /State Universities shall be five years and shall not hold office beyond 70 years of age. appointment for another term as Vice Chancellor is admissible in other Central/State University which shall be subject to the performance evaluation of the candidate during his/her previous term by the search committee and credibility/integrity report from the appropriate agencies. ii. iii. v) The term of office of the Vice Chancellor shall form part of the service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her eligible for all service related benefits. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University. University Grants Commission. who should be the Chairperson of the Committee.

1 acting as Governor of the State of Maharashtra. a nominee of the Chairman. This ordinance came into force w. iii.2008 and was. who should be the Chairperson of the Committee.8.C.e. The national eminence is a term which allows no cronyism in the selection to be made. i.particularly in section 12 thereof.0 of annexure P/1. consciously considering about the amendments to be made in the Maharashtra Universities Act. when the 1994 Act was not amended by the said Ordinance.experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process. The Government of Maharashtra was already in the know of the circular issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Department. is another member and the University concerned is given a right to appoint a nominee through its academic council or Board of Management or jointly by both. the provision was to the effect that the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed .f.G. dated 30.4 of 2009 which was issued under Article 213 of the Constitution of India by the respondent no. A copy of the ordinance is filed herewith as Annexure P/2. The Chancellor is given the power to appoint a nominee commensurate with the national eminence in the field of education and not connected in any manner with the University concerned or its college. 24.2009. University Grants Commission. 1994. ii. The 2009 Regulations were to come in effect immediately. but the Universities/ State Governments were directed to modify/amend the relevant acts/statutes of the University concerned within six months from the adoption of these regulations. The three members to be placed in the Search Committee are mentioned in sub para (ii) as under : i. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University.e. All the three persons are to be unconnected with the University concerned or its colleges and have to be persons of national eminence. a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor. Govt. Earlier. of India.5. 11. .3. The nominee of the Chairman of the U. The amendment was brought in through Maharashtra Ordinance no. therefore. This is so provided in para 7. 12.

When the Secretary/Principal Secretary is a member of the Management Council. ii) nominee of the University Grants Commission. therefore. gave out the list of 3 minimum persons and that list did not include anyone from the Higher Education Department because it is essentially required that every member or the Search Committee . Section 24 of the 1994 Act prescribes authorities of the University. The members nominated were not to be connected with the University or any college and the Chancellor was given the power to appoint Chairman of the said Committee from amongst the said 5 persons. The Vice Chancellor is the Chairman of the Management Council. The quorum of the meeting of the Committee was fixed at 3. Higher Education or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary or Joint Director of Higher Education. One of the authorities is the Management Council. In that view of the matter no person being part of the Higher Education Department can be nominated or included as a member on the Search Committee for appointment of the Vice Chancellor. A Director of Technical Education or his nominee and Director of Higher Education or its nominee are also members of the Management Council.by the Chancellor. The University Grants Commission. he is supposed to be connected with the University. function under the full control of the Department of Higher Education of the concerned Government. There shall be a Committee consisting of i) Principal Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education department. Government colleges affiliated to the Universities. A reference to section 27 thereof discloses to the effect that the Management Council shall be the Principal executive authority of the University and shall consist of the members including the Secretary. the entire Higher Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra is connected with the University and its functions. iii) one member nominated by the Chancellor. iv) one member nominated by the Management Council and v) one member nominated by the academic council. It appears that it was amended in order to be in commensurate with the directions contained in the notification of the Human Resource Development department subsequently confirmed by the 2009 Regulations of the University Grants Commission. In fact. By the amending ordinance the said sub section was substituted as mentioned in the 2009 ordinance. Even otherwise.

integrity. therefore. therefore. intends for removal of disparities in standards and also making efforts to prevent the occurrence of disparities in future. It.C. 14.should be such as enjoys national eminence in the sphere of higher education and is not connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. it must be given its full effect according to its plan and express intention. Such a great objective can be achieved only by calling for recommendation from a Search Committee consisting of persons who are impersonal. Such a provision was made to rule out political interference/influence in the appointment of a Vice Chancellor. morals and institutional commitment. The power vested in the University Grants Commission is thus absolute and unconditional and. scheme or plan of development. in section 12(1)(a)(ii) makes the amendment by 2009 Ordinance repugnant to the prescription made by the respondent no. It means harmonization with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to certain design. The word coordination. therefore. in the absence of any valid compelling reason. Even otherwise a person who is a mere member of the Management Council should not be member of the Search Committee.3 U. . By using the word Principal Secretary in the Higher and Technical Education Department does not vests with the State Government the power to appoint such person on the Search Committee because the Principal Secretary of Higher and Technical Education Department is very much connected with the affairs of the University. The duty cast upon the University Grants Commission is to maintain coordination and high standards of higher education under entry 66 of the Union list in Schedule VII. includes within its ambit the power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult.e. i. by annexure P/1 as indicated above. The provisions in the Act. In other words it can be said that it is a sacrosanct duty entrusted upon the Chancellor to make every possible effort to select a Vice Chancellor of the highest level of competence. impartial and not connected with the University or any of the affiliated colleges. The word coordination does not merely mean evaluation. 13.G.

15. the provision in the Maharashtra Act. As submitted above. 16. the University has to suffer degeneration of standard unavoidably. Where the recommendations of the University Grants Commission are binding as contained in the 2009 Regulations. it is the leader of the University that is responsible for maintaining of its standards. 17. Thus. the petitioner prays and persuades the Hon’ble Court to issue a writ in the nature of quo-warranto against them to vacate their offices. . a writ of Mandamus would be necessary to be issued for reconstitution of Search Committees for discharge of such sacrosanct duties by the Chancellor as have been discussed and submitted above. therefore. being repugnant to the provisions made in the 2009 Regulation suffers from incurable repugnancy and is as such required to be struck down and declared unforceable in law. thereafter the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellors be recommenced after quashment of Search Committee and appointments thereof. The State of Maharashtra has to be commanded to re-amend section 12 of the 1994 Act and. Consequently. all Search Committees appointed by the Chancellor in Maharashtra are liable to be dissolved. any Vice Chancellor so appointed without observing the same are liable to vacate the office either voluntarily or if they persist to continue therein. Any action taken by the Chancellor so as to appoint such Search Committees with the Principal Secretary of Higher and Technical Education department serving as a Member thereon is without authority and. their recommendations are to be struck down and any orders that have been made by the Chancellor appointing Vice Chancellors of the Universities in Maharashtra from 2009 onwards are similarly liable to suffer a quashment. Such degeneration of standard has brought down the University education in the country to a low ebb which was responsible for attracting the attention of the University Grants Commission to take steps to re-strengthen the concept of the office of Vice Chancellor with its dignity and exclusiveness in the field of higher education. If they have met and proposed names for Vice Chancellors. Where the leader is a weak ling or a person of less merit as compared to Professors in the University. Looking from this point of view it is clear that process of selection for appointment of a Vice Chancellor is within the ambit of power of the University Grants Commission.

80% of arrears with every revision of pay scales are paid by UGC to Universities. The pay-scales are prescribed commensurate with the qualifications required for teachers and University officers holding various posts in the Universities and constituent colleges. This can be well done only where the leader of the University . In addition MHRD and Planning Commission gives special grants to universities on special occasion like have given to Mumbai. The Central Govt. Unqualified persons cannot be appointed and also cannot be paid in the very high pay-scales provided by the Central Govt. he is compelled to make a submission to the effect that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to decide the question of illmerited appointments in respect of Vice Chancellors and quash them in the interest of Higher Education. It is clear from the reading of section 26(1)(G) of the 1956 Act which says that the University Grants Commission has the power of regulating the maintenance of standards and the coordination of work and facilities in the Universities. The petitioner would have normally left this matter to be considered by the Search Committees but when the petitioner has come across with definite information based on record that the panels were submitted by the Search Committees consisted of persons not having necessary qualifications as required either by State notification or the UGC notification. Calcutta and Madras Universities 100 cr. 19.18. UGC funds Universities & Colleges from time to time under various schemes for development of facilities & research. Each after they completed 150 years in the year 2006. College teachers. The next plank of submissions of the petitioner relate to the merits on which the selections have been made. through its notification also provided special aid to the extent of 80% of the expenditure involved in giving higher pay-scales to the teaching and other staffs of the Universities and Colleges. and subsequently by the University Grants Commission for all Universities and colleges based upon the said Scheme of the Central Govt. The University Grants Commission made the Regulations of 2009 because the Ministry of Human Resource Development came out with a definite scheme for the higher education to be made applicable to all Universities and colleges of higher education in the country. The essential condition that is made in the Scheme is that the entire scheme has to be accepted without any amendment therein.

With that objective in view the order which was issued in the exercise of power retained by the State Government under the amended section 12(1)(3A)(d) of the 1994 Act after its amendment by the 2009 Ordinance.G. alignment with corporate objectives and State as well as national level priorities. students. 6. Part D refers to procedure for the Search Committees. 8. Part C refers to number of skills and competence expected in the personality of a Vice Chancellor such as technical skills.C. collaborative arrangement.2009. This amendment was done in contravention of UGC Act. and to shape up the overall personality of the students in line with the national and social priorities. integrity. leadership skills. 9. It requires execution of at least 1 major research project. 1956.is a person of highest level of competence.D. 5. extension activities and appropriate technological and infrastructural resource base etc.0 (ii) intentionally and with total disregard to power of UGC and act of parliament. managerial skills. Question arose . clearly indicates objectives of issuance of the same and makes a mention to the effect that the Vice Chancellor is required to ensure the highest level of education and encourage good quality research. All these Search Committees were appointed after the 1994 Act was amended by the 2009 Ordinance and also after issuance of the notification of order dated 27. interpersonal communication and collaborative skills.4. nominee as per section 7. morals and institutional commitment. 7. 12 and 13 Universities. 10. by deleting U. Part A of the order refers to essential qualifications and experience – in particular it requires at least 5 years of administrative experience in the field of higher education not below the rank of Professor and head of the department in a University/ Principal (in Professors grade) of a senior scale/head of a national/international institution of advance learning.5. Part B refers to desirable experience. Those section in particular stress upon experience to guide Ph. The order. 20.4. Of late the Governor of Maharashtra who is ex-officio Chancellor of all the Universities in the State of Maharashtra appointed Search Committees for appointment of Vice Chancellors to the respondents no. In the procedure sub clause 4 gives a right to the Search Committee to relax any condition in the case of a deserving candidate. annexure P/3. a copy whereof is filed herewith as Annexure P/3.

as to which condition can be relaxed by the Search Committee. the first Search Committee was headed by Dr. This Search Committee was confronted to an awkward situation at the time of inviting candidates for interaction with the Committee. the Vice Chancellor will not have effective control over the Professors.).M. Nashik. It appears that several skills which have been named in Part C. It had already short-listed the applicants for the post of Vice Chancellor in the University of Mumbai.A.e. He was made Chairman of 2 Search Committees. The order further gives one to understand that essential qualifications and experience cannot be cut down by anyone.U. From the tenor of the order. It is so obvious to understand that if the same is done away with.Kolaskar who is at present Vice Chancellor of KIIT University (a private University) at Bhuvneshwar. The Committee had to yield and he was allowed to participate in interaction. 10 persons were called for interaction out of which 9 appeared for the purpose. Readers and Lecturers working in the University and colleges and devoted to class room teaching as also effective research work. i. it is clear that the qualifications as prescribed are in most of the cases mandatory.S. the small balance may be relaxed. annexure P/3. At the time of interaction Dr. was also an applicant for appointment as Vice Chancellor in the Yeshwantrao Chavhan Open University.Babasaheb Ambedkar University at Lonere. may not be at one time present in one single individual in totality and one may say that where a large percentage of skills are available. The . Moreover.R. one for Mumbai and the other Dr. (V. 5 out of them were short-listed constituting the panel of names out of which the Chancellor was to select one to be appointed as Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University. in the case of University of Mumbai. could be allowed to chair Search Committees of 2 Universities in Maharashtra. It does not stand to reason that a person who is himself a candidate in one of the Universities in Maharashtra seeking appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. In this view of the matter the Search Committees has a very onerous task to discharge.M.Welukar who was not invited for interaction officially by the Search Committee was present and insisted upon being invited for interaction before the Committee.O.C.Andre Beteille with two other members as prescribed in the amended section 12. The petitioner was shocked to learn that one Dr.

This was said to be in violation of section 12(2) (1)(c) of the Act which required a member of the Selection Committee to be having no connection with the concerned University or the colleges affiliated thereto. like Dr. experience. It was then objected to the appointment of Dr.Kolaskar as its Chairman.R . N. Dr.A.was a successfull Joint Director and that time working as Vice Chancellor of prestigious Rajasthan University Jaipur.D.A. After interaction his name was purposely dropped out.Wekular whose name initially was was . He had already worked successfully as Pro Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University in Professor grade.an IIT Professor .Committee did not include his name among the 5 short-listed persons who constituted the panel for the purpose. Dr.M.) to complete their research work. A. D.R. Sawant 25 Ph.Ds. particularly research work – both by publication of number of papers in the renowned foreign journals and by guiding several researchers (Ph. experience and various other points relating to their personalities. Welukar a lecturer and unqualified candidate . V. The petitioner has learnt that as soon as the panel was submitted to the Chancellor. degrees. Dr .D Scholars. N. skills and subscribing qualifications. there was a furor against the Search Committee in the office of Rajbhavan because Dr.M . Gajbhiye who was sitting Vice Chancellor of Central University at Sagar. S.S. The entire work of the Search Committee was put at naught and a fresh Search Committee was constituted by the Chancellor with Dr.Welukar did not find his name among the 5 persons constituting the panel.was shortlisted in panel of 5 but was not selected by Chancellor against a Dr. D. S. Gajbhiye. N. Dr. This Committee should have short-listed the candidates based on their qualifications.Sawant. A. Dr. The Search Committee had short-listed 20 persons for interaction.Andre Beteille on the ground that he was a member of the Governing council of Rajiv Gandhi Center of Contemporary Studies of Mumbai University. highest amongst all applicants and large number of peer reviewed papers published in foreign journals. Sawant was specially gifted with the quality of leadership in the field of higher education to achieve higher goals expected of the activities of the Vice Chancellor of a University..D. becoming eligible for award of Ph. Pande and others who really to the deserved required to be appointed as Vice Chancellor.appointed by The President of India . Dr.

Coming to the Search Committee appointed for the R. Dr. guide.Welukar holds substantially a post of Lecturer/Selection Grade Lecturer.R. It is specifically mentionable here that Dr. .M. The petitioner.D.Shah. It is further a fraud played with the recommendations of the U. feels that this is a direct fraud on the order issued by the Government of Maharashtra through annexure P/3 in the exercise of power vested in it under section 12(1)(3A)(d) of the 1994 Act. He is not even a Ph. It is easy to infer that for the Government it is possible to appoint a person as Vice Chancellor but not similarly easy/possible to make him Reader or Professor where the real meritorious qualifications cannot be dispensed with. duly approved by the Central Govt. Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (representative of Management and Academic Council).V. University Nagpur. was inclined to have Vice Chancellors not subscribing to the required standard and qualification to be appointed as Vice Chancellor of the University of Mumbai.C. The Search Committee was constituted consisting of the following persons i) ii) Justice A. in regard to the application of 2009 Regulations referred to above. retired Judge of High Court of Delhi. 21.M. N.A. was specially included in the panel of Dr.G.not in a panel in the Beteille Committee. Gajbhiye.P.D. therefore. He became Vice Chancellor of the Open University at Nashik and his term there from was over.Ramesh Chandra Deka.Kolaskar Search Committee. N. the petitioner is further surprised immensely. He could become Vice Chancellor of the said University in his capacity as Lecturer on account of a lot of political clout behind him in the absence of which such a great adornment was impossible.S. He was never selected as Reader or Professor at any time nor had he any experience of guiding research students. under section 26 of the 1956 Act.Sawant Dr. Dr. Something has been done in order to make him Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University concurrently by ignoring candidatures of the real candidates like Dr.T. Pande and few others. It has already been submitted above that the recommendations of the University Grants Commission have the force of law when the same are forwarded to the Universities to adhere to. This instance itself is sufficient to show how the Maharashtra Govt.

such as all India Institute of Medical Sciences. National Institute under Indian Council of Medical Research or any other national health Sciences Institute or research laboratory nominated by the Management Council and the Academic council jointly in the manner specified by the State Government by an order published in the official gazette”. Any panel. Indian Institute of Sciences. The very presence of Dr. Principal Secretary.C. Section 14(1) of the 1998 Act has been substituted by Ordinance above said. who is either Director or Head of an Institute or Organisation of national repute such as Indian Institute of Technology. Director or Head of an Institute or of national repute and dealing with health sciences and related research. A copy of this Ordinance is filed herewith as Annexure P/4. Indian Space Research Organisation or National Research Laboratory. Indian Institute of Management. Dr.T. 1998 (for short ‘the 1998 Act’). of Maharashtra).Deka is a Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences.Deka could be appointed on the Search Committee constituted for appointment of a Vice Chancellor in respect of Maharashtra University for Health Science. New Delhi. 22. In sub clause 3 of clause A of sub section (1) of Section 14 of the 1998 Act is reproduced below : “3.C.R.M.iii) T. 23. Dr. Therefore.Deka in the selection committee vitiates the constitution thereof. A reference may be made to Ordinance 2009 separately published for amendment of the Act known as the Maharashtra University of Health Science Act. Govt. The Director or Head of an Institute or organization other than the above 5 Institutions named is not eligible for appointment. He could certainly not be appointed on the Search Committee of the R. submitted by such a Committee recommending for appointment of a Vice Chancellor is vitiated as the very constitution of the Search Committee was contrary to law.Benjamin. Department of Urban Development. Nashik. Thus. . University Nagpur which under its aegis has no faculty like medicine or health care or health science. and it was in violation of Maharashtra Universities Act as there is separate Act covering regulations for appointment of Vice Chancellor of Health University. The requirements under the amended 1994 Act is that a member on the Search Committee will be nominated by the Management Council and the Academic Council jointly.

Singh on the Search Committee of S.K. 26.T.K. He followed the same and. given by the Vice .M. one would realize how shocking decisions were taken in making those Committees.M. 25. cancelled the appointment of Dr.2010 is filed herewith as Annexure P/5. 27. The Chancellor had already taken opinion of the Advocate General in an analogous case. This Institute is not having the status of Indian Institute of Technology so far.Singh was nominated by the Management Council and Academic Councils as Member therefore. it is clear that the Chancellor should have looked into the matter and taken a suitable action instead of appointing a Vice Chancellor based on the panel submitted by an illegally constituted Committee.P. An order issued by the Chancellor in this behalf dated 4.Deka as member of Search Committee for R.8. University Amravati and directed the Management and the Academic Council to nominate other person jointly in commensurate with the provisions made in clause 3 of section 12(1)(a)(iii) of the 1994 Act. As we proceed further in the petition various points shall prove how the notification and the Act were violated by Search Committees and particularly Secretary. therefore. In the case of Search Committee constituted for Amravati by the Chancellor. for appointment of Vice Chancellor for Higher Education University (non-medical). an objection was raised that he could not be nominated by the Management and Academic Councils as a member on the Search Committee. The Search Committee headed by him was quashed and the entire exercise was done denovo.G.P. Accordingly. The said Dr. If one gives even cursory look at the constitution of Search Committees for various Universities in 2009 and 2010.Singh was Director of Institute of Technology Banaras Hindu University. Similar was the position of Dr.appointment of Dr. University was in violation of Section 12. 2(1)(i)(a)(iii) of Maharashtra University Act. 24.P.Beteille. 1994. The then Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University acquired the right of a Joint meeting of the Management Council and Academic council while nominating the University nominee. one Shri K. Higher and Technical Education Department who knows the Act as Head of the Department. The name. In view of the submissions made in regard to the Nagpur University.

C. Further as this Committee’s recommendations of a panel did not serve the purpose of an interested candidate and officers of the Raj Bhavan. The Governor of State was changed from Shri S. 29.C.U.O. It is said to be a strategy to make way easy for a particular person to be the Vice Chancellor of Y. f shows that he is not a man of that eminence to become Chairman to select Vice Chancellor of other university. post at Open University was made Chairman to select Vice Chancellor of prestigious Mumbai University. The office of Chancellor did not obtain biodata of Dr. Earlier he was Vice Chancellor of Pune University. The Search Committees appointed for all Universities also have violated Maharashtra University Act. Shri Shankar Narayan.M.C. The . surprisingly again Dr. As per provision in Section 12(3) of the 1994 Act it is binding to have a panel of atleast 5 persons. Dr.C. his appointment as Chairman of the Committee was bad in law.C. On earlier occasion he was Chairman of Technical University Search Committee. His vacancy was not substituted by next in merit candidate.M.Jamir to the present Governor. caused further violation of the provision in the Act. a private and hardly known as University of its existence. This itsel 28. Objections were raised on his appointment as there was no scope for any Vice Chancellor to be the member of Committee as stated in clause ii of section. The new Governor quashed the Beteille Committee and its recommendations. Therefore.G. but he did not appear for interaction with the Committee.Chancellor.Kolaskar was appointed Chairman of Search Committee for Mumbai University.Kolaskar.O. Act and the Regulations made thereunder while short listing and empanelling. promptly sought the advice of Advocate General with regard to the constitution of Search Committee. 1994. He was made Chairman to select Vice Chancellor when he was candidate for the Vice Chancellor’s post of Open University at very same time. The Chancellor constituted fresh committee and appointed a sitting Vice Chancellor of Kalinga Institute of Technology (KIIT). Candidates were arbitrarily shortlisted and empanelled for final selection of Vice Chancellors. and amendments thereof and have completely ignored the U. even though he is man of pure sciences.Kolaskar was short-listed by Committee for Y.U. University Nashik. It was surprising that a candidate for V.

Chancellor further arbitrarily appointed Vice-Chancellor example are cited here : i) Few cases for Dr. The Kolaskar Committee shortlisted him for appointment of Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University when he was the lowest qualified (rather unqualified) person for that high office and that too.Welukar was short-listed for Pune and Mumbai Universities. a sitting Vice Chancellor of Central University and Professor of IIT. it is clear that no Committee has adhered to any parameters of guidelines issued for evaluation of candidates. was actually not short-listed by Beteille Committee but surprisingly he was allowed to participate in interactions with the Search Committee.M. He is neither professor nor Principal and does not fulfill sr. iv) Dr.V.M. He does not fulfill sr. Therefore.Suhas Pednekar and Dr.no. but they were rejected by freshly appointed Kolaskar Committee for Mumbai University itself.Alka Gogte was not short-listed by Beteille Committee in final five but was empanelled by the Kolaskar Committee for the very same Mumbai University.no.Chandra Krishnamurty were short-listed by Beteille Committee for appointment as V. against Prof.K. was short-listed for Shivaji and Pune Universities.S.2 to 8 conditions of Part A and Part B of Schedule.M. They did not fulfill sr. Principal. Kirti College.2 to 8 conditions of Part A of Schedule. again to mention here.R.Magare.R. Both Dr.no.R.Alka Gogte and Dr.Shevgaonkar University. of Mumbai University. Gajbhiye. iii) Dr.C.T. of Health University.R.V.Sapkal is appointed as the Vice Chancellor of R.Nilima Kshirsagar was short-listed by both the Beteille and Kolaskar Committees right upto empanelment into final 5 but could not find her luck finally as Vice Chancellor. ii) Dr. and .Nilima Kshirsagar’s inclusion was in complete violation of the Act as they belonged to Health University stream and there is separate G.2 to 8 conditions of Schedule Part A and Part B of Schedule and others conditions.N. University. Nagpur. vi) vii) Dr. v) Dr. is appointed as the Vice Chancellor of Puna Dr. Dr.Welukar. Incidentally they were empanelled among final 5.

4.0 and many candidates who are not Professors of minimum 10 years experience and not having any experience or meager experience of Research (against required 15 years) have been shortlisted and the some have been appointed as Vice Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor. under Section 7. have specified Academic Performance Indicators (APIs) for every activity of teacher.0. and maximum score have been defined. 3. integrity. under the said Regulation and under Appendix III.G. 4. The Search Committee ignored these parameters.15 to 40 each paper.G. The petitioner has gathered some reliable information under RTI and otherwise they show how search committee has arbitrarily shortlisted the candidates and further the chancellor simply handpicked . The Essential Qualifications prescribed under PART A and B each has been notified by the U. vii and viii are all from the stream of Technical Education.Ambedkar University. Research Publication in Journal----------------. 29.4. Referred Journal with respect to impact factor ------. All the Search Committees have completely ignored U. For example : 1.G.viii) Dr.G.C. The U. Vice Chancellor of Dr. morals and institutional commitment for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Research Publication (Books & Chapters in refereed Publication---------------------------50 Marks) Research Project -----------------10 to 30 Marks depending upon funding amount Research Guidance i ) M. The U.C. They refer to a “Person of highest level of competence. 5. to be appointed.C. Candidates at s. 2009 and 2010 under clause 7. should be a distinguished academician. D ----------------10 each these are representative parameters. under the 2009 Regulations has prescribed the requirements for appointment of Vice-Chancellors. whereas sub-para 2 of Part A prescribes experience of 15 years in Higher Education. Pande.no. There is separate Technical University where they are supposed to find place.Pandhari Aurangabad. with a minimum of 10 years experience as professor …. Phil---------------3 each ii) Ph.10 Marks each.C. Regulation 2008.vi. 2.’’ The Search Committee did not evaluate the highest level of competence.

M.D.D. at Shivaji University.Uke and Dr.V.0 further he does not meet nearly 6 essential qualification under part A of schedule of amended Maharashtra University Act was handpicked arbitrarily by the Chancellor as a Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University. 30. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University.Naresh Chandra Dr.R.Shingare. the Search Committee totally ignored the candidature of Professor M.D. Dr. and further has 230 papers published and who is adjudged one of the only two scientists in Maharashtra as a fellow of Royal society of London. He was not shortlisted by the Search Committee against much lower qualified candidates like Dr.Magare of which Dr.Salunke.Dubey and Dr. nor published any paper after his own Ph. Dr.J.M Welukar PhD Guided 11 7 6 12 NIL Publications 23 111 120 218 NIL Projects NIL 7 5 12 NIL One of the example like many others who where dropped out by committee : Name Dr. Magare has not guided any Ph.4. Shingare who has guided 40 students for Ph. Dr. As an example here is the case of Mumbai University.Pawar. Alka Gogte and Dr.M.N.N.candidate with reasons best known to him.pawar are not . The credentials of Dr. 31. Alka Gogate Dr.Naik and even Dr. Aurangabad.S. N. Kolhapur. Pandharipande who was picked up by the Chancellor and appointed as a Vice Chancellor of University against the person who fulfilled all the criteria and reputed scientist like DR. Dr. In respect of Dr.Kachole. Candidates Dr.Nilima Kshirsagar Dr.Nilima Kshirsagar belong to medical Faculty coming under the Health University were short-listed by the Search Committee by violating section 3 of part A of the scheduled of amended Act.D.S.R.Sawant PhD Guided 25 Publications 81 Projects 5 Dr.S.J.Sapkal. A. Similarly. the shortlisted candidates Dr. Name Dr. nor has executed any project.Gajbhiye Dr.Welukar who is not even professor is unqualified as per UGC regulation 7.S.

Hankare was appointed arbitrarily as a Vice Chancellor of Shivaji University.D. 6. 32.D.J. M.Maldar and Dr. Professor N.9.Deshmukh. .Deshmukh who has been professor for Ten year published 150 papers guided 24 Ph. Similarly. Dr. Dr. and executed 4 research projects was also not empanelled against all empanelled weak candidates by the Search Committee. refers to 14. His picking up as a Vice Chancellor is violation of clause 3.Krishnkumar.4.B. 5.Ashok Kolaskar’s case has been well discussed in the earlier part of the petition.Maldar. However. He being not a research guide has not guided single Ph.Welukar.Ds. Kolhapur. Dr.Dubey. Dr. Ashok Kolaskar.P. Dr. Dr. student nor has he executed any research project.2009 and had concealed information on Essential Qualifications.J. Therefore. Naresh Chandra of which Dr. Pawar has been a professor of only 2 years experience. topic. Both of them have not adhered to the guidelines as per directions given in part D of Schedule and those of directions set out in notification dated 27. Thus his appointment is in violation of UGC regulation 7.meeting the Essential Qualifications under part A of the schedule whereas Dr. In fact his application was misleading like that of Dr.C. The example of YCMOU is no different. Krishnakumar did not fulfil many of the essential criteria of the part A of the schedule. These five publications appear to be on his Ph.Hankare who meet all the qualifications under the Schedule were not even empanelled amongst five.Hankare has been a professor for ten years and has published 150 papers and guided 22 Ph.D. Dr. The names shortlisted by search committee were Dr. 7 of Part A of the Schedule.0 and in violation of many parameters under Essential Qualification of Part A of the Schedule. Dr.Pawar who has much lower credentials than of Dr. His number of publications. from the list it is seen only five of them could be genuine and the rest are presentation in Science Congress.S. Professor N. and executed 4 research projects.Kajale and Dr.D. both these unqualified candidates have made applications fraudulently for the post of Vice Chancellor. mentioned.

Kolaskar did not appear for interview with Chancellor and candidate next in merit was not called. Further committee has recorded “Raju Mankar is somewhat weak researcher and as not guided single Ph D” but he was made Vice Chancellor bypassing Dr. Sapkal was placed at No. is again telling the same story. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical University. It has mentioned him as a working Professor of the Pune University in its report of 23 rd December 2009 whereas he had already retired from services of the Pune University on the 3rd September. It is interesting to know how arbitrarily the committee has worked. Dr.33.Ashok Kolaskar as a candidate for the Post of Vice Chancellor YCMOU (Incidentally he was Chairman of two search committees). Sapkal at No.S. Nagpur University. It is very 34.0.V. Dr. Dr. Dr.1 by Search Committee in its recommendations whereas Dr. The five shortlisted candidates. Dubey was a much stronger candidates as per guidelines set out in the schedule. Dr. The example of Dr. Dr. 2009.Kajale. Regulations 7. The Search Committee has mentioned Dr. Therefore.Raju Mankar who was further appointed as a Vice Chancellor of the University is a professor of only 7 years experience and has no research project of his own and has no experience of 15 years’ research work after his own Ph.3.C.M.1. Dr. his selection is in violation of Essential Qualifications of part A of the Schedule and the U. Lonere..G.Sapkal who did not find favor of The Chancellor for a smaller University got his fortune to become Vice Chancellor of much larger R. Therefore Dr.4. Dr. These are not all but some of the apparent and glaring examples of arbitrariness on the part of the Chancellor and Search Committees for the appointment of Vice Chancellors of the so-called progressive State of Maharashtra.Khedkar.Mankar and Dr. thereby violating the direction of Act under 12 (3). Raju Mankar was placed at No.Sapkal were also shortlisted arbitrarily. He was recommended as the “strongest candidate” by the committee.D. Krishnakumar was handpicked amongst 3 remaining candidates. Dr.T.Brahmankar. Dr. .Mankar then seems to have been appointed by the Chancellor arbitrarily and probably to give weak research leadership to the Technical University.

Being Vice Chancellor. no research experience. Dr.clear from the time Prof.Bhoga – 5 years experience as Professor. Beteille Committee that there was complete interference of Political and bureaucratic influence. zero research experience. v) Dr.M. empanelled for R. given to the Universities by appointing Vice Chancellors who merely have 5 to 10 years experience of teaching and poor or no research credentials of the level set out by the own guidelines of the State of Maharashtra and in complete violation of UGC Regulations under and under the Act of parliament and List I of the Schedule VII of the constitution regarding the powers of the Central Govt.no projects. i) ii) iii) iv) Some of the irregularities done by of Search Committees with respect to UGC Regulation can be enumerated as follows : Dr.Ashok Kolaskar. Nagpur. were totally flouted in making panels of 5 persons for appointment as Vice Chancellor in various Universities. Some other startling irregularities.D.R.M.A.G. no publications. appointed as Vice Chancellor. 36. Vice Chancellor. Saharia. 2010. not a research guide. 35. was Chairman of Search Committee for Lonere University on 8th January. He had already appeared as candidate for Nashik University in front of Mr.Choudhary – 7 years experience as Professor. wherein Shri Saharia was a member.Mankar. nor a Principal either. no research projects. University. empanelled for RSTM University.T. Nagpur. Weak leadership. Lonere – 7 year Professor. no research experience. They have set a jeopardy the future of young generation of students of Maharashtra. Mumbai University. his appointment as Chairman of the Search Committees for Lonere and again for Mumbai University was malafide. Vice Chancellor of private University.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in many a judgment to . will certainly degenerate the standard of high education and research and will adversely affect the autonomy of Universities. Dr. Dr. The names which have been cited above clearly show that the provisions of the 1994 Act (amended) and the guidelines issued by the U. not established as a national scholar of repute.Welukar – not a Professor at all.

37.G. Since the petitioner is interested in the well-being of higher education and the University education he has no other means but to file this Public Interest Litigation to point out flagrant violations of the statutes concerned. as submitted above. The petitioner has collected some of the information about C. the University education which has already shown its trend to fall down will further come into deterioration at the cost of the nation. There were objections taken but the same were not looked into.Vs. If things. the 1994 Act prescribes to the effect that a member/Chairman of a Search Committee for empanelment of 5 names . If not. and the provisions made under the 1994 Act together with the order issued there under have been faithfully followed and adhered to.the effect that the decision taken by a Selection Committee will not be examined by the Court as an appellate authority The Court will not make reinvestigation into candidates and their respective merit. Some of the objections are filed cumulatively as Annexure P/7. Grounds urged : A. therefore. That. and it is found that the same were flagrantly violated to serve the cause of individuals who were politically strong and not the cause of the University and higher education. 38. The petitioner is filing herewith some of the newspaper clippings which are relevant for the purpose to give to the Hon’ble Court the basic idea that appointment of the Vice Chancellors has created a lot of agitation among the people concerned with higher education and the Universities. challenges the same on the following grounds.C. The petitioner is not coming before this Hon’ble Court for re-examination of entire matter on the basis of individual merits. As pointed out above the objections raised were not taken note of. The petitioner. They are all filed cumulatively as Annexure P/6. the petitioner stands to persuade the Hon’ble Court to quash the appointments of Search Committees where such incidents are found and to quash the appointment of Vice Chancellors in cases where the Hon’ble Court finds that they were not subscribing to the Essential Qualifications prescribed. as have happened. the petitioner makes a submission for this Court to merely find out whether the guidelines of the U. are allowed to exist. of candidates that applied for the offices of the Vice Chancellors in various Universities and the same are filed cumulatively as Annexure P/8.

The University’s function with enormous control of the higher education department of the Government of Maharashta.of candidates for appointment as Vice Chancellors should not be in any way connected with the University or its colleges. B. ultra vires the 2009 Regulations of the U. therefore. the Principal Secretary of Higher Education has been introduced as member of . in the 2009 Regulations have provided to the effect that a nominee of a Chairman of the University Grants Commission shall be on the Search Committee. The provisions made in section 12 pertaining to appointment of Principal Secretary as member of the Search Committee is. It is further obvious that several Government colleges function under the absolute control of the higher education department of the Government of Maharashtra and the same are affiliated to various Universities in Maharashtra. The 1994 Act (as amended) prescribes in section 12 the Principal Secretary as a member of the Search Committee. Higher Education as member of the Selection Committee. C. This part of the provision itself is contrary to the basic section12. The said provision is liable to be struck down.C. The University Grants Commission has also provided in the guidelines issued thereby that the Search Committee should not have any person connected with the University or its colleges.C. The guidelines are in the form of 2009 Regulations and the same have the force of law. the U. From the above provision it is obvious that the Government wanted to control the proceedings of the Search Committee in the preparation of panel of 5 persons for appointment as Vice Chancellor and.G. In such a case neither the Principal Secretary or the Secretary could be allowed to be member of a Search Committee. There is thus breach of the above said regulations in the matter of appointment of Search Committees. That. It is so because the amended section 12 of the 1994 Act does not make a provision therefore and instead makes the Principal Secretary. D. That the Search Committees which were constituted did not have nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission. therefore.G.

The petitioner has given out instances wherein in similar circumstances the Chancellor has quashed the appointment of Members/Chairman of the Search Committee and has quashed the entire proceedings thereof holding that the appointments were contrary to section 12 of the 1994 Act (as amended). Nagpur. F.R. As pointed out above. If he has taken action in respect of Search Committee appointed for Sant Gadge Maharaj University.S. E. therefore.M. suffers from incurable defect and the person so appointed as Vice Chancellor is illegally occupying the office of the Vice Chancellor whose appointment can be questioned and quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto. G. University. any empanelment made thereby is contrary to law. The Government of Maharashtra has amended by ordinance issued in the year 2009 various acts relating to University education in the field of higher education. Dr. Nagpur. is not included among the 5 Institutes or Organisation of national repute as contained in section 12(1)(a)(iii) of the 1994 Act. University. he has to follow suit in the case of the Search Committee for the R.M. Amrawati. and in each of the ordinances definite provisions have been made for a member to be selected by the Management Council and Academic Council jointly to serve on the Search Committee for empanelment of candidates for appointment as Vice Chancellor. health education etc. agriculture education. therefore.M.K. technical education.the Search Committee.Deka is.T. New Delhi. all India Institute of Medical Sciences.P. by removing the name of Dr.K.T.Deka’s appointment makes the Search Committee illegal and contrary to the statute and. in violation thereof in respect of the Search Committee in respect of R. The appointment of Dr. Nagpur. University.Singh. Any person appointed as Vice Chancellor of the R. The provision is thus malafide as it intends the appointment of a Vice Chancellor of a Maharashtra University to be of the choice of the Government and not an able person. therefore. .T. The Chancellor cannot make different standards for different Universities and take action.

H. 1994. Relief(s) sought : The petitioner humbly prays for the following relief(s) : I. (annexure P/2). yet the same have been flagrantly violated in order to choose persons of the choice of the Government or the Chancellor. and iv) That. The 1994 Act has been amended and in pursuance of the amended provision an order has been issued prescribing several qualifications and experience for the office of the Vice Chancellor. iii) That.G. ii) That. they are not include among 5 candidates in the panel so as to give to the Chancellor a free hand to appoint a less merited candidate as Vice Chancellor of prestigious Universities like Mumbai and Nagpur. they are short-listed. by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Search Committees appointed by Chancellor for selection of candidates for appointment as Vice Chancellors in the Universities in Maharashtra on various grounds mentioned above. by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the provision of section 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Maharashtra Universities Act. This is unfair and unreasonable attitude of the Chancellor.C. J. hence this petition. If. by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Hon’ble Court be pleased to command the Chancellor of the Universities of Maharashtra to re- . The objections taken were not considered in their proper perspective and were ignored. however. Persons that specifically subscribing to the qualifications and experience skills and the like as provided in the order of the State Government have been purposely ignored and have not short-listed. as repugnant to the 2009 Regulations issued by the U. This is to the utter detriment of the higher and University education. by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the Search Committees appointed with the Principal Secretary of higher and technical education department or any other Principal Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra as being incompetent to be a member thereon. i) That.

v) That. NAGPUR __/02/2011 Counsel for the petitioner .appoint Search Committees for doing denovo exercise for selection of 5 candidates to be empanelled for appointment as Vice Chancellors of the Universities in Maharashtra where the terms of Vice Chancellors have ended in the year 2009 and thereafter. any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded together with awarding the cost of these proceedings. An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.

BENCH AT NAGPUR ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. University of Mumbai and others .IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY._____/2011 PETITIONER : RESPONDENTS : Sunil Mishra Vs Chancellor.

the accompanying petition has been drafted on my instructions by my counsel. the statements of facts made in paras 01 to 10 of the accompanying petition are true to the best of my personal knowledge and those relating to documents and the court cases are true to the information received from the documents and my counsel and believed to be true by me. I am the petitioner in the instant case and am fully conversant with the facts of the case. Sunil Mishra. do hereby solemnly affirm as under : That. That. do hereby verify on this __ day of February. 4. That. contained in paras 01 to 04 of the above affidavit. conceals nothing and no part of it is false. DEPONENT VERIFICATION I. that this my declaration. I have gone through the petition and understood its contents. I admit them to be correct. aged about 42 years. the declarant. at Nagpur. Mire Layout. annexures P/1 to P/8 are true copies of the documents. Sunil Mishra. occupation service. that the statements of facts. Nagpur – 9. r/o 11. DEPONENT . are true to my personal knowledge. That. 3. 2011..AFFIDAVIT I. s/o Gaya Prasad Mishra.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful