Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (11) TMI 1289 - SC - Indian LawsPermissibility of reappointment in respect of a Tenure Post - applicability of outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 in the case of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor - reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10 of the Act 1996 or not - Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor or not. Whether reappointment is permissible in respect of a Tenure Post? - HELD THAT - The statute itself has provided for reappointment with some object in mind. The ordinary meaning that can be ascribed to the term reappointment is the act or process of deciding essentially that someone should continue in a particular job. Ordinarily the object behind providing for reappointment is twofold. First is retention i.e. where the incumbent to the office/post during his term is found to be extraordinary and has established himself or herself to be an asset to the institution then in such circumstance such person is retained with a view to allow him to continue on the same post for one more term. Secondly having regard to the nature of the post the organization or institution may not be in a position to fill up the post in a time bound manner and in such circumstances the provision for reappointment may enable the organization or institution to relieve itself of the tedium of going through the entire selection process afresh every time the post becomes vacant - the reappointment is permissible even in case of a tenure post. Whether the outer-age limit stipulated under sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 is applicable in the case of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor? - HELD THAT - The doctrine of purposive construction may be taken recourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to the statutory provisions and the courts must state what meaning the statute should bear rather than rendering the statute a nullity as statutes are meant to be operative and not inept. The courts must refrain from declaring a statute to be unworkable. The rules of interpretation require that construction which carries forward the objectives of the statute protects interest of the parties and keeps the remedy alive should be preferred looking into the text and context of the statute. Construction given by the court must promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which it has been enacted and not efface its very purpose. The courts strongly lean against any construction which tends to reduce a statute to futility - The court must adopt a construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief and pro privato commodo and to add force and life to the cure and remedy according to the true intent of the makers of the Act pro bono publico. The court must give effect to the purpose and object of the Act for the reason that legislature is presumed to have enacted a reasonable statute. The outer age limit of sixty years provided in sub-section (9) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 will not apply when it comes to reappointment under sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996. Whether the reappointment of Vice-Chancellor has to follow the same process as a fresh appointment under Section 10 of the Act 1996? - HELD THAT - In STATE OF WEST BENGAL VERSUS ANINDYA SUNDAR DAS AND ORS. 2022 (10) TMI 1260 - SUPREME COURT it was held that by virtue of such amendment the reappointment was no longer subject to the provision / section detailing the ordinary procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellor and thus this Court had no hesitation in holding that the legislature s intent was to allow reappointment by the Chancellor itself without following the ordinary process of appointment. In the case at hand sub-section (10) of Section 10 of the Act 1996 provides for reappointment and does not even contain the words subject to provisions of this section . This is as good as to reflect the legislature s intention of permitting reappointment without following the ordinary process of appointment of Vice-Chancellor - it is not necessary to follow the procedure of appointment as laid down in Section 10 of the Act 1996 for the purpose of reappointment. Did the Chancellor abdicate or surrender his statutory power of reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor? - HELD THAT - he UGC Regulations provide for the procedure to be adopted for appointment of Vice-Chancellor. The UGC Regulations are silent in so far as reappointment of the Vice-Chancellor is concerned. There is no specific procedure prescribed by the UGC under its regulations for the purpose of reappointment of Vice-Chancellor. The entire focus of the Chancellor is on the aforesaid. However nothing has been said in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Chancellor as regards Chancellor s own independent satisfaction or judgment for the purpose of reappointment of the respondent No. 4 as ViceChancellor. It is now well settled that a writ of quo warranto lies if any appointment to a public office is made in breach of the statute or the rules. In the case on hand we are not concerned with the suitability of the respondent No. 4. The suitability of a candidate for appointment to a post is to be judged by the appointing authority and not by the court unless the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules/provisions. We have reached to the conclusion that although the notification reappointing the respondent No. 4 to the post of Vice-Chancellor was issued by the Chancellor yet the decision stood vitiated by the influence of extraneous considerations or to put it in other words by the unwarranted intervention of the State Government. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 23.02.2022 is hereby set aside. As a consequence the Notification dated 23.11.2021 reappointing the respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of the Kannur University is hereby quashed. Appeal allowed.
|