Facts: Dr. S. Mohan, the appellant, challenged a High Court judgment that set aside his appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University. The High Court invalidated Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 (PTU Act) for being inconsistent with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, specifically regarding the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The High Court found that the committee lacked a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC and included the Secretary of Higher & Technical Education, who had a conflict of interest.
Procedural Posture: Dr. Mohan appealed to the Supreme Court via special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, challenging the High Court's judgment that had allowed writ petitions filed by respondents challenging his appointment. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court's order, allowing Dr. Mohan to continue as Vice-Chancellor pending the appeal.
Issue: (1) Was Section 14(5) of the PTU Act ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018, specifically Regulation 7.3, regarding the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointing the Vice-Chancellor? (2) Did the High Court err in invalidating the appointment of Dr. Mohan as Vice-Chancellor based on the inconsistency between the PTU Act and the UGC Regulations? (3) Does the inclusion of the Secretary of Higher & Technical Education in the Search-cum-Selection Committee, who also served as Pro-Chancellor, constitute a conflict of interest violating UGC Regulations?
Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that Section 14(5) of the PTU Act was indeed ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018. However, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that Dr. Mohan would continue to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor until the end of his normal tenure or until a new Vice-Chancellor is selected in accordance with the law, whichever is earlier.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the UGC Regulations, 2018, framed under the UGC Act, trace their source to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which grants exclusive authority to Parliament to legislate on the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education. The PTU Act, traceable to Entry 25 of List III (Education), could not impinge upon the standards prescribed by the Union under Entry 66 of List I. The Court emphasized that the Search-cum-Selection Committee's composition, lacking a UGC nominee and including a member with a conflict of interest, violated the mandatory requirements of the UGC Regulations. Despite upholding the High Court's judgment on the illegality of the Search Committee, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to prevent disruption in the university's functioning and to avoid stigma to the appellant, allowing him to complete his term.