Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the composition of a Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointing a university Vice-Chancellor forms part of the standards governing higher education within Parliament’s exclusive legislative field under the Union List, and that any departure from the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 makes the appointment process unlawful. Applying this, the Court affirmed the Madras High Court decision striking down a statutory provision that prescribed a different committee structure for Puducherry Technological University and declaring the committee constituted under it invalid. While upholding these findings, the Court directed that the incumbent Vice-Chancellor may continue until a lawful selection is completed or the normal tenure ends, whichever is earlier.

The dispute arose from the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor to a technological university established under a Union Territory enactment. The appellant was appointed pursuant to a selection process conducted by a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under the governing statute.

Also Read: Handwriting Expert Opinion For Will Not Needed If Signatures Not Disputed: Supreme Court

The appointment was challenged before the High Court by writ petitioners on the ground that the composition of the Committee did not conform to the mandatory regulatory framework prescribed by the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018. It was contended that the Committee lacked a nominee of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission and included a government official alleged to be connected with the University, resulting in a conflict of interest. The High Court accepted these contentions, declared the relevant statutory provision ultra vires the UGC Regulations, and set aside the appointment, while allowing the incumbent to continue temporarily to avoid an administrative vacuum.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court assailing this decision, contending that the statutory framework was protected by Presidential assent, that the UGC Regulations could not override the legislative competence of the Union Territory, and that no infirmity existed in the selection process. The respondents supported the High Court judgment, asserting the binding nature of the UGC Regulations framed under a Central enactment traceable to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.

The Court examined the constitutional scheme governing legislative competence and noted that “Entry 66 of List I confers exclusive authority upon Parliament to legislate with respect to the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.” It recorded that the UGC Regulations, 2018 were framed under powers traceable to this Entry and therefore possessed overriding force. The Court observed that “the inclusion of a nominee of the Chairman, UGC, is an integral component of the standards prescribed for appointments in higher education.”

On the statutory framework under the Union Territory enactment, the Court stated that “Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, to the extent it prescribes a composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee contrary to the mandate of the UGC Regulations, 2018, has to be declared ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018, which have been framed under a Central enactment traceable to Entry 66 of List I, which occupies the field and therefore, possess overriding effect.” With regard to the presence of a government official on the Committee, the Court noted that “Regulation 7.3(ii) mandates that members of the Search-cum-Selection Committee shall not be connected in any manner with the concerned University,” and found that the inclusion of such an official “gives rise to a clear conflict of interest.”

Addressing the argument on Presidential assent, the Court recorded that “the factual matrix does not give rise to any occasion to examine the issue of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, since the doctrine of repugnancy and the concomitant requirement of Presidential assent are attracted only where both the Central and State legislations operate within the Concurrent List. Undeniably, in the present case, the Central legislation occupies a field exclusively reserved for the Parliament under List I, and consequently the question of testing or determining repugnancy, or of curing the same by recourse to Article 254(2), does not arise at all”

While affirming the High Court’s conclusion on illegality of the Committee’s constitution, the Court took note that “there is not even a whisper of an allegation impugning the qualifications, integrity or administrative acumen of the appellant,” and that the appellant had been discharging his duties without complaint. It recorded that “an immediate cessation of tenure may result in grave stigma and avoidable disruption in the academic and administrative functioning of the University.”

Also Read: Age Bar Under Assisted Reproductive Technology Act Applies To Individuals, Not Commissioning Couples: P&H High Court Allows IVF For Bereaved Parents

The Court directed that “the appellant shall continue to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor till the end of his normal tenure or till a new Vice-Chancellor is selected in accordance with law, whichever is earlier.”

“The appellant shall be entitled to participate in the selection process, if any, undertaken for fresh selection to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the University, without being prejudiced by the impugned judgment.”

“The Legislature of the Union Territory of Puducherry remains fully empowered and at liberty to take such appropriate and necessary steps, including amendment or modification of the existing statutory framework, as may be required to bring the provisions in conformity with the UGC Regulations, 2018.”

Case Title: Dr. S. Mohan v. The Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 100
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 54–55 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta