Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court Single Bench of  Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018 regarding the constitution of Selection Committees for appointments to the posts of Assistant Professors and Principals in colleges will not be applicable to minority institutions. The Court further stated that such institutions are not required to repeatedly challenge successive UGC Regulations, provided no substantial change has occurred in the new norms compared to previous ones.

The petitions were filed by autonomous and non-autonomous colleges administered by minority communities, including Women’s Christian College, Loyola College, Stella Maris College, Sacred Heart Arts & Science College, and Madras Christian College. These institutions challenged the refusal by the University of Madras and Annamalai University to approve the appointments of 66 Assistant Professors and one Principal, citing non-compliance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 as adopted by the Tamil Nadu Government through G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.1.2021.

Also Read: “Observations Depict ‘Total Lack of Sensitivity’ and Are ‘Unknown to Tenets of Law’: Supreme Court Stays Allahabad High Court Order Modifying Charges in Minor’s Sexual Assault Case

The respondents contended that under the UGC Regulations, 2018, all universities and affiliated institutions are required to constitute a specific Selection Committee structure for appointments. The universities argued that minority institutions must also adhere to these standards, citing the mandatory nature of these norms. The Annamalai University and University of Madras maintained that no approvals could be granted unless the prescribed selection procedure was strictly followed.

The UGC, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and its Standing Counsel, submitted that the 2018 Regulations are uniformly applicable and that the constitution of the Selection Committee does not infringe upon the rights under Article 30(1). It stated that “for minority institutions, the Selection Committee is appointed from the list of persons suggested by the minority institutions as provided under the UGC Regulations”, and that the objective is to uphold academic standards without interfering with constitutional rights.

The petitioners, represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, argued that the right to administer an institution is a protected aspect of Article 30(1), and that requiring compliance with UGC-prescribed committee structures infringes on this constitutional right. They contended that neither the UGC Regulations nor the Government Order could override the freedom guaranteed under the Constitution to minority institutions to manage their educational affairs.

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the 2000, 2010, and 2018 UGC Regulations and the judicial precedent established by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. The State of Tamil Nadu [2011 (1) CTC 162]. It noted that “the reasoning given by the Division Bench in so far as the non-applicability of the selection process to the post of Assistant Professor in the minority institutions is concerned… will equally apply under the UGC Regulations, 2018”.

In respect of appointments to the post of Principal, the Court recorded that the 2018 Regulations introduced a more stringent selection process with “only three [members] being insiders and all the rest nominees recommended by the Vice Chancellor”, thereby undermining administrative autonomy. It held that “it does not really matter if a few of those outsiders belong to some minority communities. It also dilutes the rights of the minority institutions to administer and manage their affairs”.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh emphasized that Article 30(1) must be read conjunctively, affirming both the right to establish and the right to administer. The Court stated that “Article 30(1) of the Constitution is intended to instil confidence in minorities against any executive or legislative encroachment of their right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice”.

Rejecting the UGC’s preliminary objection that the petitioners had not directly challenged the validity of the Regulations, the Court held that where a legal position has already been settled, “it is not necessary for the minority institutions to every time challenge a Regulation that is brought into force in the light of the settled law by the Apex Court”.

It further observed that once the right of appointment of teachers is recognized as part of the right of administration, “no other conclusion than the one that the impugned Regulations would not apply to Minority Institutions can be arrived at”.

The Court drew upon constitutional jurisprudence from multiple Supreme Court decisions, including T.M.A. Pai Foundation, P.A. Inamdar, and SK. Md. Rafique, and recorded that the framework of rights under Article 30(1) remains unaltered by the 2018 Regulations.

Also Read: "Policy Must Be Accepted as a Whole": Calcutta High Court Enforces 5-Cottah Limit on Freehold Title under Refugee Rehabilitation Scheme

The Court quashed the impugned proceedings issued by the University of Madras and Annamalai University that denied approval to appointments. It directed both universities to grant qualification approval to the appointed Assistant Professors and Principal “without reference to (i) Regulation No.5.1.V and VIII(A) of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and (ii) the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.1.2021”.

It further ordered that “necessary orders shall be passed by both the University of Madras and the Annamalai University, as the case may be, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. Upon such approval, the candidates shall be entitled to salary fixation and arrears from the date of their appointment. No costs were awarded.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for M/s. Isaac Chambers

For the Respondents: Mr. D. Ravichandran, Special Government Pleader, Mr. V. Sudha, Standing Counsel, Mr. S. Sithirai Anandham, Standing Counsel, Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, Standing Counsel

Case Title: The Principal & Secretary, Women’s Christian College and Others v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:799

Case Number: W.P. Nos. 18165, 18315, 18923, 19271, 19318, 19319 of 2023 and 24801 of 2024

Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

[Read/Download order]