Answer By law4u team
The appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs) in Indian universities is governed by a combination of University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations, state university acts, and the statutes of central or deemed universities. These laws aim to ensure that appointments are made through a transparent and merit-based process while balancing university autonomy with governmental oversight.
Steps Involved in the VC Appointment Process
Formation of a Search Committee – A search-cum-selection committee is constituted, usually comprising nominees of the Chancellor, the government, and the university's Executive Council or Senate.
Eligibility Screening – Candidates must meet UGC-prescribed qualifications, including a minimum of 10 years as a professor or equivalent academic experience.
Panel Preparation – The search committee recommends a panel of three eligible candidates based on merit, reputation, and administrative experience.
Final Selection by Chancellor – The Chancellor (usually the Governor for state universities or the President for central universities) selects one candidate from the panel.
Government Consultation (If Applicable) – In some states, the appointment may require prior approval or consultation with the state government.
Legal Actions and Protections
UGC Regulations, 2018 – These provide a uniform framework for minimum qualifications and procedures for appointing VCs in universities funded or recognized by UGC.
State University Acts – Each state has its own law governing appointments in state-run universities, which must align with UGC norms.
Judicial Review – Courts can intervene if appointments are made in violation of statutory rules, are politically motivated, or if the process lacks transparency.
Supreme Court Rulings – The apex court has held that any appointment not complying with UGC norms is invalid and can be struck down.
Example
In a 2022 case, a state university appointed a VC without following the UGC-mandated process, bypassing the search committee and eligibility norms. A PIL was filed in the High Court. The court:
Found the appointment to be in violation of UGC Regulations.
Quashed the appointment as null and void.
Directed the state to initiate a fresh appointment process strictly in accordance with law and UGC guidelines.
