2015 (7) TMI 1437 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University - requirement of prior approval or not - scope of judicial review - HELD THAT - Under Section 14(1) of the said Act of 2009 sponsor shall appoint a person suitable to be appointed as the Chancellor of the University subject to the approval of the Visitor. Therefore prior approval is not required for appointment of the Chancellor. There is a clear distinction between prior approval and subject to approval . In the case of appointment subject to approval appointment is good so long it is not disapproved. The appellant is right in contending that the authorities cannot be allowed to take undue advantage of their own default in failure to act in accordance with law and initiate fresh proceedings. The appointment of the Chancellor of the CMJ University does not require the prior approval but subject to approval of the Visitor and the appointment of the Chancellor is good so long it is not disapproved. Judicial review generally speaking is not directed against a decision but is directed against the decision-making process. The Apex Court in Narayan Govind Gavate Ors v. State of Maharashtra Ors 1976 (10) TMI 146 - SUPREME COURT held that it is also clear that even a technically correct recital in an order or notification stating that the conditions precedent to the exercise of a power have been fulfilled may not debar the Court in a given case from considering the question whether in fact those conditions have been fulfilled. It is now well settled that judicial review of the administrative action/quasi judicial orders passed by the Govt. is limited only to correcting the errors of law or non compliance with/breach of fundamental procedural requirements which may lead to manifest injustice - When the conclusions of the authority are based on evidence the same cannot be re-appreciated by the court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. The court does not exercise the powers of an appellate court in exercise of its powers of judicial review. It is only in cases where either findings recorded by the administrative/quasi judicial authority are based on no evidence or are so perverse that no reasonable person would have reached such a conclusion on the basis of the material available that the court would be justified to interfere with the decision. The scope of judicial review is limited to the decision making process and not to the decision itself even if the same appears to be erroneous. This Court is of the considered view that there was non-compliance with or breach of the fundamental procedural requirements as provided under Section 48 of the said Act of 2009 as well as principles of natural justice and the concept of the obligation of the administrative authorities to act fairly in issuing the show cause notices dated 12.11.2013 and 24.01.2014 and passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 which would lead to many facets injustice. Thus the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 and the show cause notices dated 11.12.2013 and 24.01.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Establishment and functioning of CMJ University.
2. Appointment of the Chancellor.
3. Compliance with UGC norms and guidelines.
4. Allegations of mismanagement, maladministration, and indiscipline.
5. Issuance of Ph.D. degrees and faculty qualifications.
6. Role and actions of the Visitor.
7. Legal proceedings and judgments.

Summary:

1. Establishment and Functioning of CMJ University:
The CMJ University Act, 2009 (Act No. 4 of 2009) was enacted by the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly to establish CMJ University, with the emphasis on providing high-quality, industry-relevant education. The Act detailed the objectives, powers, and governance structure of the University, including the establishment of various funds and the roles of key officers.

2. Appointment of the Chancellor:
The CMJ Foundation, the sponsor of the University, appointed Shri. Chandra Mohan Jha as the Chancellor on 29.07.2009, subject to the approval of the Visitor. Despite multiple reminders, the Visitor did not disapprove the appointment, and the University began functioning with Shri. Chandra Mohan Jha as Chancellor. However, three years later, the Visitor raised objections regarding the lack of formal approval.

3. Compliance with UGC Norms and Guidelines:
The University Grants Commission (UGC) recognized CMJ University as a State Private University empowered to award degrees as specified u/s 22 of the UGC Act, 1956. The UGC directed the University to ensure compliance with its regulations, including not opening off-campus centers outside the state and adhering to the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2009.

4. Allegations of Mismanagement, Maladministration, and Indiscipline:
The Visitor identified several irregularities, including the appointment of the Chancellor without approval, awarding Ph.D. degrees to a large number of students despite inadequate faculty, misleading advertisements, and non-compliance with UGC norms. The Visitor issued directives to the University, which included recalling all awarded degrees and submitting a fresh proposal for the Chancellor's appointment.

5. Issuance of Ph.D. Degrees and Faculty Qualifications:
The University awarded a significant number of Ph.D. degrees (434) during 2012-2013, despite having only 10 faculty members with Ph.D. qualifications. This was found to be in violation of UGC regulations. Additionally, the University was accused of awarding degrees through distance mode without requisite approvals.

6. Role and Actions of the Visitor:
The Visitor's directives and subsequent actions, including the recommendation for the dissolution of the University, were challenged by the University. The Visitor's actions were based on the identified irregularities and non-compliance with statutory provisions.

7. Legal Proceedings and Judgments:
The University challenged the Visitor's directives and the subsequent dissolution order in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the University's petitions, and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to take appropriate action u/s 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009, after giving notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the University. The State Government issued show-cause notices and eventually ordered the dissolution of the University, which was again challenged by the University.

The High Court, upon reviewing the case, found non-compliance with the procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in the issuance of the show-cause notices and the dissolution order. The Court quashed the dissolution order and the show-cause notices, directing the State Government to take steps in strict compliance with the relevant statutes and principles of natural justice.