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

India Institute of Mass Communication, former Chairman Ad-hoc Board of Studies in Mass Communication and Journalism Nagpur University. He is active in the field of social services, culture and education. He has been the president of the Rotary Club, Nagpur, established as Centenary Rotary Club, Nagpur. While serving the have-nots through the Rotary Club, he has been engaged in the uplift of educational system in the State of Maharashtra, being made efficient and result-oriented. He is a conscientious citizen, concerned with the welfare of the underprivileged. 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. 2. The petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation in respect of Search Committee, 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.T.M. University, Nagpur). The number of the Public Interest Litigation filed before the Nagpur Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay was W.P.No.5488/2004. The petition was dismissed by the Nagpur Bench on 25.11.2004 and, therefore, S.L.P. was preferred before the Supreme Court of India. The Honble Apex court granted the leave and registered the case as Civil Appeal No. No.1594/2005 directing an interim order to the effect that the Vice Chancellor appointed would be subject to final disposal of the Civil Appeal. However, the then Vice Chancellor has retired from the post and the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner is himself not interested, 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 above said statements made by the petitioner can hardly be contradicted by any-one being matter of record. 3. The petitioner came across a declaration made by the University Grants Commission of India, constituted under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, (for brevity the 1956 Act) and contained in the notification dated September, 2009. 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

the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2009, (for brevity the 2009 Regulations). The said regulations have been made effective w.e.f. 01.01.2009 in terms of the Schemes/Regulations notified by the M.H.R.D. dated 30.8.2008. Thus, the 2009 Regulations have come into force from 1.1.2009. Under the rubric Selection And Pay-Scales Of Pro-Vice Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities as contained in para 7.0.0 of the 2009 Regulations, a reference is made to the Pro-Vice Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors, their qualifications, academic achievements and salaries. The said provision is reproduced hereinbelow : 7.0.0. SELECTION AND PAY SCALES OF CHANCELLOR/VICE-CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES: 7.1.0. 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. PRO-VICE

7.2.0. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period which is co-terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor. These Regulations, for selection of Pro- Vice- Chancellor shall be adopted by the concerned University through their Act/Statute. 7.3.0. The posts of Pro-Vice Chancellor shall be in the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with AGP of Rs.10000 or Rs.12000 as the case may be, along with a Special Allowance of Rs.4000 per month, subject to the condition that the sum total of pay in the Pay Band, the Academic Grade Pay and the Special Allowance shall not exceed Rs.80000.

7.4.0. VICE CHANCELLOR: i) Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academic, 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. 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. 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. While preparing the panel, the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process. In respect of State and Central Universities, the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee. i. a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. ii. a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission. iii. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University. 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. 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. There shall not be a reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for the second term in the same University. However, 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. 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.

7.5.0. The Universities/State Governments shall modify or amend the relevant Act/Statutes of the Universities concerned within 6 months of adoption of these Regulations. 7.5.1. The posts of Vice-Chancellor shall carry a fixed pay of Rs.75000 along with a Special Allowance of Rs.5000 per month. All other eligibilities and facilities for the Vice Chancellor as provided in the

Act/Statute of the concerned university shall be applicable besides the pay and special allowance. A copy of the 2009 Regulation is filed herewith as Annexure P/1. 4. Entry no.66 of List 1 of Schedule VII, appended to the Constitution of India, 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. The Parliament felt that neither coordination nor determination of standards is possible unless the Central Govt. has some voice in the determination of standard of teaching and examination in Universities. In order to ensure determination and standard of teaching and research the Government of India enacted the 1956 Act. There is entry no.25 in the list 3 of the Schedule VII, attached to the Constitution of India, which states that education including technical education, 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, 64, 65, 66 of List no.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, coordinate and determine standards of higher education in the entire country. No University, therefore, can claim an existence free from the control of the University Grants Commission. 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. It is, therefore, 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, which have the force of law. 5. Looking at the provisions as contained in para 7.1.0 and 7.4.0 in annexure P/1, 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, morals and institutional commitment. This becomes obvious when para 7.1.0 to 7.3.0 are read in conjunction with each other. The Pro Vice Chancellor is officer acting

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. His office is co-terminus with the office of the Vice Chancellor who recognized him for appointment as pro Vice Chancellor. His salary is also protected but not to exceed Rs.80,000/- per month because the salary of the Vice Chancellor as provided in Regulation 7.5.1. is Rs.75,000/- (fixed) per month with a special allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month. 6. The State of Maharashtra has enacted the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for brevity the 1994 Act). Section 13 thereof prescribes for manner of appointment of pro Vice Chancellor. At the time when the 1994 Act came into animation, there was no such prescription from the U.G.C., as above said. 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. 7. A Vice Chancellor used to be appointed under section 12 of the 1994 Act. However, 8. no qualification was specially prescribed for selection/appointment of a Vice Chancellor of a University. 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. 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. In later years it was found that post of Vice Chancellor was even given to bureaucrats, Judges or even high ranked police officers. This became an alarming situation. 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. 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. He has been saddled with the responsibility to ensure efficiency and good order of the University. A person who is not an

academician cannot ensure efficiency and good order of the University which pre relates to attainment of highest academic standards in higher education. Since the University Grants Commission found that the State Governments - 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, standard of University education has been falling down, causing great anxiety to the intellectuals and the Governments simultaneously. 9. The respondent no.3 i.e. the University Grants Commission, 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. The referable portion is from 7.4.0 to 7.5.1 in annexure P/1. The most important thing that has been fixed by the University Grants Commission, is for constitution of a Search Committee to be made by the visitor or the Chancellor of the University concerned. The provision as contained in para 7.4.0. is reproduced below. 7.4.0. VICE CHANCELLOR: i) Persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academic, 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.

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. 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. While preparing the panel, the search committee must give proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process. In respect of State and Central Universities, the following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee.

i. a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. ii. a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission. iii. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University.

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.

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. There shall not be a reappointment of the Vice Chancellor for the second term in the same University. However, 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.

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.

10.

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. It is so provided as it is expected of these members to be absolutely impersonal, impartial and purely connected with the search for a person giving proper weightage to academic excellence, exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad and adequate

experience in academic and administrative governance adopting a transparent process. The three members to be placed in the Search Committee are mentioned in sub para (ii) as under : i. a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. ii. a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission. iii. a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board of Management of the University.

11.

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. The national eminence is a term which allows no cronyism in the selection to be made. The nominee of the Chairman of the U.G.C. 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. All the three persons are to be unconnected with the University concerned or its colleges and have to be persons of national eminence. 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. This is so provided in para 7.5.0 of annexure P/1. The Government of Maharashtra was already in the know of the circular issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Department, Govt. of India, dated 30.8.2008 and was, therefore, consciously considering about the amendments to be made in the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, - particularly in section 12 thereof. The amendment was brought in through Maharashtra Ordinance no.4 of 2009 which was issued under Article 213 of the Constitution of India by the respondent no.1 acting as Governor of the State of Maharashtra. This ordinance came into force w.e.f. 24.3.2009. A copy of the ordinance is filed herewith as Annexure P/2.

12.

Earlier, i.e. when the 1994 Act was not amended by the said Ordinance, the provision was to the effect that the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed

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

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

15.

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. As submitted above, it is the leader of the University that is responsible for maintaining of its standards. Where the leader is a weak ling or a person of less merit as compared to Professors in the University, the University has to suffer degeneration of standard unavoidably. 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. Thus, the provision in the Maharashtra Act, 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.

16.

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, therefore, all Search Committees appointed by the Chancellor in Maharashtra are liable to be dissolved. If they have met and proposed names for Vice Chancellors, 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. Consequently, 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. The State of Maharashtra has to be commanded to re-amend section 12 of the 1994 Act and, thereafter the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellors be recommenced after quashment of Search Committee and appointments thereof.

17.

Where the recommendations of the University Grants Commission are binding as contained in the 2009 Regulations, any Vice Chancellor so appointed without observing the same are liable to vacate the office either voluntarily or if they persist to continue therein, the petitioner prays and persuades the Honble Court to issue a writ in the nature of quo-warranto against them to vacate their offices.

18.

The next plank of submissions of the petitioner relate to the merits on which the selections have been made. 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, he is compelled to make a submission to the effect that the Honble 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.

19.

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 Central Govt. 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. The essential condition that is made in the Scheme is that the entire scheme has to be accepted without any amendment therein. The pay-scales are prescribed commensurate with the qualifications required for teachers and University officers holding various posts in the Universities and constituent colleges. 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. 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. UGC funds Universities & Colleges from time to time under various schemes for development of facilities & research. 80% of arrears with every revision of pay scales are paid by UGC to Universities, College teachers. In addition MHRD and Planning Commission gives special grants to universities on special occasion like have given to Mumbai, Calcutta and Madras Universities 100 cr. Each after they completed 150 years in the year 2006. This can be well done only where the leader of the University

is a person of highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment. 20. 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.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 Universities. 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 27.5.2009, a copy whereof is filed herewith as Annexure P/3. This amendment was done in contravention of UGC Act, 1956, by deleting U.G.C. nominee as per section 7.4.0 (ii) intentionally and with total disregard to power of UGC and act of parliament. The order, annexure P/3, 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, collaborative arrangement, extension activities and appropriate technological and infrastructural resource base etc. and to shape up the overall personality of the students in line with the national and social priorities. 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. 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. It requires execution of at least 1 major research project. Part B refers to desirable experience. Those section in particular stress upon experience to guide Ph.D. students. Part C refers to number of skills and competence expected in the personality of a Vice Chancellor such as technical skills, managerial skills, alignment with corporate objectives and State as well as national level priorities, leadership skills, interpersonal communication and collaborative skills. Part D refers to procedure for the Search Committees. In the procedure sub clause 4 gives a right to the Search Committee to relax any condition in the case of a deserving candidate. Question arose

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

Committee did not include his name among the 5 short-listed persons who constituted the panel for the purpose. The petitioner has learnt that as soon as the panel was submitted to the Chancellor, there was a furor against the Search Committee in the office of Rajbhavan because Dr.R.M.Welukar did not find his name among the 5 persons constituting the panel. It was then objected to the appointment of Dr.Andre Beteille on the ground that he was a member of the Governing council of Rajiv Gandhi Center of Contemporary Studies of Mumbai University. 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. The entire work of the Search Committee was put at naught and a fresh Search Committee was constituted by the Chancellor with Dr.A.S.Kolaskar as its Chairman. This Committee should have short-listed the candidates based on their qualifications, experience and various other points relating to their personalities. The Search Committee had short-listed 20 persons for interaction, like Dr. N. S. Gajbhiye, Dr.A.D.Sawant, Dr. N. V. Pande and others who really to the deserved required to be appointed as Vice Chancellor, skills and subscribing qualifications, experience,

particularly research work both by publication of number of papers in the renowned foreign journals and by guiding several researchers (Ph.D Scholars.) to complete their research work, becoming eligible for award of Ph.D. degrees. Dr. A. D. 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. Dr. A. D. Sawant 25 Ph.Ds., highest amongst all applicants and large number of peer reviewed papers published in foreign journals. He had already worked successfully as Pro Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University in Professor grade,was a successfull Joint Director and that time working as Vice Chancellor of prestigious Rajasthan University Jaipur. After interaction his name was purposely dropped out. Dr. N. S. Gajbhiye who was sitting Vice Chancellor of Central University at Sagar,appointed by The President of India ,an IIT Professor ,was shortlisted in panel of 5 but was not selected by Chancellor against a Dr. Welukar a lecturer and unqualified candidate . Dr .R .M .Wekular whose name initially was was

not in a panel in the Beteille Committee, was specially included in the panel of Dr.Kolaskar Search Committee. This instance itself is sufficient to show how the Maharashtra Govt. 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 specifically mentionable here that Dr.R.M.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. He is not even a Ph.D. guide. 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. Something has been done in order to make him Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University concurrently by ignoring candidatures of the real candidates like Dr.A.D.Sawant Dr. N.S. Gajbhiye, Dr. N.V. Pande and few others. 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 petitioner, therefore, 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. It is further a fraud played with the recommendations of the U.G.C. in regard to the application of 2009 Regulations referred to above. 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, duly approved by the Central Govt. under section 26 of the 1956 Act. 21. Coming to the Search Committee appointed for the R.T.M. University Nagpur, the petitioner is further surprised immensely. The Search Committee was constituted consisting of the following persons i) ii) Justice A.P.Shah, retired Judge of High Court of Delhi, Dr.Ramesh Chandra Deka, Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (representative of Management and Academic Council).

iii)

T.C.Benjamin, Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Govt. of Maharashtra). 22. 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, who is either Director or Head of an Institute or Organisation of national repute such as Indian Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of Management, Indian Institute of Sciences, Indian Space Research Organisation or National Research Laboratory. The Director or Head of an Institute or organization other than the above 5 Institutions named is not eligible for appointment. Dr.R.C.Deka is a Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences. A reference may be made to Ordinance 2009 separately published for amendment of the Act known as the Maharashtra University of Health Science Act, 1998 (for short the 1998 Act). A copy of this Ordinance is filed herewith as Annexure P/4. Section 14(1) of the 1998 Act has been substituted by Ordinance above said. 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, such as all India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 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.

23.

Thus, Dr.Deka could be appointed on the Search Committee constituted for appointment of a Vice Chancellor in respect of Maharashtra University for Health Science, Nashik. He could certainly not be appointed on the Search Committee of the R.T.M. University Nagpur which under its aegis has no faculty like medicine or health care or health science. The very presence of Dr.Deka in the selection committee vitiates the constitution thereof. Any panel, 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. Therefore,

appointment of Dr.Deka as member of Search Committee for R.T.M. University was in violation of Section 12, 2(1)(i)(a)(iii) of Maharashtra University Act, 1994, for appointment of Vice Chancellor for Higher Education University (non-medical). 24. In the case of Search Committee constituted for Amravati by the Chancellor, one Shri K.P.Singh was nominated by the Management Council and Academic Councils as Member therefore. The said Dr.K.P.Singh was Director of Institute of Technology Banaras Hindu University. This Institute is not having the status of Indian Institute of Technology so far. Accordingly, an objection was raised that he could not be nominated by the Management and Academic Councils as a member on the Search Committee. The Chancellor had already taken opinion of the Advocate General in an analogous case. He followed the same and, therefore, cancelled the appointment of Dr.K.P.Singh on the Search Committee of S.G.M. 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. An order issued by the Chancellor in this behalf dated 4.8.2010 is filed herewith as Annexure P/5. Similar was the position of Dr.Beteille. The Search Committee headed by him was quashed and the entire exercise was done denovo. 25. In view of the submissions made in regard to the Nagpur University, 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. 26. 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, Higher and Technical Education Department who knows the Act as Head of the Department. If one gives even cursory look at the constitution of Search Committees for various Universities in 2009 and 2010, one would realize how shocking decisions were taken in making those Committees. 27. 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. The name, given by the Vice

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

Chancellor further arbitrarily appointed Vice-Chancellor example are cited here : i)

Few cases for

Dr.V.N.Magare, Principal, Kirti College, was short-listed for Shivaji and Pune Universities. He does not fulfill sr.no.2 to 8 conditions of Schedule Part A and Part B of Schedule and others conditions.

ii)

Dr.R.M.Welukar was short-listed for Pune and Mumbai Universities. He is neither professor nor Principal and does not fulfill sr.no.2 to 8 conditions of Part A and Part B of Schedule. Dr.Suhas Pednekar and Dr.Chandra Krishnamurty were short-listed by Beteille Committee for appointment as V.C. of Mumbai University. They did not fulfill sr.no.2 to 8 conditions of Part A of Schedule. Incidentally they were empanelled among final 5; but they were rejected by freshly appointed Kolaskar Committee for Mumbai University itself. Therefore, it is clear that no Committee has adhered to any parameters of guidelines issued for evaluation of candidates.

iii)

Dr.R.M.Welukar, again to mention here, was actually not short-listed by Beteille Committee but surprisingly he was allowed to participate in interactions with the Search Committee. 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, against Prof. Gajbhiye, a sitting Vice Chancellor of Central University and Professor of IIT.

iv)

Dr.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.

v)

Dr.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. Both Dr.Alka Gogte and Dr.Nilima Kshirsagars inclusion was in complete violation of the Act as they belonged to Health University stream and there is separate G.R. of Health University.

vi) vii)

Dr.R.K.Shevgaonkar University.

is

appointed

as

the

Vice

Chancellor

of

Puna

Dr.V.S.Sapkal is appointed as the Vice Chancellor of R.T.M. University, Nagpur; and

viii)

Dr.Pandhari Aurangabad.

Pande,

Vice

Chancellor

of

Dr.Ambedkar

University,

Candidates at s.no.vi, vii and viii are all from the stream of Technical Education, whereas sub-para 2 of Part A prescribes experience of 15 years in Higher Education. There is separate Technical University where they are supposed to find place. All the Search Committees have completely ignored U.G.C. Regulation 2008, 2009 and 2010 under clause 7.4.0 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. 29. The U.G.C. under Section 7.4.0, under the 2009 Regulations has prescribed the requirements for appointment of Vice-Chancellors. They refer to a Person of highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor, to be appointed, should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of 10 years experience as professor . The Search Committee did not evaluate the highest level of competence. The U.G.C. under the said Regulation and under Appendix III, have specified Academic Performance Indicators (APIs) for every activity of teacher. The Essential Qualifications prescribed under PART A and B each has been notified by the U.G.C. and maximum score have been defined. For example :

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Research Publication in Journal----------------- 10 Marks each. Referred Journal with respect to impact factor ------- 15 to 40 each paper. Research Publication (Books & Chapters in refereed Publication---------------------------50 Marks) Research Project -----------------10 to 30 Marks depending upon funding amount Research Guidance i ) M. Phil---------------3 each ii) Ph. D ----------------10 each

these are representative parameters. The Search Committee ignored these parameters. 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

candidate with reasons best known to him. As an example here is the case of Mumbai University.
Name Dr.Naresh Chandra Dr. N.S.Gajbhiye Dr. Alka Gogate Dr.Nilima Kshirsagar Dr.R.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. A.D.Sawant PhD Guided 25 Publications 81 Projects 5

Dr.R.M.Welukar who is not even professor is unqualified as per UGC regulation 7.4.0 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. Candidates Dr. Alka Gogte and 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. 30. In respect of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, the Search Committee totally ignored the candidature of Professor M.S. Shingare who has guided 40 students for Ph.D. 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.V.S.Sapkal, Dr.M.S.Kachole, Dr.Uke and Dr.Naik and even 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.Shingare. 31. Similarly, at Shivaji University, Kolhapur, the shortlisted candidates Dr.N.J.Pawar, Dr.Salunke, Dr.Dubey and Dr.Magare of which Dr. Magare has not guided any Ph.D. nor published any paper after his own Ph.D. nor has executed any project. The credentials of Dr.N.J.pawar are not

meeting the Essential Qualifications under part A of the schedule whereas Dr.Maldar and Dr.Hankare who meet all the qualifications under the Schedule were not even empanelled amongst five. Dr.D.P.Hankare has been a professor for ten years and has published 150 papers and guided 22 Ph.D. and executed 4 research projects. Similarly, Dr. M.B.Deshmukh who has been professor for Ten year published 150 papers guided 24 Ph.Ds. and executed 4 research projects was also not empanelled against all empanelled weak candidates by the Search Committee. Professor N.J.Pawar who has much lower credentials than of Dr.Deshmukh, Dr.Maldar, Dr.Hankare was appointed arbitrarily as a Vice Chancellor of Shivaji University, Kolhapur. Professor N.J. Pawar has been a professor of only 2 years experience. Thus his appointment is in violation of UGC regulation 7.4.0 and in violation of many parameters under Essential Qualification of Part A of the Schedule. 32. The example of YCMOU is no different. The names shortlisted by search committee were Dr. Ashok Kolaskar, Dr.C.S.Dubey, Dr.Krishnkumar, Dr.Kajale and Dr. Naresh Chandra of which Dr. Krishnakumar did not fulfil many of the essential criteria of the part A of the schedule. His number of publications, mentioned, refers to 14. However, from the list it is seen only five of them could be genuine and the rest are presentation in Science Congress. These five publications appear to be on his Ph.D. topic. He being not a research guide has not guided single Ph.D. student nor has he executed any research project. His picking up as a Vice Chancellor is violation of clause 3, 5, 6, 7 of Part A of the Schedule. In fact his application was misleading like that of Dr.Welukar. 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 27.9.2009 and had concealed information on Essential Qualifications. Therefore, both these unqualified candidates have made applications fraudulently for the post of Vice Chancellor. Dr.Ashok Kolaskars case has been well discussed in the earlier part of the petition.

33.

The Search Committee has mentioned Dr.Ashok Kolaskar as a candidate for the Post of Vice Chancellor YCMOU (Incidentally he was Chairman of two search committees). 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, 2009. Dr. Kolaskar did not appear for interview with Chancellor and candidate next in merit was not called. Therefore Dr. Krishnakumar was handpicked amongst 3 remaining candidates, thereby violating the direction of Act under 12 (3). He was recommended as the strongest candidate by the committee. Dr. Dubey was a much stronger candidates as per guidelines set out in the schedule. The example of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Technical University, Lonere, is again telling the same story. The five shortlisted candidates, Dr.Brahmankar, Dr.Kajale, Dr.Khedkar, Dr.Mankar and Dr.Sapkal were also shortlisted arbitrarily. Dr.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.D. Therefore, his selection is in violation of Essential Qualifications of part A of the Schedule and the U.G.C. Regulations 7.4.0. It is interesting to know how arbitrarily the committee has worked. Dr. Sapkal was placed at No.1 by Search Committee in its recommendations whereas Dr. Raju Mankar was placed at No.3. 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 at No.1. Dr.Mankar then seems to have been appointed by the Chancellor arbitrarily and probably to give weak research leadership to the Technical University. Dr.V.S.Sapkal who did not find favor of The Chancellor for a smaller University got his fortune to become Vice Chancellor of much larger R.T.M., Nagpur University. 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. It is very

34.

clear from the time Prof. Beteille Committee that there was complete interference of Political and bureaucratic influence. They have set a jeopardy the future of young generation of students of Maharashtra. Weak leadership, 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. will certainly degenerate the standard of high education and research and will adversely affect the autonomy of Universities. 35.
i) ii) iii) iv)

Some of the irregularities done by of Search Committees with respect to UGC Regulation can be enumerated as follows :
Dr.Mankar, Vice Chancellor, Lonere 7 year Professor, no research experience,no projects. Dr.Bhoga 5 years experience as Professor, no research experience, empanelled for R.T.M. University, Nagpur. Dr.A.D.Choudhary 7 years experience as Professor, empanelled for RSTM University, Nagpur. Dr.R.M.Welukar not a Professor at all, nor a Principal either, zero research experience, no research projects, no publications, not a research guide, appointed as Vice Chancellor, Mumbai University. Some other startling irregularities.

v)

Dr.Ashok Kolaskar, Vice Chancellor of private University, was Chairman of Search Committee for Lonere University on 8th January, 2010, wherein Shri Saharia was a member. He had already appeared as candidate for Nashik University in front of Mr. Saharia. Being Vice Chancellor, 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.

36.

The names which have been cited above clearly show that the provisions of the 1994 Act (amended) and the guidelines issued by the U.G.C. were totally flouted in making panels of 5 persons for appointment as Vice Chancellor in various Universities. The Honble Supreme Court has observed in many a judgment 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. The petitioner is not coming before this Honble Court for re-examination of entire matter on the basis of individual merits, the petitioner makes a submission for this Court to merely find out whether the guidelines of the U.G.C. and the provisions made under the 1994 Act together with the order issued there under have been faithfully followed and adhered to. If not, 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 stands to persuade the Honble 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 Honble Court finds that they were not subscribing to the Essential Qualifications prescribed. 37. 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. If things, as have happened, are allowed to exist, the University education which has already shown its trend to fall down will further come into deterioration at the cost of the nation. 38. The petitioner is filing herewith some of the newspaper clippings which are relevant for the purpose to give to the Honble 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. They are all filed cumulatively as Annexure P/6. There were objections taken but the same were not looked into. As pointed out above the objections raised were not taken note of. Some of the objections are filed cumulatively as Annexure P/7. The petitioner has collected some of the information about C.Vs. 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 petitioner, therefore, challenges the same on the following grounds. Grounds urged :

A.

That, as submitted above, the 1994 Act prescribes to the effect that a member/Chairman of a Search Committee for empanelment of 5 names

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

the Search Committee. 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. E. 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, technical education, agriculture education, health education etc. 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. F. As pointed out above, all India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, is not included among the 5 Institutes or Organisation of national repute as contained in section 12(1)(a)(iii) of the 1994 Act. The appointment of Dr.R.K.Deka is, therefore, in violation thereof in respect of the Search Committee in respect of R.S.T.M. University, Nagpur. Dr.Dekas appointment makes the Search Committee illegal and contrary to the statute and, therefore, any empanelment made thereby is contrary to law. Any person appointed as Vice Chancellor of the R.T.M. University, Nagpur, therefore, 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. 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). G. The Chancellor cannot make different standards for different Universities and take action. If he has taken action in respect of Search Committee appointed for Sant Gadge Maharaj University, Amrawati, by removing the name of Dr.K.P.Singh, he has to follow suit in the case of the Search Committee for the R.T.M. University, Nagpur.

H.

The objections taken were not considered in their proper perspective and were ignored. This is unfair and unreasonable attitude of the Chancellor. 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, yet the same have been flagrantly violated in order to choose persons of the choice of the Government or the Chancellor. This is to the utter detriment of the higher and University education. 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. If, however, they are short-listed, 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, hence this petition.
Relief(s) sought : The petitioner humbly prays for the following relief(s) :

I.

J.

i)

That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Honble Court be pleased to quash the provision of section 12(1)(a)(ii) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, (annexure P/2), as repugnant to the 2009 Regulations issued by the U.G.C.

ii) That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Honble 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. iii) That, by issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus this Honble 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 Honble Court be pleased to command the Chancellor of the Universities of Maharashtra to re-

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. 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.

An affidavit in support of the petition is filed herewith.

NAGPUR __/02/2011

Counsel for the petitioner

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

PETITIONER :
RESPONDENTS :

Sunil Mishra Vs
Chancellor, University of Mumbai and others

AFFIDAVIT
I, Sunil Mishra, s/o Gaya Prasad Mishra, aged about 42 years, occupation service, r/o 11, Mire Layout, Nagpur 9.; do hereby solemnly affirm as under :

That, I am the petitioner in the instant case and am fully conversant with the facts of the case. That, the accompanying petition has been drafted on my instructions by my counsel. I have gone through the petition and understood its contents. I admit them to be correct. 3. That, 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. 4. That, annexures P/1 to P/8 are true copies of the documents.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

I, Sunil Mishra, the declarant, do hereby verify on this __ day of February, 2011, at Nagpur, that this my declaration, that the statements of facts, contained in paras 01 to 04 of the above affidavit, are true to my personal knowledge, conceals nothing and no part of it is false.

DEPONENT