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

Nagpur. The petitioner is himself not interested.P. The above said statements made by the petitioner can hardly be contradicted by any-one being matter of record. 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. The petitioner came across a declaration made by the University Grants Commission of India. 2.T.No. The petition was dismissed by the Nagpur Bench on 25. being made efficient and result-oriented.5488/2004. University. S. the then Vice Chancellor has retired from the post and the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. He has been the president of the Rotary Club. Nagpur’).11. 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. The Hon’ble Apex court granted the leave and registered the case as Civil Appeal No. established as Centenary Rotary Club. He is active in the field of social services.P. was preferred before the Supreme Court of India. 3. However. former Chairman Ad-hoc Board of Studies in Mass Communication and Journalism Nagpur University. He is a conscientious citizen. (for brevity ‘the 1956 Act’) and contained in the notification dated September.M. concerned with the welfare of the underprivileged. 2009. No. Nagpur. While serving the have-nots through the Rotary Club.India Institute of Mass Communication. culture and education.2004 and. he has been engaged in the uplift of educational system in the State of Maharashtra.1594/2005 directing an interim order to the effect that the Vice Chancellor appointed would be subject to final disposal of the Civil Appeal. 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 . constituted under the University Grants Commission Act. 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. The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation in respect of Search Committee. The number of the Public Interest Litigation filed before the Nagpur Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay was W. therefore. 1956.L.

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 Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations.H. for selection of Pro. dated 30.1. PRO-VICE 7.2009 in terms of the Schemes/Regulations notified by the M. a reference is made to the Pro-Vice Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors.10000 or Rs.2009.Chancellor shall be adopted by the concerned University through their Act/Statute. 7. (for brevity ‘the 2009 Regulations’).01.f.D.80000. The posts of Pro-Vice Chancellor shall be in the Pay Band of Rs. SELECTION AND PAY SCALES OF CHANCELLOR/VICE-CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES: 7.0. their qualifications.0. 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.0. The said regulations have been made effective w. the 2009 Regulations have come into force from 1. These Regulations.R.2.12000 as the case may be.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. Under the rubric “Selection And Pay-Scales Of Pro-Vice Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities” as contained in para 7.Vice. morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors.3. subject to the condition that the sum total of pay in the Pay Band.4. integrity. the Academic Grade Pay and the Special Allowance shall not exceed Rs.0. VICE CHANCELLOR: i) Persons of the highest level of competence. The said provision is reproduced hereinbelow : 7.0. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co-terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor. 01. along with a Special Allowance of Rs.4000 per month. 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 . academic achievements and salaries. 2009.8. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academic.0. 7.0.1.e.2008.0 of the 2009 Regulations. Thus.

7. 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. In respect of State and Central Universities. 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.5000 per month.75000 along with a Special Allowance of Rs.0. the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee. 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. 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 Chairman. 7. There shall not be a reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for the second term in the same University. The posts of Vice-Chancellor shall carry a fixed pay of Rs. iii. and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process. i. All other eligibilities and facilities for the Vice Chancellor as provided in the . ii. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University. who should be the Chairperson of the Committee.5. exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee.5. the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence.combination of all these processes. The Universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations. University Grants Commission. a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor. However.1. While preparing the panel.

0 and 7. has some voice in the determination of standard of teaching and examination in Universities. can claim an existence free from the control of the University Grants Commission.Act/Statute of the concerned university shall be applicable besides the pay and special allowance.0 are read in conjunction with each other. In order to ensure determination and standard of teaching and research the Government of India enacted the 1956 Act. Looking at the provisions as contained in para 7.1.0 in annexure P/1.0 to 7. 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. integrity. appended to the Constitution of India. attached to the Constitution of India. No University. which have the force of law. It is. 5. A copy of the 2009 Regulation is filed herewith as Annexure P/1. coordinate and determine standards of higher education in the entire country. 65. 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. 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. 4. Therefore. 66 of List no.66 of List 1 of Schedule VII.1. which states that education including technical education.25 in the list 3 of the Schedule VII. therefore.3. The Parliament felt that neither coordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central Govt. morals and institutional commitment. This becomes obvious when para 7. 64. medical education and Universities is under the control of the State Government as also the Central Govt. but subject to the provisions of entries 63. Entry no. The Pro Vice Chancellor is officer acting . 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.1. therefore. all Universities have to be under the control of the University Grants Commission which is the body representative of the Central Government to regulate. There is entry no.4.

The State of Maharashtra has enacted the Maharashtra Universities Act. 7. 6.000/. At the time when the 1994 Act came into animation. 8. there was no such prescription from the U. His office is co-terminus with the office of the Vice Chancellor who recognized him for appointment as pro Vice Chancellor. 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. Judges or even high ranked police officers. 1994 (for brevity ‘the 1994 Act’).C. A Vice Chancellor used to be appointed under section 12 of the 1994 Act.5. no qualification was specially prescribed for selection/appointment of a Vice Chancellor of a University.1.75. Section 13 thereof prescribes for manner of appointment of pro Vice Chancellor. 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. 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.80. This became an alarming situation.per month because the salary of the Vice Chancellor as provided in Regulation 7.G. He has been saddled with the responsibility to ensure efficiency and good order of the University. A person who is not an . 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.000/. His salary is also protected but not to exceed Rs. In later years it was found that post of Vice Chancellor was even given to bureaucrats.per month.(fixed) per month with a special allowance of Rs.5.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.000/. However. is Rs. 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. as above said..

4. 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.0 to 7. causing great anxiety to the intellectuals and the Governments simultaneously. 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. Since the University Grants Commission found that the State Governments . .3 i. is for constitution of a Search Committee to be made by the visitor or the Chancellor of the University concerned. While preparing the panel. 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. is reproduced below. standard of University education has been falling down. 9. the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence. In respect of State and Central Universities. the University Grants Commission.1 in annexure P/1. 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. and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process.academician cannot ensure efficiency and good order of the University which pre relates to attainment of highest academic standards in higher education. The most important thing that has been fixed by the University Grants Commission.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.5. The respondent no. VICE CHANCELLOR: i) Persons of the highest level of competence. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academic. exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad. The provision as contained in para 7.e. the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee.0.0. integrity.4. The referable portion is from 7. morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors.4.

impartial and purely connected with the search for a person giving proper weightage to academic excellence. a nominee of the Chairman. 10. It is so provided as it is expected of these members to be absolutely impersonal. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. 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. 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. University Grants Commission. However. iii. who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. 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. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University. 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.i. There shall not be a reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for the second term in the same University. ii. 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. exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad and adequate . a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor.

The amendment was brought in through Maharashtra Ordinance no.5. dated 30. Earlier.G. . The national eminence is a term which allows no cronyism in the selection to be made. consciously considering about the amendments to be made in the Maharashtra Universities Act. a nominee of the Chairman. i. 11. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University.8. 1994.e. of India.4 of 2009 which was issued under Article 213 of the Constitution of India by the respondent no. The three members to be placed in the Search Committee are mentioned in sub para (ii) as under : i. The nominee of the Chairman of the U. 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. A copy of the ordinance is filed herewith as Annexure P/2.2009. a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor.experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process.3.particularly in section 12 thereof. University Grants Commission. All the three persons are to be unconnected with the University concerned or its colleges and have to be persons of national eminence. the provision was to the effect that the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed . iii. 12. therefore. This is so provided in para 7. 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.2008 and was.0 of annexure P/1. 24. 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. when the 1994 Act was not amended by the said Ordinance.f. This ordinance came into force w. who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. ii.e.1 acting as Governor of the State of Maharashtra. The 2009 Regulations were to come in effect immediately. The Government of Maharashtra was already in the know of the circular issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Department. Govt.C.

iii) one member nominated by the Chancellor. The University Grants Commission. Government colleges affiliated to the Universities. One of the authorities is the Management Council. 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 . 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 Vice Chancellor is the Chairman of the Management Council. therefore. 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 quorum of the meeting of the Committee was fixed at 3. Even otherwise. When the Secretary/Principal Secretary is a member of the Management 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. Higher Education or his nominee not below the rank of Deputy Secretary or Joint Director of Higher Education. iv) one member nominated by the Management Council and v) one member nominated by the academic council. the entire Higher Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra is connected with the University and its functions. function under the full control of the Department of Higher Education of the concerned Government. Section 24 of the 1994 Act prescribes authorities of the University. In fact. he is supposed to be connected with the University. There shall be a Committee consisting of i) Principal Secretary of the Higher and Technical Education department. 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. By the amending ordinance the said sub section was substituted as mentioned in the 2009 ordinance. ii) nominee of the University Grants Commission.

14. intends for removal of disparities in standards and also making efforts to prevent the occurrence of disparities in future. Such a great objective can be achieved only by calling for recommendation from a Search Committee consisting of persons who are impersonal. 13. 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.3 U. therefore. integrity. therefore.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. impartial and not connected with the University or any of the affiliated colleges. in section 12(1)(a)(ii) makes the amendment by 2009 Ordinance repugnant to the prescription made by the respondent no.G. by annexure P/1 as indicated above. 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. scheme or plan of development. 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. The power vested in the University Grants Commission is thus absolute and unconditional and. 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. therefore. The provisions in the Act.e. The word coordination does not merely mean evaluation.C. Such a provision was made to rule out political interference/influence in the appointment of a Vice Chancellor. it must be given its full effect according to its plan and express intention. i. The word coordination. . includes within its ambit the power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make coordination either impossible or difficult. morals and institutional commitment. It. It means harmonization with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to certain design.

all Search Committees appointed by the Chancellor in Maharashtra are liable to be dissolved. 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. the provision in the Maharashtra Act. Consequently. 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. Where the leader is a weak ling or a person of less merit as compared to Professors in the University. therefore. 16. any Vice Chancellor so appointed without observing the same are liable to vacate the office either voluntarily or if they persist to continue therein. Thus.15. 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. . 17. 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. thereafter the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellors be recommenced after quashment of Search Committee and appointments thereof. the University has to suffer degeneration of standard unavoidably. If they have met and proposed names for Vice Chancellors. The State of Maharashtra has to be commanded to re-amend section 12 of the 1994 Act and. Where the recommendations of the University Grants Commission are binding as contained in the 2009 Regulations. 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. it is the leader of the University that is responsible for maintaining of its standards. As submitted above. 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. 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.

The pay-scales are prescribed commensurate with the qualifications required for teachers and University officers holding various posts in the Universities and constituent colleges.18. The essential condition that is made in the Scheme is that the entire scheme has to be accepted without any amendment therein. 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. Each after they completed 150 years in the year 2006. This can be well done only where the leader of the University . College teachers. 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 next plank of submissions of the petitioner relate to the merits on which the selections have been made. 80% of arrears with every revision of pay scales are paid by UGC to Universities. Calcutta and Madras Universities 100 cr. In addition MHRD and Planning Commission gives special grants to universities on special occasion like have given to Mumbai. UGC funds Universities & Colleges from time to time under various schemes for development of facilities & research. 19. 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. Unqualified persons cannot be appointed and also cannot be paid in the very high pay-scales provided by the Central Govt. and subsequently by the University Grants Commission for all Universities and colleges based upon the said Scheme of 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.

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. annexure P/3. 9.is a person of highest level of competence. 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. leadership skills. 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.0 (ii) intentionally and with total disregard to power of UGC and act of parliament.5. 8. In the procedure sub clause 4 gives a right to the Search Committee to relax any condition in the case of a deserving candidate. Part B refers to desirable experience.C. 20. Part D refers to procedure for the Search Committees. 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. alignment with corporate objectives and State as well as national level priorities. extension activities and appropriate technological and infrastructural resource base etc. managerial skills.2009. 7. Question arose .D. 6. by deleting U. morals and institutional commitment. This amendment was done in contravention of UGC Act. 5.4. nominee as per section 7. Part C refers to number of skills and competence expected in the personality of a Vice Chancellor such as technical skills. It requires execution of at least 1 major research project. 12 and 13 Universities. Those section in particular stress upon experience to guide Ph.G. 10. interpersonal communication and collaborative skills. The order. integrity. and to shape up the overall personality of the students in line with the national and social priorities. a copy whereof is filed herewith as Annexure P/3. 1956. collaborative arrangement. students.4. 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.

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

was a successfull Joint Director and that time working as Vice Chancellor of prestigious Rajasthan University Jaipur.Sawant. Dr .Wekular whose name initially was was .Kolaskar as its Chairman. experience and various other points relating to their personalities.A. Dr. 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.A. A.. After interaction his name was purposely dropped out.Andre Beteille on the ground that he was a member of the Governing council of Rajiv Gandhi Center of Contemporary Studies of Mumbai University.Committee did not include his name among the 5 short-listed persons who constituted the panel for the purpose. D. A. Pande and others who really to the deserved required to be appointed as Vice Chancellor. becoming eligible for award of Ph.S. skills and subscribing qualifications. 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.an IIT Professor . N. Gajbhiye.M . like Dr.R . The Search Committee had short-listed 20 persons for interaction. The petitioner has learnt that as soon as the panel was submitted to the Chancellor. He had already worked successfully as Pro Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University in Professor grade. D. N.was shortlisted in panel of 5 but was not selected by Chancellor against a Dr.appointed by The President of India . there was a furor against the Search Committee in the office of Rajbhavan because Dr. It was then objected to the appointment of Dr. particularly research work – both by publication of number of papers in the renowned foreign journals and by guiding several researchers (Ph. degrees.R.M. Dr.D Scholars. Sawant 25 Ph. Dr. Welukar a lecturer and unqualified candidate . Gajbhiye who was sitting Vice Chancellor of Central University at Sagar. V. S.D. 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.D.) to complete their research work. S. N. Dr. experience. highest amongst all applicants and large number of peer reviewed papers published in foreign journals. This Committee should have short-listed the candidates based on their qualifications. Dr.Ds.

S.M. in regard to the application of 2009 Regulations referred to above. Dr. duly approved by the Central Govt.Ramesh Chandra Deka. was specially included in the panel of Dr.R. It is specifically mentionable here that Dr. the petitioner is further surprised immensely. He is not even a Ph. 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. Pande and few others. retired Judge of High Court of Delhi.D. Something has been done in order to make him Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University concurrently by ignoring candidatures of the real candidates like Dr.D. Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (representative of Management and Academic Council). Coming to the Search Committee appointed for the R. Dr. This instance itself is sufficient to show how the Maharashtra Govt.P. Gajbhiye.not in a panel in the Beteille Committee. . 21. therefore.Welukar holds substantially a post of Lecturer/Selection Grade Lecturer. He was never selected as Reader or Professor at any time nor had he any experience of guiding research students. University Nagpur.Kolaskar Search Committee.Sawant Dr. N. The petitioner.T.Shah. guide. under section 26 of the 1956 Act.M. N. 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. It is further a fraud played with the recommendations of the U.G. 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. The Search Committee was constituted consisting of the following persons i) ii) Justice A.A.C. 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.V. He became Vice Chancellor of the Open University at Nashik and his term there from was over. 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.

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

Deka as member of Search Committee for R. for appointment of Vice Chancellor for Higher Education University (non-medical). The name. An order issued by the Chancellor in this behalf dated 4. 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.Singh was nominated by the Management Council and Academic Councils as Member therefore.M. an objection was raised that he could not be nominated by the Management and Academic Councils as a member on the Search Committee. Similar was the position of Dr.Singh on the Search Committee of S. 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. 26. one Shri K.G.M. cancelled the appointment of Dr.appointment of Dr. 1994. one would realize how shocking decisions were taken in making those Committees.2010 is filed herewith as Annexure P/5. 25.P. 24.Singh was Director of Institute of Technology Banaras Hindu University. Accordingly. Higher and Technical Education Department who knows the Act as Head of the Department. The Chancellor had already taken opinion of the Advocate General in an analogous case. The Search Committee headed by him was quashed and the entire exercise was done denovo.8. therefore.Beteille. He followed the same and.P. 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. This Institute is not having the status of Indian Institute of Technology so far.T.K. 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. In view of the submissions made in regard to the Nagpur University.P.K. 2(1)(i)(a)(iii) of Maharashtra University Act. 27. The said Dr. given by the Vice . University was in violation of Section 12. If one gives even cursory look at the constitution of Search Committees for various Universities in 2009 and 2010. In the case of Search Committee constituted for Amravati by the Chancellor.

Kolaskar was short-listed by Committee for Y. This itsel 28. 1994. caused further violation of the provision in the Act.C. a private and hardly known as University of its existence. The .C. As per provision in Section 12(3) of the 1994 Act it is binding to have a panel of atleast 5 persons. promptly sought the advice of Advocate General with regard to the constitution of Search Committee. It was surprising that a candidate for V. 29. Therefore.C. The office of Chancellor did not obtain biodata of Dr.Jamir to the present Governor. f shows that he is not a man of that eminence to become Chairman to select Vice Chancellor of other university. On earlier occasion he was Chairman of Technical University Search Committee. Dr.Chancellor.M.U. post at Open University was made Chairman to select Vice Chancellor of prestigious Mumbai University.G. His vacancy was not substituted by next in merit candidate. The Search Committees appointed for all Universities also have violated Maharashtra University Act. Candidates were arbitrarily shortlisted and empanelled for final selection of Vice Chancellors. The Governor of State was changed from Shri S. even though he is man of pure sciences.M. Earlier he was Vice Chancellor of Pune University. 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. 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 new Governor quashed the Beteille Committee and its recommendations. Act and the Regulations made thereunder while short listing and empanelling. surprisingly again Dr. 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). Shri Shankar Narayan.C. It is said to be a strategy to make way easy for a particular person to be the Vice Chancellor of Y.O. University Nashik. and amendments thereof and have completely ignored the U. his appointment as Chairman of the Committee was bad in law.Kolaskar was appointed Chairman of Search Committee for Mumbai University.Kolaskar.O. but he did not appear for interaction with the Committee.C.U.

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

C.C. integrity. Regulation 2008. Phil---------------3 each ii) Ph. The U.’’ The Search Committee did not evaluate the highest level of competence.vi. to be appointed.G.G. Research Publication (Books & Chapters in refereed Publication---------------------------50 Marks) Research Project -----------------10 to 30 Marks depending upon funding amount Research Guidance i ) M.4.10 Marks each.C. The Essential Qualifications prescribed under PART A and B each has been notified by the U. with a minimum of 10 years experience as professor …. morals and institutional commitment for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. Vice Chancellor of Dr.0. under the said Regulation and under Appendix III. 4. 5. have specified Academic Performance Indicators (APIs) for every activity of teacher. For example : 1. The Vice-Chancellor.15 to 40 each paper. whereas sub-para 2 of Part A prescribes experience of 15 years in Higher Education. They refer to a “Person of highest level of competence. Candidates at s. The Search Committee ignored these parameters. Referred Journal with respect to impact factor ------. should be a distinguished academician. under the 2009 Regulations has prescribed the requirements for appointment of Vice-Chancellors. under Section 7. 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 U. 2009 and 2010 under clause 7. 29.G.C. 3. Pande. 2.0 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. and maximum score have been defined.no. There is separate Technical University where they are supposed to find place.G.Pandhari Aurangabad. D ----------------10 each these are representative parameters. vii and viii are all from the stream of Technical Education.4. All the Search Committees have completely ignored U. Research Publication in Journal----------------.viii) Dr.Ambedkar University.

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.pawar are not .M.Sawant PhD Guided 25 Publications 81 Projects 5 Dr. Shingare who has guided 40 students for Ph. 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. nor has executed any project. N.S.M.Nilima Kshirsagar Dr.V.Naresh Chandra Dr. the shortlisted candidates Dr.S.Magare of which Dr. Alka Gogate Dr.N. He was not shortlisted by the Search Committee against much lower qualified candidates like Dr. Similarly. In respect of Dr. As an example here is the case of Mumbai University. A.S.Dubey and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University. Dr.D.D. Magare has not guided any Ph. Dr. 30. nor published any paper after his own Ph.J.4. Name Dr.Naik and even Dr.Gajbhiye Dr.Kachole.candidate with reasons best known to him. Dr.R.D.N. Alka Gogte and Dr.J.Pawar.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.S.D.Salunke.Welukar who is not even professor is unqualified as per UGC regulation 7. the Search Committee totally ignored the candidature of Professor M.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. Aurangabad.Sapkal.Shingare. 31. Kolhapur. Dr. Candidates Dr. at Shivaji University.R.Uke and Dr. The credentials of Dr. 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.

topic. Dr. Dr.S. Krishnakumar did not fulfil many of the essential criteria of the part A of the schedule. Therefore.Ashok Kolaskar’s case has been well discussed in the earlier part of the petition. . In fact his application was misleading like that of Dr. Professor N. and executed 4 research projects was also not empanelled against all empanelled weak candidates by the Search Committee. mentioned. 6.Deshmukh.D. 7 of Part A of the Schedule. Dr. His picking up as a Vice Chancellor is violation of clause 3.Maldar and Dr. Dr. refers to 14. Pawar has been a professor of only 2 years experience.Hankare was appointed arbitrarily as a Vice Chancellor of Shivaji University.D.J. Similarly. Naresh Chandra of which Dr.Deshmukh who has been professor for Ten year published 150 papers guided 24 Ph. Ashok Kolaskar. He being not a research guide has not guided single Ph.Krishnkumar.D.Hankare has been a professor for ten years and has published 150 papers and guided 22 Ph. M. from the list it is seen only five of them could be genuine and the rest are presentation in Science Congress. Dr.Ds.meeting the Essential Qualifications under part A of the schedule whereas Dr. both these unqualified candidates have made applications fraudulently for the post of Vice Chancellor. Dr. However.4. Kolhapur.B.Dubey. 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.D. Professor N.Welukar.9.Pawar who has much lower credentials than of Dr.Kajale and Dr.J. These five publications appear to be on his Ph. Dr. 5.0 and in violation of many parameters under Essential Qualification of Part A of the Schedule. His number of publications. Thus his appointment is in violation of UGC regulation 7. Dr.Hankare who meet all the qualifications under the Schedule were not even empanelled amongst five. The example of YCMOU is no different.Maldar.P. The names shortlisted by search committee were Dr.C. and executed 4 research projects. student nor has he executed any research project. 32.2009 and had concealed information on Essential Qualifications.

Lonere.Khedkar. Therefore Dr. Nagpur University.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. Dr.4.C. his selection is in violation of Essential Qualifications of part A of the Schedule and the U. Dr.33.1 by Search Committee in its recommendations whereas Dr.T. Therefore. Dr. The five shortlisted candidates.Sapkal were also shortlisted arbitrarily. The example of Dr. Sapkal at No.D. Krishnakumar was handpicked amongst 3 remaining candidates. Kolaskar did not appear for interview with Chancellor and candidate next in merit was not called.S. 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.3. thereby violating the direction of Act under 12 (3). Dr.Mankar then seems to have been appointed by the Chancellor arbitrarily and probably to give weak research leadership to the Technical University. Dr. . He was recommended as the “strongest candidate” by the committee. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical University.Kajale.Ashok Kolaskar as a candidate for the Post of Vice Chancellor YCMOU (Incidentally he was Chairman of two search committees).0..G. The Search Committee has mentioned Dr. Sapkal was placed at No. Dr. Dr. is again telling the same story. Raju Mankar was placed at No. Dubey was a much stronger candidates as per guidelines set out in the schedule. Dr. It is interesting to know how arbitrarily the committee has worked. 2009. It is very 34. Regulations 7. 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. Dr. 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.Mankar and Dr.1.Brahmankar.V. Dr.M.Sapkal who did not find favor of The Chancellor for a smaller University got his fortune to become Vice Chancellor of much larger R.

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

G. the 1994 Act prescribes to the effect that a member/Chairman of a Search Committee for empanelment of 5 names . of candidates that applied for the offices of the Vice Chancellors in various Universities and the same are filed cumulatively as Annexure P/8. challenges the same on the following grounds. 37.C. are allowed to exist. 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. As pointed out above the objections raised were not taken note of. There were objections taken but the same were not looked into. as have happened. Grounds urged : A. 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. the petitioner makes a submission for this Court to merely find out whether the guidelines of the U.Vs. as submitted above. The petitioner is not coming before this Hon’ble Court for re-examination of entire matter on the basis of individual merits. They are all filed cumulatively as Annexure P/6. 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. 38. If not. the University education which has already shown its trend to fall down will further come into deterioration at the cost of the nation. therefore. If things. The petitioner. The petitioner has collected some of the information about C. 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. 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. Some of the objections are filed cumulatively as Annexure P/7. That.

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

Deka’s appointment makes the Search Committee illegal and contrary to the statute and. Any person appointed as Vice Chancellor of the R. 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. 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. Dr.S. The Chancellor cannot make different standards for different Universities and take action. in violation thereof in respect of the Search Committee in respect of R.R. 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). therefore. The appointment of Dr. he has to follow suit in the case of the Search Committee for the R. any empanelment made thereby is contrary to law. University.K.M. University. New Delhi.P. Nagpur.T. therefore. F.M. therefore.T. G. 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. University. agriculture education. technical education. 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. 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. Nagpur. health education etc.T.M. Amrawati. all India Institute of Medical Sciences.the Search Committee.Deka is. E.K. by removing the name of Dr. If he has taken action in respect of Search Committee appointed for Sant Gadge Maharaj University. . As pointed out above.Singh.

as repugnant to the 2009 Regulations issued by the U. J. 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. i) That. 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. The objections taken were not considered in their proper perspective and were ignored.H. Relief(s) sought : The petitioner humbly prays for the following relief(s) : I.C. hence this petition. iii) That. (annexure P/2). yet the same have been flagrantly violated in order to choose persons of the choice of the Government or the Chancellor. they are short-listed. however. 1994. 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. 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. 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. 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. and iv) That. 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- . This is unfair and unreasonable attitude of the Chancellor.G. This is to the utter detriment of the higher and University education. If.

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. An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith. v) That. 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. NAGPUR __/02/2011 Counsel for the petitioner .

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful