The University Grants Commission (UGC) has accused the Tamil Nadu government of having excluded its nominee from the University of Madras Vice-Chancellor (V-C) search panel with a malicious intention. It has also attributed political motives behind the exclusion.
In a counter affidavit filed before the Madras High Court, the UGC asserted that its nominee should be included in the V-C search panel of even State universities, and this position had been made clear by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions rendered since 2020.
The counter was filed before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, who were hearing a public interest litigation petition preferred by advocate B. Jagannath seeking inclusion of the UGC nominee in the search panel.
The petitioner had urged the court to quash a Government Order (G.O.) issued by the Higher Education Department on September 13, 2023, constituting a three-member search panel and, consequently, direct the State government to reconstitute the panel by including a UGC nominee.
The G.O. had included only the Chancellor’s nominee Prof. Battu Satyanarayana (Central University of Karnataka V-C), University of Madras Syndicate nominee K. Deenabandu (State Planning Commission member), and Senate nominee P. Jagadeesan (former V-C of Bharathidasan University) in the panel.
Alleging that the UGC nominee had been left out deliberately, the litigant said: “It is highly condemnable to leave out the most important organ, entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring academic excellence, just because of a political tussle between the State and Central governments.”
The UGC supported the case of the petitioner by telling the court that it had written to the Chief Secretary recently emphasising the significant role of the commission in selecting the right candidate for the post of Vice-Chancellor, and yet it was kept out of the search panel constitution proceedings.
Complaining to the court that it was not even informed about the process initiated for constitution of the search panel, the UGC said: “It is indeed most unfortunate that the first respondent (State government) has followed this kind of cynical approach for the purpose of petty politics.”
Further referring to Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which requires inclusion of a UGC nominee in the search panels for selection of Vice-Chancellors to State, private, and deemed to be universities, the commission said, the Central law would prevail in the event of a conflict with a State law.
The commission also said the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in K. Praneeth versus UGC (2020), P.S. Sreejith versus M.S. Rajasree (2022) and Gambhirdhan K. Gadvi versus State of Gujarat (2022) make the position of law very clear, and therefore, non-inclusion of the UGC nominee would amount to contempt of court.
Claiming to have been providing grant-in-aid and other funds to the UoM for many decades now to advance scientific research and quality of education and to upgrade and augment infrastructural facilities, the UGC said it was essential to have its nominee included in the search panel.
However, Advocate-General R. Shunmugasundaram, representing the State government, vehemently opposed the petitioner’s case and questioned its very maintainability. After hearing the preliminary submissions, the Bench adjourned the matter to November 21 for further arguments.
