we hold: (i) To the extent the State Legislation is in conflict with Central Legislation including sub-ordinate legislation made by the Central Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central Legislation and would be inoperative. (ii) The UGC Regulations being passed by both the Houses of Parliament, though a sub-ordinate legislation has binding effect on the Universities to which it applies. (iii)UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory to teachers and other academic staff in all the Central Universities and Colleges thereunder and the Institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is met by the UGC. (iv) UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions under the purview of the State Legislation as the matter has been left to the State Government to adopt and implement the Scheme. Thus, UGC Regulations, 2010 is partly mandatory and is partly directory. (v) UGC Regulations, 2010 having not adopted by the State Tamil Nadu, the question of conflict between State Legislation and Statutes framed under Central Legislation does not arise. Once it is adopted by the State Government, the State Legislation to be amended appropriately. In such case also there shall be no conflict between the State Legislation and the Central Legislation. 45. In view of the reasons and finding as recorded above, we uphold the appointment of Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University as made by the G.O.(1D)No.80, Higher Education (H2)Department, Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 and set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 26th June, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Writ Petition (MD) No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of 2013. The appeals are allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5946-5947 OF 2014

KALYANI MATHIVANAN                                    ... APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS


K.V. JEYARAJ AND ORS.                            ... RESPONDENTS


WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6455-6456 OF 2014 AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8602-8603 OF 2014.




                               J U D G M E N T


SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J

      These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against  a  common
judgment and order dated 26th June, 2014 passed by  the  Division  Bench  of
the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Writ Petition (MD) No.11350 of  2012
and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of 2013.
      The aforesaid writ petitions were preferred by  K.V.  Jeyaraj  and  I.
Ismail respondents/writ petitioners praying for issuance of a  writ  of  quo
warranto directing the appellant - Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan  to  show  cause
under what  authority  she  continues  to  hold  the  office  of  the  Vice-
Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University.
2.    By the impugned judgment the High Court held  that  the  appellant-Dr.
Kalyani Mathivanan did not satisfy the eligibility  criteria  stipulated  by
the UGC Regulations of Minimum Qualifications for  Appointment  of  Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures  for  the
Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education 2010 (hereinafter  referred  to
as the 'UGC Regulations, 2010') for appointment as Vice-Chancellor and  non-
fulfilment of such eligibility criteria cannot be  completely  white  washed
on the specious plea that  the  University  Grants  Commission  Regulations,
2010 are not mandatory. The High Court set aside the  order  of  appointment
of the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan and allowed the writ petitions.
3.    The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
       The  post  of   Vice-Chancellor   in   Madurai   Kamaraj   University
(hereinafter referred to as the 'University') fell vacant in the year  2011-
2012 and  the  Government  constituted  a  search  Committee  to  appoint  a
suitable candidate. All together names of 104  persons  were  considered  by
the search Committee and finally three persons namely (1) Dr. R.  Jayaraman,
Professor of  Management  Studies  (Retd.),  Member  Secretary,  Centre  for
Entrepreneurship Development, Madurai, (2)Dr. Kalyani  Mathivanan,  Head  of
the Department of English, Ethiraj College for Women, Chennai and (3)Dr.  T.
Ramasamy,  Professor  of  History   (on   lien)   Registrar,   Bharathidasan
University,  Tiruchirapalli  were  short  listed.  On  the  basis   of   the
recommendation  of  the  search   Committee,   the   appellant-Dr.   Kalyani
Mathivanan was selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor  by  G.O.(1D)No.80,
Higher Education (H2)Department, Government of Tamil Nadu dated  9th  April,
2012 for a period of three years with effect from the date of assumption  of
office.
4.    Challenging the selection of  the  appellant-Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan,
two separate writ petitions were preferred by Dr. K.V. Jeyaraj, and  Dr.  I.
Ismail, who were aspirants to the said  post-respondents  herein.  The  said
challenge was mainly on the ground that as per UGC  Regulations,  2010,  the
person to  be  appointed  as  Vice-Chancellor,  should  be  a  distinguished
academician, with a minimum  of  10  years  experience  as  Professor  in  a
University system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position  in  a
reputed research/academic organization and Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan  does  not
satisfy the said criteria. The High Court took up both  the  writ  petitions
together for disposal and  by  the  judgment  and  order  allowed  the  writ
petitions and set aside  the  appointment  order  of  appellant-Dr.  Kalyani
Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor.
5.    The appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan on  notice  appeared  before  the
High Court and brought to the notice of the Court the following facts:
       She was appointed as Assistant Professor in Ethiraj College  on  16th
January,  1981.  The  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  on  5th  December,   1983
redesignated the post of Assistant Professor as Lecturer  and  Professor  as
Lecturer [Senior  Scale/Selection  Grade].  She  was  promoted  as  Lecturer
(Senior Scale) in Ethiraj College on 22nd August,  1991.  Since,  1995,  the
appellant has  been  a  recognized  Guide  for  M.Phil.  candidates  in  the
University of Madras.  The appellant was  promoted  as  Lecturer  (Selection
Grade)/Reader on 7th May, 1998 and since then  she  has  been  a  Recognized
Guide for Ph.D candidate in the University  of  Madras.  In  2008,  She  was
promoted as  Head  of  the  English  Department,  Ethiraj  College.  On  9th
September, 2009, the Department of Higher  Education,  Government  of  Tamil
Nadu based on the report of the Official Committee  constituted  to  examine
the recommendations of the G.K.  Chadha  Committee,  passed  an  order  that
there  shall  be  only  three  designations  in  respect  of   Teachers   in
Universities  and  Colleges,   namely,   Assistant   Professors,   Associate
Professors and  Professors.  It  was  further  ordered  that  the  posts  of
Professors shall be created for under-Graduate  and  Post-Graduate  Colleges
on the basis of guidelines prescribed therein. However, this  direction  has
not been implemented till date in the State of Tamil Nadu.
6.    On behalf of the appellant-Dr.  Kalyani  Mathivanan,  it  was  further
contended that she is qualified for appointment as  Vice-Chancellor  of  the
University as per the Madurai  Kamaraj  University  Act,  1965  (hereinafter
referred to as the 'University Act, 1965'). It was  further  contended  that
the UGC Regulations,  2010  are  not  mandatory  but  directory  and  cannot
override the provisions of the University Act, 1965.
7.    The High Court by the impugned order framed  the  following  questions
for consideration, namely:
(i) whether the post  of  Associate  Professor  held  by  the  appellant-Dr.
Kalyani Mathivanan in a private  aided  College  can  be  considered  as  an
equivalent post, satisfying  requirement  of  paragraph  7.3.0  of  the  UGC
Regulations, 2010;
(ii) whether the prescriptions contained in paragraph 7.3.0 of the  Annexure
to the UGC Regulations, 2010 is mandatory  or  directory;  and  whether  the
U.G.C. Regulation, 2010 would override  the  provisions  of  the  University
Act, 1965 and the Statute framed thereunder.
8.    The High Court after taking into consideration the qualification  laid
down in the Annexure  to  the  UGC  Regulations,  2010  answered  the  first
question in negative, against the appellant-Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan.
The High Court also rejected the submission that  the  Vice-Chancellor  need
not be a Professor or teacher and observed as follows:
"44.Therefore,  it  is  not  possible  to  accept  contention  that  drawing
inspiration from the past, one need not be a Professor or even a teacher  to
become a Vice-Chancellor. As a  matter  of  fact,  several  committees  were
constituted in the past about 70  years  by  the  Government  of  India,  to
improve the standards of Universities. Recently, a study  was  conducted  by
two persons by name K. Sudha  Rao,  Vice-Chancellor,  Karnataka  State  Open
University, Mysore  and  Advisor  ASERF  and  Mithilesh  Kr.  Singh,  Senior
Fellow, (ASERF), New Delhi analysing the different methods adopted  for  the
appointment of Vice-Chancellor  in  Indian  Universities  in  comparison  to
those adopted by some foreign Universities.
45.This paper indicates  that  as  per  the  reports  of  the  Radhakrishnan
Commission (1948:422-23), Kothari  Commission  (1964-1966:  333-35),  Gnanam
Committee (1990: 27-30) and Ramlal Parujg Committee (1993:15-17), the  Vice-
Chancellors have an important role in maintaining the quality and  relevance
of universities. The highlights of some of the committees were extracted  in
the said paper by the learned authors as follows:-
Generally the Vice-Chancellor should  be  a  distinguished  educationist  or
eminent scholar in any of  the  disciplines  or  professions,  with  a  high
standing in his/her field and adequate  administrative  experience.  We  are
not generally in favour of appointment of  persons  who  have  retired  from
other fields. An exception to this general  recommendation  should  be  made
only in the case of very outstanding  persons  whose  association  with  the
universities would be desirable from every point of view and should  not  be
made an excuse for accommodating'  or  'rewarding  individuals  who  do  not
fulfill the conditions laid down. A Vice-Chancellor is one  who  stands  for
the  commitment  of  the  University   to   scholarship   and   pursuit   of
truth.(Kothari Commission 1964-66:334)
A Vice-Chancellor should be a person with vision  and  (have)  qualities  of
academic leadership with ability for administration. He should command  high
respect among all sections of the society. The Vice-Chancellor should  be  a
distinguished academic...(who) has commitment to the values  for  which  the
Universities stand....He must have the ability to provide leadership to  the
University by  his  academic  worth,  administrative  competence  and  moral
stature,. (Kothari Commission 1964-66:334)
Parikh Committee was not in favour of  appointing  Government  officials  as
VCs. Quoting the Kothari Commission Report, the  Parikh  Committee  mentions
that the Vice-Chancellor is the most important functionary in  a  University
not  only  on  the  administrative  side  but  is  also  charged  with   the
responsibility of creating the right atmosphere for teachers and students.
The Universities need distinguished and dignified persons as VCs and  it  is
necessary to ensure that they are treated with  dignity  and  regard,  which
the office merits.(Ramlal Parikh Committee 1993:15).
The Vice-Chancellor is the most important functionary in a  University,  not
only on the administrative side but also for securing the  right  atmosphere
for the teachers and the students to do their work effectively  and  in  the
right spirit. (Report  of  the  Committee  on  Model  Act  for  Universities
1964:11)
The Vice-Chancellor being the principal executive and  academic  officer  of
the University, should exercise general supervision  and  control  over  the
affairs of the University and  give  effect  to  the  decision  of  all  its
authorities. He shall be the ex-officio Chairman  of  the  Court,  Executive
Council, Academic Council, Finance Committee and  Selection  Committees  and
shall, in the absence of the Chancellor preside at any  convocation  of  the
University for conferring degrees.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Vice-
Chancellor to see that the provisions of the Act,  Statutes  and  Ordinances
and Regulations are fully observed and he should have  the  power  necessary
for the discharge of this duty. (Gajendragadkar Committee on the  Governance
of the Unviersity, 1971:60).
In accordance  with  Regulation  1  for  the  office  of  VC  (Statutes  and
Ordinances of Cambridge University, June 2002:655)...VC is of a stature  and
his/her presence commensurate to lead a distinguished academic  institution.
The stated mission of the University is to  contribute  to  society  through
the  pursuit  of  education,  learning,  and   research   at   the   highest
international levels of excellence. The VC must be  of  exceptional  caliber
with  academic  credibility,  clear  strategic   vision,   and   outstanding
leadership qualities.  He/she  should  have  strong  management  skills  and
senior level experience gained in a complex institution and the  ability  to
bring them to bear in a democratic, self governing University.  The  ability
to  promote  the  University  in  a  regional,  national  and  international
context,  and  to  increase  the  financial  resources  available   to   the
University, should be  key,  particularly  in  order  to  realise  the  full
potential of the University."

9.    By the impugned judgment, the Madras  High  Court  differed  with  the
finding of the Bombay High Court in a similar case,  "Suresh  Patilkhede  of
Thane vs.  Chancellor,  University of Maharashtra, in  PIL  (L)  No.80/2011,
2012 (6) ALLMR 336. The Bombay High Court by the  said  judgment  held  that
Vice-Chancellor in his said capacity cannot be considered  as  a  member  of
the academic or teaching staff of the University and also held that the  UGC
Regulations, 2010 is directory in nature. In the  impugned  judgment  Madras
High Court observed as follows:
"46.Therefore, with great respect, we are unable to subscribe  to  the  view
expressed by the Bombay High Court  in  paragraph  13  of  the  decision  in
Suresh Patikhede that the  Vice-Chancellor  need  not  be  considered  as  a
member of the academic teaching staff.
10.   The High Court further observed:
"48. If University Grants Commission  Regulations,  2010  will  have  to  be
given effect to (subject to our finding on the next two facets  of  question
No.2), the Vice-Chancellor should actually be a  distinguished  academician.
Today, Albert Einstein cannot be appointed as  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  any
University (at  least  in  India)  unless  he  fulfills  the  qualifications
prescribed by University Grants Commission, the reason being  that  after  a
legislative enactment lays down the objective criteria, there  is  no  place
for subjective satisfaction.
49. We do not mean to say that the fourth respondent is not an  academician.
She has always been a  teacher  and  Mr.  A.L.  Somayaji,  learned  Advocate
General took great pains to highlight the academic  and  other  achievements
of the fourth respondent. But we are solely on the question  as  to  whether
we could concur with the opinion of the  Bombay  High  Court  that  a  Vice-
Chancellor is not part of the teaching staff. There may be a hair  splitting
difference between being part of an academic stream and being  part  of  the
teaching  faculty.  But  it  is  not  possible  for   us   to   accept   the
interpretation that one can be the academic head but  cannot  be  considered
as part of the teaching staff."

11.   For determination of the second question, the  High  Court  formulated
three issues as follows:
      "33. In our considered view, the second question before  us,  actually
has three facets namely:-
Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor is not to be considered as part  of  the
teaching staff;
Whether  the  Madurai  Kamaraj  University  Act  and  the  Statutes   issued
thereunder prescribe a different set of qualifications for the post of Vice-
Chancellor  than  those  prescribed  by  the  University  Grants  Commission
Regulations, 2010 leading to a conflict; and
Whether in the event of a conflict  between  the  State  enactment  and  the
University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010, the provisions of the  State
enactment would prevail."

12.   The High Court held that the post of  Vice-Chancellor  is  a  part  of
academia i.e. teaching staff and the  UGC  Regulations,  2010  will  prevail
over the State  enactment  i.e.  University  Act  and  the  Statutes  framed
thereunder in the event of a conflict.
13.   The High Court in  the  impugned  judgment  discussed  the  background
history of appointment of Vice-Chancellor in India and observed as follows:
"43. It is true that when the seeds of Western education were shown in  this
country about 150 years ago, men of eminence  from  various  walks  of  life
were appointed as  Vice-Chancellors.  Several  Judges  of  this  Court  have
adorned the post of Vice-Chancellor of various  Universities  including  the
Madras University itself. But apart from  being  great  (and  rare)  Judges,
those men were also  distinguished  academicians  who  excelled  in  various
fields.
Students of Indian History would know that Sir John George Woodraff who  was
a Judge of the Calcutta High Court and who retired as the Officiating  Chief
Justice of the same Court, collaborated with Ameer  Ali  in  publishing  the
Civil Procedure Code. He was a great Sanskrit scholar who authored books  on
Mantra Sastra and Tantra Sastra, After retiring  as  the  Officiating  Chief
Justice, he served a Reader in  law  in  the  Oxford  University  for  seven
years. Great Jurists, both (Lawyers  and  Judges)  such  as  Sir  Subramanya
Ayyar, Sir P.S.Sivaswamy Ayyar, Justice F.D. Oldfield were among a  few  who
became the Vice-Chancellors of Madras University, ever since  its  inception
about 150 years. But today, it is not possible to  continue  with  the  same
legacy or two reasons, namely:-
that we do not have such tall men of great eminence and

that today the field is regulated by law."
14.   The High Court also relied on an Article titled 'Why  Socrates  should
be in the Boardroom in Research Universities', published in 2010  by  Amanda
H. Goodall, for determining the case and observed as follows:
      "47.  In  an interesting Article, titled Why  Socrates  should  be  in
the Boardroom in Research Universities,  published  in  2010  by  Amanda  H.
Goodall, Leverhulme Fellow, Warwick Business School, the author  points  out
two contrasting events  that  happened  in  2003  and  2004.  It  is  common
knowledge that Cambridge University came into existence in 1209  and  almost
about 800 years  later,  a  distinguished  Anthropologist,  by  name  Alison
Richard,  was  appointed  as  the  344th  President  or  Vice-Chancellor  of
Cambridge. She was an acclaimed academician. In contrast  to  what  happened
at Cambridge in 2003, Oxford University appointed in 2004, a person by  name
John Hood, who was not an academic but was only  a  businessman.  He  became
the first head of Oxford  University,  ever  since  the  year  1230,  to  be
elected to the Vice-Chancellorship from  outside  the  University's  current
academic body. The paper authored by Amanda Goodall considered the  question
as to why Cambridge and Oxford chose  such  different  individuals  to  lead
their ancient and reputed institutions. The central theme of the  paper  was
as to whether there was a relationship between  University  performance  and
leadership by an accomplished researcher. Eventually,  after  analysing  the
statistics from about 100 Universities  throughout  the  world,  the  author
came to the conclusion, supported by  evidence  that  Research  Universities
should be led by top scholars. The conclusions reached by the  author  could
be summarized as follows:
       (i)That  the  best  Universities  in  the  world  are  led  by   more
established scholars;
      (ii) That scholar-leaders are considered to be more  credible  leaders
in Universities, commanding greater respect from their academic peers.
       (iii)  That  setting  an  organisation's  academic  standards  is   a
significant part of the  function  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  and  hence  one
should expect the standard bearer to first year that standard.
      (iv) That a  leader,  who  is  an  established  scholar,  signals  the
institution's priorities, internally to  its  faculties  and  externally  to
potential new academic recruits, students, alumni, donors and the media.
      (v) That since scholarship cannot be viewed  as  a  proxy  for  either
management experience or leadership skills, an expert leader must also  have
expertise in areas other than scholarship."

15.   Learned counsel for parties relied on the aforesaid  observation  made
by the High Court but we are of the view that it is not necessary to  notice
the background history of  appointment  of  Vice-Chancellors  or  the  great
personalities who held such posts or the interesting  Article,  titled  'Why
Socrates should be in the Boardroom in Research Universities', published  in
2010 by Amanda H. Goodall as they  are  not  relevant  for  determining  the
issue involved in the present case.
16.   Learned counsel for the appellant-Dr. Kalyani  Mathivanan,  has  taken
similar pleas as were taken before the High Court.
17.    The  contesting  respondent  No.1-Dr.  K.Y.  Jeyaraj  has  taken  the
following pleas:
(i)   The words "Teaching Staff of the University" occurring in  Clause  (e)
of Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956 are words of wide import. Section 2(n)  of
the Madurai Kamaraj University Act defines Teachers of  the  University,  as
persons appointed by the University to give instruction on its  behalf.  Any
person appointed to the  University  including  the  Vice-Chancellor,  other
than mere administrative staff can be required by  the  University  to  give
instructions on its behalf. Thus, teaching staff should  include  those  who
are appointed to contribute and who can be called upon to contribute  to  or
assigned to contribute to educational activities of the  University  in  its
functional sense.
(ii)  The UGC regulations having been perceived to be  for  the  advancement
and promotion of University education, will qualify as a high  principle  of
persuasive public policy which would commend itself for  acceptance  by  the
University. It is a matter of fact that no University Act has provided  for,
or  enacted  in  respect  of  qualifications  for   appointment   of   Vice-
Chancellors. To the extent that such a  matter  is  not  occupied  by  State
University legislation falling under Entry 25 of  the  concurrent  list,  it
would be subject to all provisions enacted including regulations,  traceable
to Entry 66, List - I. This Hon'ble  Court  has  declared  that  regulations
made under statutes traceable to Entry 66 would also fall within  the  scope
of Entry 66 and would override legislation under Entry 25.
(iii) The  UGC  Regulations  are  persuasive  principles  of  public  policy
relevant  for  the  promotion  and  advancement  of  University  and  higher
education. Consequently in the absence of any higher standards  and  in  the
absence of any other relevant guidelines, the  appointing  authority  cannot
act in disregard of the UGC guidelines. The  selection  process  will  be  a
process void for lack of any standard. Acting in this regard would  thus  be
in frustration of the object  and  purposes  of  UGC  Act  as  well  as  the
University legislation itself.
(iv)  A person appointed  to  a  public  office  without  reference  to  any
standards or norms or criteria, has no right to hold such an  office.  Since
all appointments to all public offices created by statutes have to  be  made
on the basis of a norm, standard or a criterion, the onus is on  the  person
appointed to show that a relevant  norm,  standard  or  criterion  has  been
adopted. This has not been done by the appellant.
(v)   No case has  been  canvassed  that  the  appointment  in  question  is
otherwise based on a relevant standard or criterion, higher in quality  than
the UGC Regulations. No case has also been made out that on the  application
of such a higher criterion that the appointing authority did  not  find  any
other person considered for appointment, as suitable and fit  enough  to  be
appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
18.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the issues  that
arise for our consideration are:
(i)   Whether UGC Regulations, 2010 is mandatory in nature; and
      (ii)  Whether in the event of conflict  between  the  University  Act,
Regulations framed thereunder and the UGC Regulations, 2010, the  provisions
of the UGC Regulations, 2010 would prevail or not; and
      (iii) Whether the post of Vice-Chancellor of a  University  is  to  be
considered as part of teaching staff.
For determination of these issues, it is necessary to  notice  the  relevant
provisions of University Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter  referred  to  as
the, 'UGC Act, 1956'), UGC Regulations, 2010, the University Act,  1965  and
the statutes framed thereunder.
      University Grants Commission Act, 1956:
      UGC Act, 1956 was enacted to make  provisions  for  the  co-ordination
and determination of standards in Universities  and  for  that  purpose,  to
establish a University Grants Commission.
Section 12 deals with the 'function of the Commission',  relevant  of  which
is quoted hereunder:
"12.  It  shall  be  the  general  duty  of  the  Commission  to  take,   in
consultation with the Universities  or  other  bodies  concerned,  all  such
steps as it may think fit for the promotion and co-ordination of  University
education  and  for  the  determination  and  maintenance  of  standards  of
teaching, examination and research in Universities, and for the  purpose  of
performing its functions under this Act, the Commission may-

inquire into the financial needs of Universities;
..............................
..............................

recommend to any University the measures necessary for  the  improvement  of
University education and advise the University upon the action to  be  taken
for the purpose of implementing such recommendation;

to (i)...........................


(j)   perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be  deemed
necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause  of  higher    education
in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the  above
functions."

      Section 14 deals with 'consequences  of  failure  of  Universities  to
comply with recommendations of the Commission' which is as follows:
14. If any University 1[grants affiliation  in  respect  of  any  course  of
study to any college referred  to  in  subsection  (5)  of  section  12A  in
contravention of the provisions of  that  sub-section  or]  fails  within  a
reasonable time to comply with any recommendation  made  by  the  Commission
under section 12 or section 13, 2[or contravenes the provision of  any  rule
made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 25, or  of
any regulation made under clause(e) or clause (f) or clause (g)  of  section
26,] the Commission, after taking into  consideration  the  cause,  if  any,
shown by the University 3[for Such failure or  contraventions  may  withhold
from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the  Fund  of  the
Commission."


20.   Another relevant provision with which we are concerned is  Section  26
- 'power to make regulations'. The relevant portion of the said  section  is
quoted below:
"Section 26. (1) The  Commission  [may,  by  notification  in  the  Official
Gazette, make regulations] consistent with  this  Act  and  the  rules  made
thereunder-

to (d) x  x  x   x   x

"(e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required  of  any
person to be appointed to the  teaching  staff  of  the  University,  having
regard to  the  branch  of  education  in  which  he  is  expected  to  give
instruction;"

x   x   x   x

"(g) regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination  of  work
or facilities in Universities."


21.   As per Section 28 the Rules and Regulations framed  under  the  U.G.C.
Act are required to be laid before each House of Parliament  and  when  both
the Houses agree then the Rules and Regulations can  be  given  effect  with
such modification as may be made by the  Parliament.  Section  28  reads  as
below:
"Section 28. Every rule and every regulation made under this  Act  shall  be
laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each  House  of  Parliament
while it is in session, for a total period  of  thirty  days  which  may  be
comprised in one session or in two or  more  successive  sessions,  and  if,
before the expiry of the session immediately following the session,  or  the
successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any  modification
in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule  or  regulation
should not be made, the rule or  regulation  shall  thereafter  have  effect
only in such modified form or be of no effect, as  the  case  may,  be;  so,
however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without  prejudice
to  the  validity  of  anything  previously  done   under   that   rule   or
regulation."]

[No rule made or purporting to have been made,
with retrospective effect, under section 25 of the principal Act before  the
commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been  invalid  or  ever  to
have been invalid merely  on  the   round  that  such  rule  was  made  with
retrospective effect and accordingly every such rule and every action  taken
or thing done  thereunder  shall  be  as  valid  and  effective  as  if  the
provisions of section 25 of the principal Act, as amended by this Act,  were
in force at all material times when such rule was made or  action  or  thing
was taken or done.]"

22.   From the aforesaid provisions, we  find  that  the  University  Grants
Commission has  been  established  for  the  determination  of  standard  of
Universities, promotion and co-ordination of University education,  for  the
determination and maintenance of  standards  of  teaching,  examination  and
research in Universities, for  defining  the  qualifications  regarding  the
teaching staff of the University, maintenance  of  standards  etc.  For  the
purpose of performing its functions under the UGC Act (see Section 12)  like
defining the qualifications and standard that should ordinarily be  required
of any person to be appointed in the Universities [see Section  26(1)(e)(g)]
UGC is empowered to frame regulations.

      It is only  when  both  the  Houses  of  the  Parliament  approve  the
regulation, the same can be given effect.  Thus, we  hold  that  the  U.G.C.
Regulations though a subordinate  legislation  has  binding  effect  on  the
Universities to  which  it  applies;  and  consequence  of  failure  of  the
University to comply with the recommendations of  the  Commission,  the  UGC
may withhold the grants to the university  made  out  of  the  Fund  of  the
Commission. (See Section 14)

23.UGC Regulations, 2010 and Annexure enclosed therein

      For  the  appointment  and  career  advancement  of  teachers  in  the
Universities and Institutions affiliated to it  UGC  by  Regulation  No.F.3-
1/2000(PS)  dated  4th  April,   2000,   enacted   the   University   Grants
Commission(Minimum qualifications required for the  appointment  and  career
advancement of teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated  to  it)
Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC Regulations,  2000").
In the said Regulation of 2000, no qualifications were  prescribed  for  the
post of 'Pro-Chancellor' or 'Vice-Chancellor'.
The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource  Development  Department
of Higher Education, New  Delhi  by  letter  No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i)  dated
31st  December,  2008  communicated   the   Secretary,   University   Grants
Commission, New Delhi  the  Scheme  of  revision  of  pay  of  teachers  and
equivalent cadres in Universities and Colleges  following  the  revision  of
pay scales of Central Government employees on  the  recommendations  of  the
Sixth Central Pay Commission. By the said letter,  the Government  of  India
directed that there shall be only three designations in respect of  teachers
in Universities  and  Colleges,   namely,  Assistant  Professors,  Associate
Professors and Professors.

      In the said letter revised Pay Scales, Service Conditions  and  Career
Advancement Scheme for teachers and equivalent positions including the  post
of Assistant Professors/Associate Professors/Professors in Universities  and
Colleges were intimated. Pay scales  of  Pro-Vice-Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor
were also mentioned therein. It was intimated that the said  Scheme  may  be
extended  to  the  Universities,  Colleges  and  other  higher   educational
institutions coming under the purview of State legislature,  provided  State
Governments wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms  and
conditions mentioned therein.

24.   In view of the aforesaid letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i),  dated  31st
December, 2008 issued by the Government of India  and  in  exercise  of  the
powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of sub-section (1) of  Section  26
of the UGC Act, 1956, UGC enacted Regulations, 2010 in supersession  of  the
UGC Regulations, 2000. It was published in the  Gazette  of  India  on  28th
June, 2010 and came into force with immediate effect.  Relevant  portion  of
the said Regulations is as follows:

                              "UGC REGULATIONS
                          ON MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
  FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVERSITIES AND
 COLLEGES AND MEASURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
                                    2010
                   To be published in the gazette of India
                              Part III Sector 4

                        University Grants Commission
                           Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
                              New Delhi-110002.

               No.F.3-1/2009                     28 June, 2010
In exercise of the powers conferred under clause (e) and (g) of  sub-section
(1) of Section 26 of University Grants Commission Act,  1956  (3  of  1956),
and in pursuance of the  MHRD  O.M.No.F.23-7/2008-IFD  dated  23rd  October,
2008, read with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure)  O.M.No.F.1-
1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008, and in terms  of  the  MHRD  Notification
No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1) issued on 31st December, 2008 and  in  supersession
of the University Grants Commission  (minimum  qualifications  required  for
the appointment and career  advancement  of  teachers  in  Universities  and
Institutions  affiliated  to  it)Regulations,  2000,  issued  by  University
Grants Commission vide Regulation  No.  F.3-1/2000  (PS)  dated  4th  April,
2000, together with all amendments made  therein  from  time  to  time,  the
University  Grants  Commission  hereby  frames  the  following  Regulations,
namely:-

1. Short title, application and commencement:

These Regulations may be called the University  Grants  Commission  (Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of  Teachers  and  other  Academic  Staff  in
Universities  and  Colleges  and  other  Measures  for  the  Maintenance  of
Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2010.

They shall apply to every  university  established  or  incorporated  by  or
under a Central Act, Provincial  Act  or  a  State  Act,  every  institution
including  a  constituent  or  an  affiliated  college  recognized  by   the
Commission, in consultation with the university concerned under  Clause  (f)
of Section 2 of  the  University  Grants  Commission  Act,  1956  and  every
institution deemed to be a university under Section 3 of the said Act.

1.3 They shall come into force with    immediate effect.
Provided that in the event, any candidate  becomes  eligible  for  promotion
under Career Advancement Scheme in terms of these Regulations  on  or  after
31st December, 2008, the promotion of such a candidate shall be governed  by
the provisions of these Regulations.

  Provided  further  that  notwithstanding  anything  contained   in   these
Regulations, in the event any candidate became eligible for promotion  under
Career Advancement Scheme prior to 31st December, 2008,   the  promotion  of
such a candidate under Career Advancement Scheme shall be  governed  by  the
University  Grants  Commission  (Minimum  Qualifications  Required  for  the
Appointment  and  Career  Advancement  of  Teachers  in   Universities   and
institutions  affiliated    to   it)   Regulations,   2000   notified   vide
Notification No. F.3-1/2000(PS) dated 4th April, 2000, as amended from  time
to time,  read with notifications and guidelines issued  by  the  University
Grants Commission (UGC) from  time to time, in this regard.

The Minimum Qualifications for appointment and other service  conditions  of
University and  College  teachers,  Librarians  and  Directors  of  Physical
Education and Sports as a  measure  for  the  maintenance  of  standards  in
higher  education,   shall  be  as  provided  in  the  Annexure   to   these
Regulations.

3.Consequences  of  failure  of  the  Universities  to   comply   with   the
recommendations of the  Commission,  as  provision  of  Section  14  of  the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956:

If any University grants affiliation in respect of any course  of  study  to
any college referred to in sub-section(5) of Section 12-A  in  contravention
of the provisions of the sub-section,  or fails within a reasonable time  to
comply with any recommendations made by the Commission under Section  12  or
Section 13, or contravenes the  provisions of any  rule  made  under  clause
(f) of sub-section (2) of Section  25  or  of  any  regulations  made  under
clause (e) or clause (f) or clause (g) of Sub-section  (1)  of  Section  26,
the Commission after taking into consideration the cause,   if  any,   shown
by the University for such failure or contravention, may withhold  from  the
university  the  grants  proposed  to  be  made  out  of  the  fund  of  the
Commission.
                                                                 Secretary."


25.    Annexure  to   UGC   Regulations,   2010   prescribes   the   minimum
qualifications for appointment and other service  conditions  of  University
and College  Teachers,  Librarians,  Directors  of  Physical  Education  and
Sports.
Regulation  2.0.0  relates  to  pay  scales,  pay  fixation   and   age   of
superannuation, etc. Regulation 7.0.0. relates  to  selection  of  Pro-Vice-
Chancellor/Vice-Chancellor of Universities. In Regulation  7.3.0.  standards
to be followed and qualifications necessary for selection  to  the  post  of
Vice-Chancellor have been mentioned. Regulation 7.4.0  relates  to  adoption
of Regulations by the universities and State Governments.
 The relevant provisions of the Annexure to the UGC  Regulations,  2010  are
quoted hereunder:
                                                                   "ANNEXURE

    UGC  REGULATIONS  ON  MINIMUM  QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  APPOINTMENT  OF  THE
TEACHERS AND OTHER ACADEMIC STAFF IN UNIVESITEIS AND COLLEGES  AND  MEAUSRES
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATOIN, 2010
               -----------------------------------------------

These Regulations are issued for minimum qualifications for appointment  and
other service conditions of University  and  College  Teachers,  Librarians,
Directors of Physical Education and Sports for the maintenance of  standards
in higher education and revision of pay scales.

2.0.0 PAY SCALES, PAYFIXATION FORMULA AND AGE OF SUPERANNUATION, ETC.

2.1.0 The revised scales of pay and other service conditions  including  age
of superannuation in central universities and other institutions  maintained
and/or funded by the University Grants Commission (UGC), shall  be  strictly
in accordance with the decision  of  the  Central  Government,  Ministry  of
Human Resource  Development  (Department  of  Education),  as  contained  in
Appendix-I.

      xxx        xxx        xxx        xxx

2.3.1.      The revised scales of pay and age of superannuation as  provided
in Clause 2.1.0 above, may also be extended  to  Universities,  institutions
coming under the purview of the State  Legislature  and  maintained  by  the
State Governments,  subject  to  the  implementation  of  the  scheme  as  a
composite one in adherence of the terms and  conditions  laid  down  in  the
MHRD notifications provided as Appendix I and in  the  MHRD  letter  No.F.1-
7/2010-U II dated 11 May, 2010 with all conditions specified by the  UGC  in
the Regulations and other Guidelines.
      xxx   xxx  xxx   xxx  xxx

7.0.0.SELECTION   OF    PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR/VICE       -    CHANCELLOR    OF
UNIVERSITIES:

 7.1.0. PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR:

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor may be a whole time Professor of the University  and
shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation  of  Vice-
Chancellor.

 7.2.0.The Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period which  is  co-
terminus with that of Vice-Chancellor. However, it shall be the  prerogative
of the  Vice-Chancellor  to  recommend  a  new  Pro-Vice-Chancellor  to  the
Executive Council, during his tenure. These Regulations,  for  selection  of
Pro- Vice- Chancellor shall be adopted by the concerned  University  through
amendment of their Act/Statute.

7.3.0. VICE-CHANCELLOR:

Persons  of  the  highest  level  of  competence,  integrity,   morals   and
institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The  Vice-
Chancellor to be appointed should be a  distinguished  academician,  with  a
minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a  University  system  or
ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research  and
/ or academic administrative organization.

     The  selection   of   Vice-Chancellor    should   be   through   proper
identification of a Panel of 3-5 names  by  a  Search  Committee  through  a
public  Notification  or  nomination  or  a  talent  search  process  or  in
combination. The members of the above Search Committee shall be  persons  of
eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall  not  be  connected  in
any manner with the University concerned or its  colleges.  While  preparing
the panel, the search committee  must  give  proper  weightage  to  academic
excellence, exposure to the higher  education  system  in  the  country  and
abroad, and adequate experience in academic  and  administrative  governance
to be given in  writing  along  with  the  panel  to  be  submitted  to  the
Visitor/Chancellor. In  respect  of  State  and  Central  Universities,  the
following shall be the constitution of the Search Committee.

a)  a nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be  the  Chairperson  of
the Committee.

b) a nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission.

c) a nominee of the Syndicate/ Executive Council / Board  of  Management  of
the University.

iii.  The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor  out  of  the
Panel of names recommended by the Search Committee

iv.  The conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor  shall  be  prescribed
in the Statutes of the  Universities  concerned  in  conformity  with  these
Regulations.

v.   The term of office of  the  Vice-Chancellor  shall  form  part  of  the
service period of the incumbent concerned making him/her  eligible  for  all
service related benefits.

7.4.0  The  Universities/State  Governments  shall   modify  or  amend   the
relevant Act/Statutes of the  Universities  concerned  within  6  months  of
adoption of these Regulations.

8.0. DUTY LEAVE, STUDY LEAVE, SABBATICAL LEAVE"

26.   Letter No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(1)(i) dated 31st  December,  2008  issued
by  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development,
Department of Higher Education, New Delhi has been appended  as  Appendix  I
and is part of the UGC Regulations, 2010. The relevant portion of  the  said
letter is quoted below:

                                 "APPENDIX I

                          No.1-32/2006-U.II/U.I(i)
                             Government of India
                   Ministry of Human Resource Development
                       Department of Higher Education

                  New Delhi, dated the 31St December, 2008
To

The Secretary,
University Grants Commission,
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

Subject: Scheme of revision of pay of  teachers  and  equivalent  cadres  in
universities and colleges following the revision of pay  scales  of  Central
Government employees  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Sixth  Central  Pay
Commission.

Sir,

I am directed to say that  the  Government  of  India  have  decided,  after
taking into consideration the recommendations made by the University  Grants
Commission (UGC) based  on  the  decisions  taken  at  the  meeting  of  the
Commission held on 7-8 October 2008, to revise the pay  scales  of  teachers
in the Central Universities. The revision of pay scales  of  teachers  shall
be subject to various provisions of the Scheme of revision of pay scales  as
contained in this letter, and Regulations to be framed by the  UGC  in  this
behalf in accordance with the Scheme given below.  The  revised  pay  scales
and other provisions of the Scheme are as under:-

1. General

(i) There shall be  only  three  designations  in  respect  of  teachers  in
universities  and  colleges,   namely,   Assistant   Professors,   Associate
Professors and Professors. However, there shall be no change in the  present
designation in respect  of  Library  and  Physical  Education  Personnel  at
various levels.

(ii) No one shall be eligible to be appointed,  promoted  or  designated  as
Professor, unless he or she possesses a Ph.D. and satisfies  other  academic
conditions, as laid downy the University Grants Commission (UGC)  from  time
to time. This shall, however, not affect those who  are  already  designated
as 'Professor'.

(iii) The pay of teachers  and  equivalent  positions  in  Universities  and
Colleges shall be fixed according to their designations in two pay bands  of
Rs. 15,600 - Rs. 39,100  and  Rs.  37,400  -  Rs.  67,000  with  appropriate
"Academic Grade Pay" (AGP in short). Each  Pay  Band  shall  have  different
stages of Academic Grade Pay which shall  ensure  that  teachers  and  other
equivalent cadres covered under this Scheme, subject to other conditions  of
eligibility  being  satisfied,  have  multiple  opportunities   for   upward
movement during their career.

(iv) Posts of Professors shall be created in  under-graduate  (UG)  colleges
as well as in postgraduate (PG) colleges. The number of posts of  Professors
in a UG College shall be equivalent to 10 percent of the number of  posts-of
Associate Professors in that College.  There  shall  be  as  many  posts  of
Professors in each PG College as the number of Departments in that  College.
No new Departments shall be created in  UG  or  PG  Colleges  without  prior
approval of the UGC.

(v) Up to 10% of the posts of Professors in universities  shall  be  in  the
higher Academic Grade Pay of Rs. 12,000 with eligibility  conditions  to  be
prescribed by the UGC.

(vi) National Eligibility Test (NET) shall be compulsory for appointment  at
the entry level of Assistant Professor, subject to  the  exemptions  to  the
degree of Ph.D. in respect of those
persons obtaining the award through a process of  registration,  course-work
and external evaluation, as have been/ or  may  be  laid  down  by  the  UGC
through its regulations, and so adopted by the University. NET shall not  be
required for such Masters' programmes in disciplines for which there  is  no
NET.

2. Revised Pay Scales, Service conditions and Career Advancement Scheme  for
teachers and equivalent positions:

The pay structure  for  different  categories  of  teachers  and  equivalent
positions shall be as indicated below:-

Assistant  Professor/Associate  Professors/  Professors  in   Colleges   and
Universities.

3.  Pay Scales of Pro Vice-Chancellor / Vice-Chancellor of Universities:

(i) Pro-Vice-Chancellor
The posts of Pro-Vice-Chancellor shall be in the Pay  Band  of  Rs.37,400  -
Rs. 67,000 with AGP of Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 12,000, as the case may  be,  along
with a Special Allowance of Rs.4,000 per month,  subject  to  the  condition
that the sum total of pay in the Pay Band, the Academic Grade  Pay  and  the
Special Allowance shall not exceed Rs. 80,000.

(ii) Vice-Chancellor

The posts of Vice-Chancellor shall carry a fixed pay  of  Rs.  75,000  along
with a Special Allowance of Rs. 5,000 per month.

8. Other terms and conditions:
(a) Increments:

      xxx   xxx  xxx   xxx
      xxx   xxx  xxx   xxx

(p) Applicability of the Scheme:

(i) This Scheme shall be applicable to teachers and other equivalent  cadres
of Library and Physical  Education  in  all  the  Central  Universities  and
Colleges there-under and the Institutions Deemed to  be  Universities  whose
maintenance expenditure is  met  by  the  UGC.  The  implementation  of  the
revised scales shall be subject to the acceptance of all the conditions
mentioned in this letter as well as Regulations to be framed by the  UGC  in
this behalf. Universities implementing this Scheme shall be advised  by  the
UGC to amend their relevant statutes and ordinances in  line  with  the  UGC
Regulations within three months from the date of issue of this letter.

xxx   xxx   xxx  xxx


      From paragraph 8(p)(i) and (v)  of  Appendix-I  dated  31st  December,
2008 read with Regulation 7.4.0 we find that the  Scheme  of  regulation  is
applicable to teaching staffs  of  all  Central  Universities  and  Colleges
thereunder and the institutions deemed to be Universities whose  maintenance
expenditure is met by the UGC. However, the Scheme  under  UGC  Regulations,
2010 is not applicable to the teaching staffs of the Universities,  Colleges
and other higher educational institutions coming under the purview of  State
Legislature, unless State Government wish to adopt and implement the  Scheme
subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein.

27.   The Madurai-Kamaraj University Act, 1965 (University Act)
    [(Tamil Nadu) ACT No.33 of 1965]


 The  above said Act was enacted by the State  Legislature  to  provide  for
the establishment and incorporation of a University at  Madurai  enacted  by
the  State  Legislature.  Section  2(m)  of  the  University   Act   defines
'teachers' as under:
      "2(m)."teachers" means such lecturers, readers, assistant  professors,
professors and other persons giving instruction in  University  colleges  or
laboratories, in  affiliated  or  approved  colleges,  or  in  hostels,  and
librarians as may be declared by the statutes to be teachers;

Section 2(n) defines 'teachers of the University' as follows:
"2(n)"teachers of the University" means persons appointed by the  University
to give instruction on its behalf;


'University Lecturer', 'University Reader'  or  'University  Professor'  are
defined under Section 2(t) as follows:
       "2(t)"University  Lecturer",  "University  Reader"   or   "University
Professor" means Lecturer, Reader or  Professor  respectively  appointed  as
such by the University;"

Section 8 stipulates the Officers of the University. The said Section is  as
follows:
"Section 8.Officers of the University.- The University shall consist of  the
following officers, namely:-

      (1)The Chancellor;
      (2)The Pro-Chancellor;
      (3)The Vice-Chancellor;
      (4)The Registrar; and
      (5)Such other  persons as  may be
 declared by the statutes to be
 officers of the University."


      Section 9 relates to Chancellor, Section 10 relates to  Pro-Chancellor
and Section 11 relates to the Vice-Chancellor.  The  said  Sections  are  as
follows:
"Section 9.The Chancellor.-(1) The Governor  of  Tamil  Nadu  shall  be  the
Chancellor of the University. He shall, by virtue  of  his  office,  be  the
head of the University and the President  of  the  Senate  and  shall,  when
present, preside at meetings of the Senate and at  any  convocation  of  the
University.

      (2) The Chancellor shall exercise such powers as may be  conferred  on
him by or under this Act.

      (3) Where power is conferred upon the Chancellor to  nominate  persons
to authorities, the Chancellor shall,  to  the  extent  necessary,  nominate
persons to represent interests not otherwise adequately represented.

Section 10. The Pro-Chancellor - (1)The Minister in-charge of the  portfolio
of education in the State of Tamil Nadu shall be the Pro-Chancellor  of  the
University.

      (2) In the absence of  the  Chancellor,  or  during  the  Chancellor's
inability to act, the Pro-Chancellor shall exercise all the  powers  of  the
Chancellor.

Section  11.The  Vice-Chancellor  -  (1)  Every  appointment  of  the  Vice-
Chancellor shall be made by the Chancellor from out  of  a  panel  of  three
names recommended by the  Committee  referred  to  in  sub-section  (2).Such
panel shall not contain the name of any member of the said Committee.

Provided that if the Chancellor does not approve any of the persons  in  the
panel so recommended by the Committee,  he  may  take  steps  to  constitute
another Committee, in accordance with  sub-section  (2),  to  give  a  fresh
panel of three different names and shall appoint one of  the  persons  named
in the fresh panel as the Vice-Chancellor.

(2)For the purpose of sub-section (1), the Committee shall consist of  three
persons of whom one shall be nominated by the Chancellor.

Provided that the person so nominated shall not be a member of  any  of  the
authorities of the University.

(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a period of  three  years  and
shall be eligible for  re-appointment  for  not  more  than  two  successive
terms.

(4)When any termporary vacancy occurs in the office of  the  Vice-Chancellor
or if the Vice-Chancellor is, by reason of absence or for any other  reason,
unable to exercise the powers and perform the  duties  of  his  office,  the
Syndiate shall, as soon as possible, make  the  requisite  arrangements  for
exercising the powers and performing the duties of the Vice-Chancellor.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time officer of the University  and
shall be entitled to such emoluments, allowances and privileges  as  may  be
prescribed by the statutes."


The powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are  mentioned  in  Section  12
which is as follows:

"Section 12. Powers and duties of  the  Vice-Chancellor.  -  (1)  The  Vice-
Chancellor shall be academic head and the  principal  executive  officer  of
the University and  shall,  in  the  absence  of  the  Chancellor  and  Pro-
Chancellor, preside at meetings of the Senate and at any convocation of  the
University. He shall be a member ex-officio and Chairman of  the  Syndicate,
the Academic Council and the Finance Committee and shall be entitled  to  be
present at and to address any meeting of any  authority  of  the  University
but shall not be entitled to vote there at unless he  is  a  member  of  the
authority concerned.

(2)It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Vice-Chancellor  to  ensure  that  the
provisions of  this  Act,  the  statutes,  ordinances  and  regulations  are
observed and carried out and he may exercise all powers necessary  for  this
purpose.

(3)The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to convene meetings of  the  Senate,
the Syndicate, the Academic Council and the Finance Commtitee.

(4)  (a) In any emergency  which  in  the  opinion  of  the  Vice-Chancellor
requires that immediate action should be taken,  he  may  take  such  action
with the sanction of the Chancellor or the Pro-Chancellor, as the  case  may
be, and shall as soon as may be thereafter report his action to the  officer
or authority who or which would have ordinarily dealt with the matter.

(b)When action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under this  sub-section  affects
any person in the service of the University, such person shall  be  entitled
to prefer an appeal to the Syndicate within thirty days  from  the  date  on
which he has notice of such action.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall give effect to the  orders  of  the  Syndicate
regarding the appointment, suspension and  dismissal  of  the  teachers  and
servants of the University and  shall  exercise  general  control  over  the
affairs of the University.

(6)  The  Vice-Chancellor  shall  exercise  such  other  powers  as  may  be
prescribed."


The above provisions indicate that the Vice-Chancellor is the academic  head
[Section 12(1)], heads the Academic Council, and has  general  control  over
teaching and examination within the University and is  responsible  for  the
maintenance of the standards thereof.

28.   Chapter V of the University Act deals  with  the  'Academic  Council',
the Faculties, the Boards and  Studies,  the  Finance  Committee  and  other
Authorities. Section 23 relates to  the  Academic  Council  and  Section  24
deals with the Constitution of the Academic Council.  The  relevant  portion
of the said provisions reads as under:

"                CHAPTER V

THE ACADEMIC COUCIL, THE FACULTIES,  THE  BOARDS  OF  STUDIES,  THE  FINANCE
COMMITTEE AND OTHER AUTHORITIES.

Section  23.The  Academic  Council.-  The  Academic  Council  shall  be  the
academic authority of the University and shall, subject  to  the  provisions
of this Act and the statutes, have the control  and  general  regulation  of
teaching and examination within the University and be  responsible  for  the
maintenance of the standards thereof and shall exercise  such  other  powers
and perform other duties as may be prescribed.

Section 24.Constitution of the Academic
Council.-  (a)  The  Academic  Council  shall,  in  addition  to  the  Vice-
Chancellor, consist of the following persons, namely;-

      Class I - Ex-officio members-

The Director of Higher Education, Madras;
The Director of Secondary Education, Madras;
The Director of Technical Education, Madras;
(3-A) The Director of Medical Educatoin;
The heads of University Departments of Study and Research;
Members of the Syndicate who are  not  otherwise  members  of  the  Academic
Counci;

xxx   xxx   xxx  xxx

29.   Chapter VI of the University Act deals with Statutes,  Ordinances  and
Regulations. Section 30 stipulates the matters which can be  provided  under
Statutes. This includes  the  constitution  or  reconstitution,  powers  and
duties  of  the  authorities  of  the  University.  Section  32  deals  with
Ordinances which may provide  for  all  or  any  of  the  matters  mentioned
therein including the qualifications  and  emoluments  of  teachers  of  the
University [Section 32(d)].

30.   The word  statutes  with  respect  to  University  means  law  of  the
University.  In  the  present  context  it  means  the  provisions  of   the
University Act and the statutes, ordinances and regulations framed  therein.
Chapter V of the Statutes of Madurai Kamaraja University  relates  to  Vice-
Chancellor. Clause 2(1) of Chapter V stipulates that Vice-Chancellor  should
be a whole-time Officer of the University who would  be  the  academic  head
and principal executive officer of the University  with  powers  and  duties
mentioned therein. Relevant portion of the provision reads as follows:
                       "CHAPTER V

                  THE VICE-CHANCELLOR

1.    The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Chancellor from  out  of
a panel of 3 names recommended by the Committee referred  to  in  Statute  5
hereunder. Such panel shall not contain the name of any member of  the  said
Committee.
                 (Act S.11 The Vice-Chancellor)

Provided that if the Chancellor does not approve any of the persons  in  the
panel so recommended by the Committee,  he  may  take  steps  to  constitute
another Committee, in accordance with Statue 5, to give  a  fresh  panel  of
three different names and shall appoint one of  the  persons  named  in  the
fresh panel as the Vice-Chancellor.

2.(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole-time Officer of  the  University.
He shall be the  academic  head  and  Principal  executive  officer  of  the
University.

(2)    The Vice-Chancellor shall in the absence of the  Chancellor  and  the
Pro-Chancellor  preside  at  the  meetings  of  the  Senate,  and   at   any
Convocation of the University.

(Act S.12 Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor)


(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a member ex-officio  and  Chairman  of  the
Syndicate, the Academic Council and the Finance Committee of the  University
and shall be entitled to be present  at  and  address  any  meeting  of  any
authority of the University but shall not  be  entitled  to  vote  there  at
unless he is a member of the authorities concerned.

(4)   The Vice-Chancellor shall have power to convene the  meetings  of  the
Senate, the Syndicate, the Academic Council and  the  Finance  Committee  of
the University.

(5) The Vice-Chancellor shall  exercise  a  general  control  over  all  the
affairs of the University.
xxx   xxx   xxx  xxx   xxx  xxx."


31.   From UGC Regulations, 2010,  it  is  clear  that  the  Vice-Chancellor
should be a distinguished  academician  with  a  minimum  of  ten  years  of
experience as Professor in a University system or ten  years  of  experience
in  an  equivalent  position  in  a   reputed   research   and/or   academic
administrative organization.  Whereas  the  post  of  Vice-Chancellor  under
University Act, 1965 and statute made thereunder is not a teaching post  but
an officer of the University.

Constitutional Provisions:
32.   Article 246 demarcates the matters in respect of which Parliament  and
State Legislature may make laws. The legislative powers of the  Central  and
State Governments are governed by the relevant entries in  the  three  lists
given in 7th Schedule.
                  Entry  66  in  List  I  provides  for  Co-ordination   and
determination of standards in institutions for higher education or  research
and  scientific  and  technical  institutions.   Prior  to  42nd  Amendment,
education including Universities subject to the provisions  of  the  Entries
63, 64, 65, 66 of List-I and Entry 25 of List III was shown in Entry  11  of
the List II - State List. By  42nd  Amendment  of  Constitution  w.e.f.  3rd
January, 1977 Entry 11 of List II-State List was omitted and  was  added  as
Entry 25 of List-III.
At present the aforesaid provisions read as follows:

"Seventh Schedule
        List I - Union List
Entry 66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in  institutions  for
higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.

List III - Concurrent List

Entry 25.- Education, including technical education, medical  education  and
universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63,  64,  65  and  66  of
List I; vocational and technical training of labour."


      Article 254 relates to repugnancy of Law made by the  State  with  the
law made by the Parliament. Article 254 reads as follows:-

"254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and  laws  made  by  the
Legislatures  of  States.-(1)  If  any  provision  of  a  law  made  by  the
Legislature of a State is repugnant to  any  provision  of  a  law  made  by
Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to  any  provision  of
an existing law with respect  to  one  of  the  matters  enumerated  in  the
Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2  ),  the  law
made by Parliament, whether passed before or  after  the  law  made  by  the
Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing  law,  shall
prevail and the law made by the Legislature  of  the  State  shall,  to  the
extent of the repugnancy, be void

(2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect  to  one  of
the matters  enumerated  in  the  concurrent  List  contains  any  provision
repugnant to the provisions of an earlier  law  made  by  Parliament  or  an
existing law with respect to that matter, then,  the  law  so  made  by  the
Legislature  of  such  State  shall,  if  it  has  been  reserved  for   the
consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in  that
State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from  enacting
at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a  law  adding
to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made  by  the  Legislature  of
the State."


33.   The effect in case of inconsistency between the  Legislation  made  by
the Parliament and the State Legislature on the subject covered by List  III
has been decided by this Court in numerous cases.
34.   In State  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  another  vs.  Adhiyhaman  Education  &
Research Institute and others, (1995) 4 SCC 104,  this  Court  noticed  that
Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule has remained unchanged  from  the
inception and that Entry 11 was taken out from List II and  was  amalgamated
with Entry 25 of List III.  In the said case the Court held as follows:
"12.The  subject   "coordination   and   determination   of   standards   in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific  and  technical
institutions" has always remained the special preserve of  Parliament.  This
was so even before the Forty-second Amendment, since Entry  11  of  List  II
even then was subject, among others, to Entry 66 of List I. After  the  said
Amendment, the constitutional position on that score has not  undergone  any
[pic]change. All that has happened is that Entry 11 was taken out from  List
II and amalgamated with Entry 25 of List III. However, even  the  new  Entry
25 of List III is also subject to the provisions, among others, of Entry  66
of List I. It cannot, therefore, be doubted nor is it contended  before  us,
that the legislation  with  regard  to  coordination  and  determination  of
standards in institutions for higher education or  research  and  scientific
and technical institutions has always been the preserve of Parliament.  What
was contended before us on behalf of the State was  that  Entry  66  enables
Parliament to lay down the minimum standards but does not deprive the  State
legislature from laying down standards above the said minimum standards.  We
will deal with this argument at its proper place.
            xxx        xxx        xxxx

41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows:
(i) The expression 'coordination' used in Entry 66 of the Union List of  the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not  merely  mean  evaluation.  It
means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for  a  concerted
action according to a certain design, scheme or  plan  of  development.  It,
therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in  standards
but also for preventing  the  occurrence  of  such  disparities.  It  would,
therefore, also include power to  do  all  things  which  are  necessary  to
prevent what would make 'coordination' either impossible or difficult.  This
power is absolute  and  unconditional  and  in  the  absence  of  any  valid
compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its  plain
and express intention.


(ii) To the extent that the  State  legislation  is  in  conflict  with  the
Central legislation though the former is purported to have been  made  under
Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect  encroaches  upon  legislation
including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25  of  the
Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union  List,  it  would
be void and inoperative.

(iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the  State
legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part  of  clause  (2)  of
Article  254,  the  State  legislation  being  repugnant  to   the   Central
legislation, the same would be inoperative.

(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or  is
repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry  25  of  the  Concurrent
List, will have to be determined by the examination  of  the  two  laws  and
will depend upon the facts of each case.


(v) When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats,  the
State authority is not  prevented  from  laying  down  higher  standards  or
qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the  Central  authority
to short-list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does  not
encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law  which  is  repugnant
to the Central law.


(vi)  However,  when  the  situations/seats  are  available  and  the  State
authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the  applicant  is
not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case  may
be, although the applicant satisfies the standards  or  qualifications  laid
down by the Central law, they  act  unconstitutionally.  So  also  when  the
State authorities  de-recognise  or  disaffiliate  an  institution  for  not
satisfying the standards or requirement  laid  down  by  them,  although  it
satisfied the norms and requirements laid down  by  the  Central  authority,
the State authorities act illegally."

35.   In Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State  of  M.P.  and  others,
(1999) 7 SCC 120, a Constitution Bench of five Judges dealt with  the  State
competence under List III Entry 25 to control or regulate  higher  education
which is subject to standards laid down by the Union  of  India.  The  Court
noticed that the standards of higher education can be laid down  under  List
I Entry 66 by the Central Legislation and held as follows:

"35. The legislative competence of Parliament and the  legislatures  of  the
States to make laws under Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth Schedule  to
the Constitution. In the VIIth Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11  of
List II gave to the State an exclusive power to legislate on

"education including universities, subject to the provisions of Entries  63,
64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III".

Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III  was  amended  with
effect from 3-1-1976 as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment  Act  of
1976. The present Entry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows:

"25.Education,  including  technical  education,   medical   education   and
universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63,  64,  65  and  66  of
List I; vocational and technical training of labour."
[pic]
Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I. Entry 66 of  List  I
is as follows:

"66. Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for  higher
education or research and scientific and technical institutions."

Both the Union as well  as  the  States  have  the  power  to  legislate  on
education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry  66  of
List I which deals with laying down standards  in  institutions  for  higher
education or research and scientific  and  technical  institutions  as  also
coordination of such  standards.  A  State  has,  therefore,  the  right  to
control education including medical education so long as the  field  is  not
occupied by  any  Union  legislation.  Secondly,  the  State  cannot,  while
controlling education in the State, impinge  on  standards  in  institutions
for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of  the
Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the  criteria  for  admission
to  the  institutions  for  higher  education   including   higher   medical
education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by  the
Union of India under Entry 66 of List I.  Secondly,  while  considering  the
cases on the subject it is  also  necessary  to  remember  that  from  1977,
education, including, inter alia, medical and university education,  is  now
in the Concurrent  List  so  that  the  Union  can  legislate  on  admission
criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be  able  to  legislate  in
this field, except as provided in Article 254.

36. It would not be correct to say that the  norms  for  admission  have  no
connection with the standard of education, or that the rules  for  admission
are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms  of  admission  can  have  a
direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can  be  rules
for admission which are consistent with  or  do  not  affect  adversely  the
standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of  powers  under
Entry 66 of List  I.  For  example,  a  State  may,  for  admission  to  the
postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition  to  those
prescribed under  Entry  66  of  List  I.  This  would  be  consistent  with
promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational  courses.
But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse  effect
on the standards  of  education  in  the  institutes  of  higher  education.
Standards of education in  an  institution  or  college  depend  on  various
factors. Some of these are:

(1)   the calibre of the teaching staff;
(2)   a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high  level  of  education  in
the given span of time;
(3)   the student-teacher ratio;
(4)   the ratio between the students and  the  hospital  beds  available  to
each student;
(5)   the calibre of the students admitted to the institution;
(6)   equipment  and  laboratory  facilities,  or  hospital  facilities  for
training in the case of medical colleges;
(7)   adequate accommodation for the college and the attached hospital; and
[pic](8)    the standard of examinations held including the manner in  which
the papers are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged.

37.  While  considering  the  standards  of  education  in  any  college  or
institution, the calibre of students who are admitted  to  that  institution
or college cannot be ignored.  If  the  students  are  of  a  high  calibre,
training programmes can be suitably moulded so that  they  can  receive  the
maximum benefit out of a high level of  teaching.  If  the  calibre  of  the
students is poor or  they  are  unable  to  follow  the  instructions  being
imparted, the standard of teaching necessarily has to  be  lowered  to  make
them understand the course which they have undertaken; and  it  may  not  be
possible to reach  the  levels  of  education  and  training  which  can  be
attained with a bright group. Education involves  a  continuous  interaction
between the teachers and the students. The pace of teaching,  the  level  to
which teaching can rise  and  the  benefit  which  the  students  ultimately
receive, depend as much on the calibre of the students as on the calibre  of
the teachers and the availability of  adequate  infrastructural  facilities.
That is why a lower student-teacher ratio has been considered  essential  at
the levels of higher university education, particularly  when  the  training
to be imparted  is  a  highly  professional  training  requiring  individual
attention and on-hand training to the pupils who  are  already  doctors  and
who  are  expected  to  treat  patients  in  the  course  of   doing   their
postgraduate courses."

36.   In Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government,  Information  and
Tourism Department and others, (2009) 4 SCC 590, this  Court  observed  that
UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of its power  under  Entry  66
of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India  whereas  the
Open University Act was enacted by  Parliament  in  exercise  of  its  power
under Entry 25 of List III.  It was held  that  in  such  circumstances  the
question of repugnancy between the provisions of the  said  two  Acts,  does
not arise. The Court while holding that the provisions of the  UGC  Act  are
binding on all the Universities held as follows:
"40. The UGC Act was enacted by Parliament in exercise of  its  power  under
Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule  to  the  Constitution  of  India
whereas the Open University Act was enacted by  Parliament  in  exercise  of
its power under Entry 25 of List III thereof. The question of repugnancy  of
the provisions of the said two Acts, therefore, does not arise. It  is  true
that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Open University  Act  shows
that the formal system  of  education  had  not  been  able  to  provide  an
effective means to equalise educational opportunities. The system  is  rigid
inter alia in respect of attendance in classrooms. Combinations of  subjects
are also inflexible.

42. The provisions of the UGC Act are binding on  all  universities  whether
conventional or open. Its powers are very broad. The Regulations  framed  by
it in terms of clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1)  of  Section
26 are of wide amplitude. They apply equally to open  universities  as  also
to formal conventional universities. In the matter of higher  education,  it
is necessary to maintain minimum standards  of  instructions.  Such  minimum
standards of instructions are required to be defined by UGC.  The  standards
and  the  coordination  of  work  or  facilities  in  universities  must  be
maintained and for that purpose required to be regulated. The powers of  UGC
under Sections 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(g) are very broad in  nature.  Subordinate
legislation as is well known when validly made becomes part of the  Act.  We
have noticed hereinbefore that the functions of  UGC  are  all-pervasive  in
respect of the matters  specified  in  clause  (d)  of  sub-section  (1)  of
Section 12-A and clauses (a) and (c) of sub-section (2) thereof."



37.   The aforesaid judgment makes it clear that to  the  extent  the  State
Legislation is in conflict with Central Legislation  including  sub-ordinate
legislation  made  by  the  Central  Legislation  under  Entry  25  of   the
Concurrent List shall be repugnant to the Central Legislation and  would  be
inoperative.

38.   The question that now arises is whether any of the provisions  of  the
State Legislation (University Act, 1965) and statutes framed  thereunder  is
in conflict with the Central Legislation i.e. UGC Act,  1956  including  UGC
Regulations, 2010.

39.   We find that post of Vice-Chancellor under the  University  Act,  1965
is a post of an Officer. The UGC Act 1956 is silent about this  aspect.  The
UGC Regulations, 2000 are also silent in regard to post of  Vice-Chancellor.
Provisions regarding Vice-Chancellor have  been  made  for  the  first  time
under UGC Regulations, 2010.

We have noticed and held that UGC Regulations, 2010  is  not  applicable  to
the Universities, Colleges and other higher educational institutions  coming
under the purview of the State Legislature unless State Government  wish  to
adopt and implement the Scheme subject to the terms and conditions  therein.
In this connection, one may refer  paragraph  8(p)(v)  of  Appendix-I  dated
31st December, 2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010.

40.   It is also not  the  case  of  the  respondents  that  the  Scheme  as
contained in Appendix-I to the Annexure of UGC Regulations,  2010  has  been
adopted and implemented by the State Government. It is  also  apparent  from
the facts that  University  Act  has  not  been  amended  in  terms  of  UGC
Regulations, 2010 nor was any action taken by the UGC under  Section  14  of
UGC Act, 1956 as a consequence of failure of University to comply  with  the
recommendations of the Commission under Section 14 of the UGC Act, 1956.

41.   Almost similar Public Interest Litigation was filed  before  the  High
Court of Judicature at Bombay being  Public  Interest  Litigation  (Lodging)
NO.80  of  2011  Suresh  Patilkhede  vs.  The  Chancellor,  Universities  of
Maharashtra (supra). In the said case the  writ  petitioner  challenged  the
appointment of Search Committee  for  recommending  the  panel  of  suitable
person for selection of Vice-Chancellor of Pune  University  on  the  ground
that  the  appointment  of  the  Search  Committee  by  the  Chancellor   in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the  Maharasthra  University
Act is not in conformity with the provisions of Regulation 7.3.0 of the  UGC
Regulations, 2010 made under the UGC Act.

42.   In the said case also, State of  Maharashtra  and  the  Chancellor  of
Pune University while opposing the writ petition had taken a plea  that  UGC
Regulations, 2010 being in the  nature  of  subordinate  Legislation  cannot
override the provisions of Section 12 of  the  Maharashtra  University  Act,
1994, which is a preliminary Legislation made by the State  Legislature.  In
the said case the Bombay High Court held:
      "16.........Applying the aforesaid  test  of  "direct  impact  on  the
standard of Education"  and  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  aforesaid
decisions, we are of the view that the  qualifications  and  the  method  of
appointment  for  the  post  of  Pro-Chancellor  and  Vice-Chancellor  of  a
University cannot be considered as having "direct impact  on  the  standards
of education.

      17. We are, accordingly,  of  the  considered  view  that  Regulations
7.2.0 and 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations for  appointment  of  Pro-Chancellor  and
Vice-Chancellor of the University governed by UGC Act cannot be  treated  as
falling under Clauses (e) and (g) of Section 26(1) of the UGC Act, 1956."

      The Bombay High Court further held:
"46. As already held by us, Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0 of UGC  Regulations,
2010 are traceable to Section 12(d) of UGC  Act,  1956.  The  same  are  not
without any authority  of  law  but  at  the  same  time,  they  are  merely
recommendatory in nature and, therefore, neither the State  Legislature  nor
the State Government is bound to accept  the  same.  Accordingly,  when  the
State Government issued order dated  15th  February,  2011  at  Exhibit  'F'
enumerated those regulations which are adopted by the State  Government  out
of UGC  Regulations,  2010,  the  State  Government  decided  not  to  adopt
Regulations 7.2.0 and 7.3.0. We, therefore, find considerable  substance  in
the argument of learned Advocate  General  that  non-adoption  of  directory
Regulation 7.3.0 would not render the State legislation  or  the  Government
order dated 15th February, 2011 invalid or unconstitutional.

47. To sum up-

Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010 is not traceable to clause (e)  or
clause (g) of Section 26(1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

The source of making Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations,  2010  is  Section
12(d) and (j) of UGC Act, 1956. However, since Section 12(d) and (j) of  UGC
Act merely enables UGC to make recommendations to  Universities,  Regulation
7.3.0 has to be treated as recommendatory in nature.

Regulation 7.3.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010 being  a  subordinate  legislation
under an Act of Parliament cannot override plenary  legislation  enacted  by
the State  Legislature  and,  therefore,  also  Regulation  7.3.0  does  not
override, Section 12 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994."


43.   We do not agree with  the  finding  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  that
Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010 is  not  traceable  to  clause
(e) or (g) of Section 26(1) of UGC Act, 1956. We also refuse to  agree  that
Regulation  7.3.0  of  the  UGC  Regulations,  2010  being  a   sub-ordinate
legislation under the Act of  Parliament  cannot  override  the  preliminary
legislation enacted by the State Legislature. However, the  finding  of  the
Bombay High Court that Regulation 7.3.0 has to be treated as  recommendatory
in nature is upheld in so far as it relates  to  Universities  and  Colleges
under the State Legislation.

44.   In view of the discussion as made above, we hold:
(i)   To the extent the  State  Legislation  is  in  conflict  with  Central
Legislation  including  sub-ordinate  legislation  made   by   the   Central
Legislation under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List shall be repugnant to  the
Central Legislation and would be inoperative.
(ii)  The UGC Regulations being passed by both  the  Houses  of  Parliament,
though a sub-ordinate legislation has binding effect on the Universities  to
which it applies.
(iii)UGC Regulations, 2010 are mandatory  to  teachers  and  other  academic
staff in all the  Central  Universities  and  Colleges  thereunder  and  the
Institutions deemed to be Universities whose maintenance expenditure is  met
by the UGC.
(iv) UGC Regulations, 2010 is directory for the Universities,  Colleges  and
other higher  educational  institutions  under  the  purview  of  the  State
Legislation as the matter has been left to the  State  Government  to  adopt
and implement the Scheme.

      Thus,  UGC  Regulations,  2010  is  partly  mandatory  and  is  partly
directory.
(v)   UGC Regulations, 2010 having not adopted by the State Tamil Nadu,  the
question of conflict between State Legislation  and  Statutes  framed  under
Central Legislation does  not  arise.  Once  it  is  adopted  by  the  State
Government, the State Legislation to be amended appropriately. In such  case
also there shall be no  conflict  between  the  State  Legislation  and  the
Central Legislation.

45.   In view of the reasons and finding as recorded above,  we  uphold  the
appointment of Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as  Vice-Chancellor,  Madurai  Kamaraj
University as made by the G.O.(1D)No.80,  Higher  Education  (H2)Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu dated 9th April, 2012 and set  aside  the  impugned
common judgment and order dated 26th  June,  2014  passed  by  the  Division
Bench of the  Madras  High  Court,  Madurai  Bench  in  Writ  Petition  (MD)
No.11350 of 2012 and Writ Petition (MD) No.3318 of  2013.  The  appeals  are
allowed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there  shall  be  no
order as to costs.


..............................................................................
                                                                       ...J.
                                               (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)


..............................................................................
                                                                       ...J.
                                (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI,
MARCH 11, 2015.

In the case on hand, the evidence adduced by the prosecution as discussed above, clearly proves the chain of events connecting the accused to the guilt of the commission of the offence. The entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, is not only convincing, but is also trustworthy. Even if the confession of accused Nos. 4 and 7 made before PW 1 and PW 2, which is barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, is not taken into account, the other evidence on record adduced by the prosecution, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence.

                                                                  REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      Criminal Appeal No. 2194 OF 2011


Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal                    ... APPELLANT


                                     Vs.


State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.                      ... RESPONDENTS


                                    WITH


                   Criminal Appeal Nos. 2195-2196 OF 2011


Rakesh Anand and Anr.                        ... APPELLANTS


                                     Vs.


State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.                      ... RESPONDENTS


                      Criminal Appeal No. 2198 OF 2011


Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla                             ... APPELLANT


                                     Vs.


State of Uttar Pradesh                             ... RESPONDENT


                        Criminal Appeal No. 2199/2011


Devesh Agnihotri                                   ... APPELLANT


                                     Vs.


State of Uttar Pradesh                             ... RESPONDENT


                        Criminal Appeal No. 2200/2011


Rajesh Verma                                       ... APPELLANT


                                     Vs.


State of Uttar Pradesh                             ... RESPONDENT





                                  JUDGMENT


N.V. RAMANA, J.


These appeals are directed against a common  impugned  judgment  dated  11th
February, 2009 of the High court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, by  which  the
appeals  of  the  appellants  herein  who  are  accused  of  murdering   one
Manjunath, were dismissed.


2.    Material facts of the case as per prosecution are that the  father  of
appellant Monu Mittal (Accused No. 1) was the owner of a petrol pump  namely
M/s Mittal Automobiles situated at Gola,  District  Lakhimpur  Kheri,  Uttar
Pradesh. The deceased Manjunath was working as  a  Sales  Officer  with  the
Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) at Gola.  On 13.9.2005, the deceased  inspected
the petrol pump of Accused No. 1 and on  finding  some  irregularities,  the
sales and supplies of the petrol pump were  suspended  by  the  IOC  at  his
instance. However, the same were restored on 19th October,  2005  after  the
payment of fine of Rs.75,000/- by the owner of the petrol  pump.   Again  on
19th November, 2005, the deceased, being suspicious  of  malpractices  still
being carried on by Accused No. 1, inspected the said petrol pump.


3.    On 20.11.2005, when the Head Constable  (Ram  Bhawan  Singh)  of  P.S.
Mahaoli, District Sitapur, along with Constable Asha Ram  (PW2)  and  Driver
Braj Kishore was on patrol duty on the National Highway, at about  8.00  am,
one Maruti Car bearing No. UP 51 E 5176 was coming  from  the  direction  of
Maigalganj and upon seeing the police jeep, the Maruti Car  suddenly  turned
back and tried to drive away from that place. On suspicion, the  Maruti  Car
was chased and intercepted at about 8.30 am  near  Green  Gold  Dhaba.   One
Vivek Sharma (Appellant - Accused No. 7) was driving the car accompanied  by
another appellant  Rakesh  Kumar  Anand  (Appellant-Accused  No.4)  who  was
sitting on the back seat besides a blood stained dead body of  S.  Manjunath
(deceased). On interrogation, both accused Nos. 4 &  7  confessed  that  the
deceased was shot dead by Pawan Kumar  alias  Monu  Mittal  (Accused  No.1),
Devesh Agnihotri (Accused No. 2), Sanjay Awasthi (Accused No.3),  Lala  Giri
(Accused No.5), Harish Mishra (Accused No.6) at M/S Mittal  Automobiles  and
they were carrying the dead body of the deceased in his car, to  dispose  of
the same at an unknown place. Both the accused Nos. 4 & 7  were  taken  into
custody and a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-1) was prepared and a case against  all
the accused  under  Sections  147,148,149,302  and  Section  201  read  with
Section 34, IPC, was registered on 20.11.2005.


4.    Mr. P.N. Saxena, Sub-Inspector took up the investigation  and  in  the
presence of Dhan Raj Sahani (PW  3,  landlord  of  the  deceased)  conducted
inquest. He collected blood stained seat covers and door  mats  (Ext.  Ka-9)
from the Maruti Car  besides  several  other  belongings  of  the  deceased,
prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-8) and sent  the  dead  body  for  post  mortem.
Thereafter, he transferred the  investigation  to  P.S.  Gola,  and  Parmesh
Shukla, SHO(PW21) who took up further investigation, arrested Shivkesh  Giri
@  Lala Giri (Accused No. 5) on 22.11.2005.  He also recovered a  wet  blood
stained cloth from behind the  Petrol  Pump  which  was  allegedly  used  in
cleaning the murder spot at the instance of Accused no 5.  Three  cartridges
of 32 bore (Ext. Ka-16) were also recovered from behind the Petrol  Pump  on
his pointing.  Based on the confession of Lala  Giri  (Accused  No.  5),  he
arrested the other accused Pawan Kumar, Sanjay  Awasthi,  Rajesh  Verma  and
Harish Mishra at 6.50 p.m. near railway crossing in a car bearing number  UP
31 F4629.  A revolver was recovered from accused Rajesh Verma, owner of  the
car and a Pistol was recovered from accused Pawan  Kumar  (Ext  Ka-17).   On
23.11.2005 at 8:30 am, the IO recovered the car of accused Pawan Kumar,  his
blood stained pant from Punerbhoo  forest,  Kheri.  The  IO  also  recovered
three  empty  cartridges  from  the  diesel  tank  of  the  Petrol  Pump  on
24.11.2005 at 9:30 am on pointing of Accused  No.  1  Monu  Mittal.  Accused
No.2 - Devesh Agnihotri was also arrested on the same day at 6:00 pm  by  TN
Tripathi, Sub-Inspector (PW 19) from Bheera and at his instance, four  empty
cartridges (Ext. Ka-20) fired from the revolver of accused No.  8  -  Rajesh
Verma were recovered from the house of one Jitendra Mishra uncle  of  Sanjay
Awasthi (A-3).


5.    After investigation, the IO submitted charge sheet, and the  case  was
committed for trial. The trial court framed charges against all the  accused
u/s 147,148, 302 r/w 149, 201 and 120 B, IPC.  Additional  charges  u/s  404
and 411 of IPC, Section 30 of the Arms Act were framed against  accused  No.
1 - Pawan Kumar, charges u/s 212 IPC and Sections  25/30  of  the  Arms  Act
were framed against  accused  No.8  -  Rajesh  Verma.   Also  charges  under
Section 411, IPC were  framed  against  accused  No.7  -  Vivek  Sharma  and
Accused No. 4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand.


6.    The Trial Court convicted and  sentenced  the  accused  No.1  -  Pawan
Kumar @ Monu Mittal to death for offences u/s 302 r/w 149, IPC and to pay  a
fine of Rs 10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for  one
year. He was also sentenced to 2 years RI and to pay a fine of  Rs.  5000/-,
in default 3  months  SI  for  the  offence  u/s  404,  IPC   and  6  months
imprisonment u/s 30 of the Arms Act, 2 years RI and to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs
5000/- u/s 404, IPC and in default to  undergo  3  months  S.I.   The  other
accused, namely accused No.2 -  Devesh  Agnihotri,  accused  No.3  -  Sanjay
Awasthi, accused No. 4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand, accused No. 5 -  Shivkesh  Giri
@ Lalla Giri, accused No. 6 - Harish Mishra, accused No. 7  -  Vivek  Sharma
and accused No. 8 - Rajesh Verma were also convicted  u/s  302  r/w  Section
149, IPC and sentenced  to  suffer  life  imprisonment.  They  were  further
sentenced to suffer one year RI u/s 148, 5 years RI u/s 201,  IPC,  5  years
RI u/s 120 B IPC. Accused No.8 - Rajesh Verma was also  convicted  u/s  212,
IPC and sentenced to 3 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000/-, in  default
to undergo 6 months SI u/s 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced  to  1  year  RI
and to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, in default to suffer SI for 3 months and  6
months RI u/s 30 of the Arms Act. Accused Rakesh  Anand,  Vivek  Sharma  and
Pawan Kumar were also  sentenced  to  2  years  RI  u/s  411  IPC.  All  the
sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.


7.    Aggrieved thereby, the  accused-appellants  preferred  appeals  before
the High Court.  The High Court by the impugned  judgment  dated  11.12.2009
partly allowed the appeal of Pawan Kumar (Accused No. 1)  and  modified  his
death sentence  to  life  imprisonment  u/s  302  r/w  149  but  upheld  the
convictions for the other offences they are charged  with.  The  appeals  of
the accused Devesh Agnihotri      (A-2), Rakesh Anand (A-4),  Shivkesh  Giri
@ Lalla Giri  (A-5),  Vivek  Sharma  (A-7)  and  Rajesh  Verma  (A-8)  were,
however, dismissed by the  High  Court.  The  appeals  of  other  co-accused
Harish Mishra (A-6) and  Sanjay  Awasthi  (A-3)  were  allowed  giving  them
benefit of doubt and  acquitted  them  of  all  charges.  Against  the  said
judgment passed by the High Court, Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 & 8 filed  the
present appeals before this Court.

8.    Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argued  that  the  Courts
below have  committed  a  grave  error  in  convicting  and  sentencing  the
appellants on the very evidence by which it acquitted the co-accused  Harish
Mishra and Sanjay Awasthi of all the charges. The High Court  relied  solely
on the confessional statements of the accused/appellants made to the  police
which is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25 of  the  Indian  Evidence
Act.  Taking support from a decision of this Court  in  Aghnoo  Nagesia  Vs.
State of Bihar,  (1966)  1  SCR  134,  learned  counsel  submitted  that  "a
confession  made  to  a  police  officer  under  any  circumstances  is  not
admissible in evidence against the accused.  It  covers  a  confession  made
when the accused was free and not in police custody, as  also  a  confession
made before any investigation has begun".   Unfortunately,  the  High  Court
has not considered Section 25 of the Evidence Act in  its  true  spirit  and
erred in holding that the confessional statement of  accused  given  to  the
police officer  is  admissible,  because  the  same  was  not  made  to  the
Investigating Officer but to some other police officer. Taking support  from
a decision of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Barkat  Ram,  (1962)  3  SCR
338, learned counsel submitted that the confession made  to  any  member  of
the police, of whatever rank  and  at  whatever  time,  is  inadmissible  in
evidence as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

9.    The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned  judgement  is
based only on conjectures and surmises and not on any  cogent  and  reliable
evidence. There were no  eyewitness  to  the  occurrence  and  the  case  of
prosecution is based solely on the circumstantial evidence. The  prosecution
has completely failed to prove the  chain  of  events  linking  the  accused
appellants to the commission of offence.  There  is  no  direct  witness  or
incriminating evidence against the appellants to  establish  the  motive  of
the accused to kill the deceased.  The courts below have  ignored  the  fact
that neither the Ballistic Report (Ext.  61)  nor  the  Serological  Reports
(Exts. Ka-60, 62, 62A) support the case of  prosecution.  In  the  ballistic
report, no special characteristics were found and no conclusive opinion  was
given that the shots were fired from the gun of the accused.  The  Ballistic
Expert (Ext. Ka-61) clearly mentioned in the  report  that  "the  individual
characteristics are absent" for giving a definite opinion.  In  the  absence
of a firm expert opinion, it cannot be conclusively held  that  the  bullets
recovered from near and around the scene of offence were fired from the  gun
of accused No .1 Pawan Kumar.


10.   It is the contention of the learned  counsel  that  according  to  the
Serological Report (Ext. Ka-60), no blood was found on the  cloth  recovered
from behind the petrol pump which was allegedly used to clean  the  site  of
crime as also the pant of the accused No. 1 (Exts. Ka-62 & 62A) Pawan  Kumar
allegedly recovered from his car. Another crucial loophole that  is  evident
from the prosecution story is that the body  of  the  deceased  was  stained
with blood, but no blood stains were reported to be found on the clothes  of
accused No. 7 - Vivek Sharma and accused No. 4  -  Rakesh  Kumar  Anand  who
were allegedly carrying the dead body of the deceased in his car to  dispose
of the same.  Also another dubious circumstance sought to be proved  by  the
prosecution is that when the car in which accused No.7 -  Vivek  Sharma  and
accused No.4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand,  were  carrying  the  dead  body  of  the
deceased was intercepted, P.W.3 - Dhanraj Sahni, landlord  of  the  deceased
appeared from the crowd and  recognized  the  dead  body.   Learned  counsel
submitted that the landlord was living far away  from  the  site  where  the
accused were apprehended, and no reason is given by the prosecution for  his
presence at the spot where the car carrying the dead body  of  the  deceased
was intercepted.  This casts a doubt on  the  prosecution  story  about  the
presence of the landlord at that point of time.


11.   The learned counsel strenuously  contends  that  another  aspect  that
probablises the factum of manipulation of the case  by  the  prosecution  to
implicate  the  appellants  into  the  crime  is  that  according   to   the
prosecution case, in all, eleven bullets were fired  at  the  deceased,  but
according to the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-14), the deceased had  suffered
six firearm injuries, out of which there were two exit wounds  on  his  body
and four bullets were recovered from his  body.  There  was  no  explanation
coming forward from  the  prosecution  as  regards  not  finding  the  other
bullets. It is not possible to imagine that other seven bullets did not  hit
anywhere at the place of incident. This fact clearly  establishes  that  the
prosecution manipulated the investigation.   The  prosecution  thus  totally
failed to prove the place of occurrence and the recoveries alleged  to  have
been made from the scene of offence were planted  for  the  purpose  of  the
case.


12.   Learned counsel further submitted that the Courts below  have  utterly
failed to take into account the  important  material  contradictions  before
convicting the appellants. PW 21 -  Parmesh Kumar Shukla, SHO  was  said  to
have taken control of the case on the evening of 20th November, 2005 and  he
came to know about the place of incident only on 21st November,  2005  seems
improbable. The same stood fortified by the fact that as  per  Rojanama  (GD
No. 38 dated 21-11-2005) he had visited  the  alleged  place  of  occurrence
i.e. petrol pump on 21.11.2005.  Whereas in his deposition before the  Trial
Court he denied to have gone there on 21-11-2005 and he further stated  that
he went to the place of occurrence for the first time only on 22-11-2005  in
the afternoon. It is, therefore, clear that the investigations are  tainted,
vital and material portion has been deliberately concealed.  The  deposition
of PW 21 visiting the place of occurrence on 22-11-2005 ought to  have  been
rejected by the Courts below. Once a material portion  of  the  evidence  of
I.O. is found to be false, no reliance could be  placed  on  his  statement.
Such material contradictions would not only cast a doubt  on  his  evidence,
but discredits the entire case of prosecution. Another  discrepancy  in  the
prosecution story pointed  out  by  the  learned  counsel  is  that  as  per
prosecution, accused No.5- Lalla Giri was arrested by  PW  21  on     22-11-
2005 from Railway Station, whereas on 21-11-2005 at about 3.15  p.m.  mother
of Lalla Giri (A-5) had sent a telegram (Ext. Kha-2)  to  the  DIG,  Lucknow
complaining therein that her son has been  wrongfully  confined  by  the  PS
Gola since 20-11-2005. This uncontroverted fact belies his arrest  and  thus
the recoveries allegedly made at his instance cannot be relied upon.


13.   Learned counsel further contended that the Courts below  have  wrongly
attributed the motive for the crime inasmuch as M/S Mittal  Automobiles  was
sealed by the deceased owing to alleged malpractices. It  is  admitted  fact
that apart from Mittal Automobiles one more petrol pump L.D Service  Station
was inspected by the deceased on the same day and samples taken  were  found
to be adulterated, but no investigation was carried out in this  regard.  In
fact, no adulteration was detected  from  the  samples  collected  from  M/S
Mittal  Automobiles.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  Weights   and   Measurement
Department conducted test of HSD (1150 ltrs.) from June, 2005 to  13.9.2005.
Though the entries were made in the  Daily  Stock  Register  of  M/S  Mittal
Automobiles, no corresponding entry was made  in  the  main  stock  register
which resulted in stock variation which led to the  sealing  of  the  petrol
pump. When M/S Mittal Automobiles clarified the same by reply  dated  18-10-
2005, the petrol pump was restored. The fine  of  Rs.75,000/-  was  paid  in
respect of technical  defaults  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  supply  is
restored. Hence, the motive part advanced by the prosecution is  not  proved
and the Courts below have erred in not appreciating this fact.


14.   Learned counsel  appearing  for  Accused  No.  2  -  Devesh  Agnihotri
submitted that the appellant  was  wrongly  implicated  in  the  crime.  The
appellant has no previous association with the prime  accused  Monu  Mittal.
The appellant-accused No. 2 was not even present at the scene  of  crime  at
the relevant time as he was attending marriage of  his  brother  in  law  in
District Etah which is far away from  the  place  of  occurrence.  Moreover,
there is no incriminating evidence against accused No. 2.


15.   On behalf of Accused No. 5-Lalla Giri it is specifically  argued  that
he has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court merely because  he  was  an
ex-employee of Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal (Accused No.1).  Mere  recovery  of
empty cartridges  at  the  instance  of  this  appellant-accused  is  of  no
consequence when there is no  evidence  linking  his  participation  in  the
crime.  Moreover,  the  recovery  of  empty  cartridges  at  the  place   of
occurrence itself is highly doubtful as they can  easily  be  destroyed.  In
support of the argument that in  the  absence  of  any  link  evidence,  the
appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302, IPC learned counsel  relied
on Mani Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2009) 17 SCC 273.  Learned  counsel  further
argued that at the most the case against  the  appellant  cannot  be  beyond
Section 201, IPC  for which the maximum sentence is 10 years. The  appellant
has already undergone about 9  years imprisonment.


16.   Learned counsel appearing for Accused No.4- Rakesh Anand  and  Accused
No.7- Vivek Sharma submitted that the prosecution  has  failed  to  complete
the chain  of  events  qua  Accused  Nos.  4  and  7  to  bring  home  their
culpability. Both the courts below have gravely erred in  holding  that  the
dead body of the  deceased  was  recovered  from  the  possession  of  these
appellants on 20.11.20005 at 8.00 am.  As per prosecution, at  the  time  of
their arrest, the dead body of the deceased was bleeding, but admittedly  no
blood was found on their clothes. No weapon,  driving  licence,  money  etc.
were found from their possession. No relation between these two accused  and
other accused has been proved. Moreover, there was  no  examination  of  any
independent witness to support the story of prosecution that the  dead  body
of the deceased was recovered from the  possession  of  these  two  accused.
Allegedly, there was a mob of about 100 to  150  people  at  that  point  of
time, but no independent witness has been examined to prove the  prosecution
story, and in the absence of any independent  witness  being  examined,  the
confession statement and consequent recovery, cannot  be  believed.  Learned
counsel therefore submitted that it is  in  the  interest  of  justice,  the
appeals be allowed, as otherwise, the appellants  would  suffer  irreparable
injustice, loss and injury.


17.   Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Accused  No.  8  -Rajesh  Verma
argued that the appellant was merely an employee of an Urban  Co-  operative
Bank and had no previous enmity or motive to kill the deceased as he had  no
interests in the business of Petrol Pump. His name neither  figured  in  the
confessional statement of the accused nor in the  F.I.R.  According  to  the
prosecution, the licensed revolver of Accused No. 8 was recovered on  22-11-
2005, but it was not even  sealed  at  the  spot  despite  the  I.O.  having
specific knowledge about  its  use.   There  was  no  specific  evidence  to
establish the date, time and  place  of  it  being  sealed.  Only  the  oral
assertion of I.O. that the weapon was sealed a couple of days later by  him,
shows the possibility of revolver or bullet being changed,  thereby  wrongly
implicating the accused  in  the  crime.  There  was  also  no  evidence  of
conspiracy against this appellant nor was  any  evidence  to  establish  the
intention, knowledge or prior  meeting  of  the  appellant  with  the  other
accused to commit the crime. The I.O.  in  the  cross  examination  admitted
that the appellant neither used his revolver nor was present at the time  of
occurrence. There is also no  absolute  evidence  of  appellant  giving  his
revolver to the prime accused. The appellant  was  an  active  worker  of  a
political party and his political rivals being inimical towards him  he  was
falsely  implicated,  but  the  Courts  below  have  failed  to  take   into
consideration this aspect.


18.   Learned counsel appearing  for  all  the  accused-appellants  strongly
contended that the Courts below have committed  grave  error  in  convicting
and sentencing the accused. The impugned judgment is not based on  the  true
principles of law.  It is not only gravely erroneous, but also  against  the
material available on record.  The  alleged  circumstances  do  not  form  a
complete chain of events linking  the  accused  to  the  commission  of  the
crime, and the incriminating circumstances having not  been  proved  by  the
prosecution, in accordance with law, the impugned judgment is, liable to  be
set aside.

19.   Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General  appearing  for
the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and  submitted
that this is an  unfortunate  case  where  an  Officer  of  the  Indian  Oil
Corporation was brutally murdered by the accused for honestly  carrying  out
his duties. This incident has shocked the entire nation and has  shaken  the
confidence of thousands of aspiring officers.   He  submitted  that  Accused
No. 1 Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal had developed grudge  against  the  deceased
because he inspected the petrol pump run by him  on  13.9.2005  and  pointed
out certain irregularities, and on his intimation to IOC (Ext.  Ka-34),  the
sales and supplies of the pump were suspended. The supplies  were,  however,
restored only after payment of fine on  19th  October,  2005.  The  deceased
again visited the petrol pump of the accused  on  19th  November,  2005  for
inspection and thereafter he was not seen alive.

20.   The learned AAG, on behalf of  the  prosecution,  submitted  that  the
incriminating articles including empty cartridges (Ext. 13) fired  from  the
licensed pistol  of  Accused  No.  1,  blood  stained  earth  (Ext.  Ka  60)
recovered from the petrol pump of Accused No. 1 and  on  his  pointing  out,
the mobile instrument of the deceased was recovered from  the  forest  (Ext.
Ka 21).  The Ballistic Expert in  his  report  clearly  mentioned  that  the
bullets found in the body of the  deceased  were  fired  from  the  licensed
pistol of Accused No. 1. The irregularities committed  by  the  petrol  pump
were writ large inasmuch as certain important documents and other  materials
which were necessarily required to be kept in the show room were not  found,
when the police  along  with  IOC  official  and  official  of  Weights  and
Measurements  Department  inspected.  Moreover,  some  articles   used   for
tampering of the seals of the machines and tank were found.

21.   Learned AAG contended that the involvement  of  accused  Rakesh  Anand
(Accused No.4) and Vivek Sharma (Accused No.7) has been  proved  beyond  all
reasonable doubt as they were caught by  patrolling  police  officials  PW1-
Head Constable Ram  Bhawan,  PW2  -  Constable  Asha  Ram  while  they  were
carrying  the  dead  body  of  the  deceased  in  his  car.   This  fact  is
corroborated by the independent witness Dhanraj Sahni-PW3, the  landlord  of
the deceased.  Accused No. 2 - Devesh  Agnihotri's  involvement  is  evident
from the confession of the co-accused, namely accused No.7  -  Vivek  Sharma
and accused No.4 - Rakesh Kumar Anand and also  by  accused  No.8  -  Rajesh
Verma, who confessed that his revolver was used by accused No.  2  -  Devesh
Agnihotri for the commission of crime. After his  arrest,  he  confessed  to
the commission of the crime and also led  to  the  recovery  of  four  empty
cartridges shot from the revolver of accused No. 8  -  Rajesh  Verma.   Also
accused No.2 - Devesh Agnihotri along  with  accused  No.4  -  Rakesh  Kumar
Anand were earlier charge sheeted for an offence u/s 307 IPC in  1998  which
is sufficient  to  establish  their  nexus.  Accused  No.5  -  Lalla  Giri's
involvement came to light from the confession made by accused No.7  -  Vivek
Sharma (A-7) and accused No.4  -  Rakesh  Kumar  Anand,  at  whose  instance
accused No.5 - Lalla Giri was  arrested  on  22.11.2005,  from  the  Railway
Station while he was trying to abscond. Accused No.5 - Lalla  Giri,  led  to
the recovery of three cartridges from behind the petrol pump and three  more
from the tank of the petrol pump. This clearly explains that accused No.5  -
Lalla Giri, has played an active role in the conspiracy  in  and  commission
of the crime.  Accused No.8 - Rajesh Verma was arrested along  with  Accused
No. 1 - Pawan Kumar and other accused when he was taking them in his car  on
22.11.2005 and a revolver with two live and  four  missing  cartridges  were
recovered from his possession. Those four cartridges were recovered  at  the
instance of accused  No.2  -  Devesh  Agnihotri.   Thus,  in  the  light  of
confessional statements of the accused and  the  recoveries  made  at  their
instance, their involvement in the crime is established by  the  prosecution
beyond all reasonable doubt.  Therefore, no interference is  warranted  with
the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Trial  Court  as  well  as
the High Court, upon appreciation of entire evidence on record.

22.   Learned AAG, placing reliance  on  Dalbir  Kaur  v.  State  of  Punjab
(1976)  4  SCC  158   and  Shivnarayan  Laxminarayan  Joshi  v.   State   of
Maharashtra  (1980) 2 SCC 465 finally submitted  that  when  the  cumulative
effect  of  the  evidence  against  the  accused  persons  is   sufficiently
convincing for the trial court as well as the High Court  to  have  come  to
the conclusion that the offence with which the  accused  were  charged  were
established against them  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  unless  there  is
substantial question  of  law  involved,  this  Court  should  refrain  from
interfering with the concurrent findings of fact given by the Courts  below.


23.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and  carefully
perused the material on record.

24.   The contention of the learned  Additional  Advocate  General  for  the
State that in view of the concurrent  findings  on  facts  recorded  by  the
trial Court  and  confirmed  by  the  High  Court,  this  Court  should  not
interfere with such findings, unless there is substantial  question  of  law
involved.  Before dealing with the above contention, it  is  appropriate  to
refer to the judgments in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab  (1976) 4  SCC  158
and Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of  Maharashtra   (1980)  2  SCC
465, wherein this Court laid down the guidelines.

In Dalbir Kaur (supra) it was held as under:

"8.   Thus  the  principles  governing  interference  by  this  Court  in  a
criminal appeal by special leave may be summarised as follows:

(1) that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent finding of  fact
based on pure appreciation of evidence even if it were to take  a  different
view on the evidence;

(2) that the Court will not normally enter into a reappraisement  or  review
of the evidence, unless the assessment of the High Court is vitiated  by  an
error of law or procedure or is based on  error  of  record,  misreading  of
evidence or is inconsistent with  the  evidence,  for  instance,  where  the
ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with the  medical  evidence  and  so
on;

(3)  that the Court would not enter into credibility of the evidence with  a
view to substitute its own opinion for that of the High Court;

(4)  that the Court would interfere where the High Court has  arrived  at  a
finding of fact in disregard of a judicial process,  principles  of  natural
justice or a  fair  hearing  or  has  acted  in  violation  of  a  mandatory
provision of law or procedure resulting in serious  prejudice  or  injustice
to the accused;

(5)  this Court might  also  interfere  where  on  the  proved  facts  wrong
inferences of law have been drawn or  where  the  conclusions  of  the  High
Court are manifestly perverse and based on no evidence.

It is very difficult to lay down a rule of universal  application,  but  the
principles mentioned above and those adumbrated in the authorities  of  this
Court cited supra provide sufficient guidelines for  this  Court  to  decide
criminal appeals by special leave.  Thus in a  criminal  appeal  by  special
leave, this Court at the hearing examines the evidence and the  judgment  of
the High Court with the limited purpose of determining whether  or  not  the
High Court has followed the principles enunciated above.   Where  the  Court
finds that the  High  Court  has  committed  no  violation  of  the  various
principles laid down by this Court and has made a correct approach  and  has
not ignored or overlooked striking features in the evidence  which  demolish
the prosecution case, the findings of fact arrived at by the High  Court  on
an appreciation of the evidence in the circumstances of the case  would  not
be disturbed.

9.    Much time, energy  and  expense  could  be  saved  if  the  principles
enunciated above are strictly adhered to by  counsel  for  the  parties  and
they confine their arguments within the four  corners  of  those  principles
and they  cooperate  in  this  sound  and  subtle  judicial  method  without
transgressing the limits imposed by the  decisions  of  this  Court  on  its
power to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact."



In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi (supra), it was held as under:

"...On a perusal of the record  and  judgment  of  the  High  Court  we  are
clearly of the opinion that these  appeals  are  concluded  by  findings  of
facts.  It is well settled  that  this  Court  in  special  leave  will  not
interfere  with  concurrent  findings  of  facts  unless  the  findings  are
vitiated by a grave error of law or by an error which leads to  serious  and
substantial miscarriage of justice.  After a perusal of the judgment of  the
courts below we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken  by
the High Court and are  unable  to  find  any  special  circumstances  which
require our interference with the order passed by the High Court."

      Therefore, what has to be appreciated in these appeals is whether  any
findings are vitiated by grave error of law or by an error  which  leads  to
serious and substantial miscarriage of justice, warranting  interference  of
this Court.

25.   Coming to the facts of this case, there are no direct
eye-witnesses to the incident.  The entire case of the prosecution is  based
on the circumstantial evidence.  The FIR came to  be  registered,  based  on
the confessional statement of accused No.7 - Vivek Sharma and  accused  No.4
- Rakesh Kumar Anand, made to the Head Constable - Ram Bhawan Singh  -  PW1.
They  confessed  before  P.W.1  about  the  commission  of  the  crime   and
involvement of  the  other  accused,  when  he  along  with  another  police
constable intercepted the car, while they were transporting  the  dead  body
of the deceased to dispose it of. Based on the confession statement made  by
them about the commission of the crime and  involvement  of  other  accused,
the accused were arrested and recoveries were made at their  instance.   The
contention that is put forth  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  is  that  the
confession made to the police is not admissible in evidence, as per  Section
25 of the Evidence Act.  It is settled  principle  of  law  that  statements
made by an accused before police official  which  amount  to  confession  is
barred under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence  Act.  This  prohibition  is,
however, lifted to some extent by Section 27 which reads thus:

27. How much of information received from accused  may  be  proved.-Provided
that,  when  any  fact  is  deposed  to  as  discovered  in  consequence  of
information received from a person accused of any offence,  in  the  custody
of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it  amounts  to  a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to  the  fact  thereby  discovered,
may be proved.

26.   In the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act,  whatever  information
given by the accused in consequence of  which  a  fact  is  discovered  only
would be admissible in the evidence, whether  such  information  amounts  to
confession or not. The basic idea embedded under Section 27 of the  Evidence
Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.  The  doctrine  is
founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made  on
the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such  a  discovery
is a guarantee [pic]that the information supplied by the prisoner  is  true.
The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature,  but  if
it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a  reliable  information  [See:
State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269.

27.   The "fact discovered" as envisaged under Section 27  of  the  Evidence
Act embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge  of
the accused as to it, but the information given must  relate  distinctly  to
that effect.

28.   In the present case, Accused Nos. 4 & 7 disclosed the names  of  their
co-accused at  whose  instance  various  incriminating  materials  including
pistols, cartridges, bullets, blood stained articles were recovered.  Simply
denying their role without proper explanation  as  to  the  knowledge  about
those incriminating material would justify  the  presumption  drawn  by  the
Courts  below  to  the  involvement  of  the  accused  in  the  crime.   The
confession given by the accused is not the basis for  the  courts  below  to
convict the accused, but it is only a  source  of  information  to  put  the
criminal law into motion.  Hence, the  accused  cannot  take  shelter  under
Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

29.   The next contention of the appellants is that  the  prosecution  could
not prove the motive of the accused for the commission of the  offence.   We
feel that the motive behind the brutal murder of  the  deceased  as  brought
forward  by  the  prosecution  is  trustworthy  in  the  light  of  material
available on record. Considering the evidence on record, there is  no  doubt
in  our  mind  that  the  deceased-Manjunath  had   inspected   M/S   Mittal
Automobiles on 13.9.2005 and on finding irregularities, he had reported  the
same to the IOC and at his instance, the sales and supplies to the  Pump  of
accused No.1 were suspended [Ex Ka-34]. The IOC  thereafter  issued  a  show
cause notice to the father  of  Accused  No.1.  In  reply,  his  father  had
admitted that the pump was being managed  by  his  son  Pawan  Kumar  Mittal
(Exts. 29 & 30).  The record shows that accused No.1 was made to pay a  fine
of Rs 50000/- vide DD No.083226, dated 17.10.2005 and  another   Rs  25000/-
vide DD no. 083227, dated 17.10.2005 [Exts. Ka  29-30].  Though,  the  sales
and supplies were resumed on
19-10-2005, the deceased had again inspected the pump on 19.11.2005,  a  day
before he was found dead.  Suspecting that the  deceased  would  again  give
report to IOC alleging irregularities in the supplies, in  which  event,  he
would either  be  called  upon  to  pay  fine  or  may  render  his  licence
suspended, accused No.1  bore  grudge  and  with  the  assistance  of  other
accused, murdered the deceased.  The fact  that  on  the  fateful  day,  the
deceased visited the petrol bunk of accused  No.1,  where  he  was  brutally
murdered, is evident from the evidence  of  PW  4  -  Ashok  Kumar  Agarwal,
Manager of M/S Agrawal Brothers Petrol Pump, who  in  his  evidence  deposed
that the Accused No. 1 was inquiring about the location and movement of  the
deceased prior to the alleged incident on  19th  November,  2005.   P.W.5  -
Anurag Agarwal of M/s. Agarwal Brothers and P.W.8 - Ramesh  Chandra  Pandey,
Manager of M/s. Alankar Hotel, also deposed that the deceased  was  in  Gola
on the day of incident.  P.W.5 also deposed that the deceased left for  M/s.
Mittal Automobiles from his pump at 9.30  pm.   P.W.17  -  R.K.  Justi,  the
immediate senior officer of the deceased deposed that the deceased had  gone
to M/s. Mittal Automobiles for inspection on 19.11.2005. He further  deposed
that in his presence, three cartridges were recovered from the tank of  M/s.
Mittal Automobiles.  This evidence clearly shows that on  the  fateful  day,
the deceased went to M/s. Mittal Automobiles, and thereafter, he  was  found
dead.  Considering the fact that  at  the  instance  of  the  deceased,  IOC
imposed  fine  on  accused  No.1  for  the  irregularities  found   in   the
dispensation of fuel, which lead to his  paying  up  fine,  there  is  every
possibility of accused No.1 bearing grudge against the  deceased,  when  the
deceased visited his bunk on 19.11.2005, suspecting that the deceased  would
again inspect the bunk and report the irregularities, in which event he  may
end up either paying fine or it will result in his licence being  cancelled,
accused No.1 with the assistance of other accused, had conspired to do  away
with the deceased, and accordingly killed him.

30.   We are in full agreement  with  the  Courts  below  that  the  accused
conspired to commit the  offence  of  murder  of  the  deceased.  The  nexus
between the accused to do away with the deceased, has  been  established  by
the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.  Accused No.1-  Pawan  Kumar  @
Monu Mittal, being the owner/in-charge  of  pump  where  the  incident  took
place, is an interested party in the crime to do  away  with  the  deceased,
because at his instance, the supplies were suspended and  only  upon  paying
fine, the supplies were restored.  Accused No.4 - Rakesh Anand  and  Accused
No.7 - Vivek Sharma, were caught by  P.W.1  -  Head  Constable  and  another
police constable, while they were trying to dispose of the dead body of  the
deceased in his own car.  They confessed about the  involvement  of  accused
No.5 - Lalla Giri.  Lalla Giri (A-5) is an ex-employee of  Pawan  Kumar  (A-
1), and at his instance, three bullets were recovered from the petrol  pump,
which proves his presence at the spot and the time of  occurrence.   Accused
no.2 - Devesh Agnihotri's involvement is ascertained by  the  fact  that  he
had led to the recovery of four cartridges from the house of maternal  uncle
of Sanjay Awasthi.  Devesh Agnihotri (A-2) was  earlier  tried  for  a  case
under Section 307 IPC along with Accused no.4 - Rakesh Anand,  which  proves
his previous association with the conspirators, though  cannot  be  a  basis
for the conviction. At the instance of Accused No.  2  -  Devesh  Agnihotri,
Accused No.8 - Rajesh Verma was arrested with Accused No. 1 -  Monu  Mittal,
while he was taking him in his own car, which proves  his  association  with
the main accused.  At the time of his  arrest,  a  revolver  with  two  live
cartridges was recovered.  A rifle (Ext. Ka-18) belonging to Accused No.1  -
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal, was also recovered  from  the  house  of  Accused
No.8 - Rajesh Verma. Thus the nexus between the accused  as  well  as  their
participation in the crime is well established beyond reasonable  doubt  and
we find nothing on record to suggest that  the  accused  were  unnecessarily
implicated by the police.

31.   There is also no doubt in our mind as regards the place  of  incident.
An effort has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused  to
raise doubts over the same on the ground that the number of bullets used  in
the crime is  not  proportionate  to  the  number  of  bullets  hitting  the
deceased.  It came on record in the evidence of PW-5  -  Anurag  Agrawal  of
M/s Aggarwal Brothers Petrol Pump that the  deceased  had  informed  him  at
9.30 p.m. on  19.11.2005  that  from  there  he  was  going  to  M/S  Mittal
Automobiles, to take  his  measuring  instruments  which  he  had  forgotten
there. The recovery of bullets from the tank of M/S Mittal  Automobiles  and
from behind their petrol pump along with blood  stained  cloth  cumulatively
establish the place of incident to be  M/S  Mittal  Automobiles.   In  every
case of gun firing, it is not required that each  and  every  bullet  should
hit the target.  There may be attempts by the  deceased  or  the  victim  to
save himself from the raining bullets, and in which case,  the  bullets  may
not hit the target.  Merely because all the bullets fired from the  gun  did
not hit the target and were not recovered from the scene of offence,  is  no
ground to conclude that the incident did not take place.

32.   As regards the allegation  of  contradictions  in  the  statements  of
prosecution witnesses,  we  do  not  find  any  major  contradictions  which
require our attention and consideration.  When  a  witness  is  examined  at
length it is quite possible for him to  make  some  discrepancies.  No  true
witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. But  Courts
should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of  a
witness are so incompatible with the credibility of  his  version  that  the
Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence [See:  Rammi   Vs.  State  of
M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649].   There  is  no  doubt  that  when  two  views  are
possible, the one which favours the accused should be taken and the  accused
should be acquitted by giving the benefit of  doubt.   But  in  the  instant
case, the evidence on record is trustworthy and  consistent,  and  there  is
only one view, which points  to  the  guilt  of  the  accused.   Though  the
learned counsel for the appellants sought to point out  minor  discrepancies
in the evidence of the witnesses, but in the light of the above judgment  of
the court, we are of the considered opinion that  such  minor  discrepancies
should not come in the way of  the  other  strong  circumstantial  evidence,
cumulatively taken together, forms a  complete  chain  of  events,  pointing
towards the guilt of the accused in the commission of the crime.

33.   In cases where the direct evidence is scarce, the  burden  of  proving
the  case  of  prosecution  is  bestowed  upon  motive  and   circumstantial
evidence. It is the chain of events that acquires prime importance  in  such
cases.      Before analysing factual aspects it may be  stated  that  for  a
crime to be proved it is not necessary that the crime must be seen  to  have
been committed and must, in all circumstances be  proved  by  direct  ocular
evidence by examining before the  court  those  persons  who  had  seen  its
commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also.   The
principal fact or factum probandum may be  proved  indirectly  by  means  of
certain inferences drawn from  factum  probans,  that  is,  the  evidentiary
facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct  to  the
point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are  so
closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together  they  form  a
chain of circumstances from which the existence of the  principal  fact  can
be legally inferred or presumed [See: Bodhraj Vs. State  of  J&K,  (2002)  8
SCC 45]. In the case on hand, the evidence adduced  by  the  prosecution  as
discussed above, clearly proves the chain of events connecting  the  accused
to the guilt of the commission of the offence.  The entire evidence  brought
on  record  by  the  prosecution,  is  not  only  convincing,  but  is  also
trustworthy.  Even if the confession of accused Nos. 4 and 7 made before  PW
1 and PW 2, which is barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, is not  taken
into account, the other evidence on record adduced by  the  prosecution,  is
sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence.

34.   This Court has been consistently taking the view  that  where  a  case
rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference  of  guilt  can  be
justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are  found
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or  the  guilt  of  any
other person. In the present case, on scrutiny of  evidence  on  record,  we
are convinced that the prosecution had established beyond  reasonable  doubt
the complete chain of events which points at the guilt of the accused.





35.   Thus, in the light of above circumstances coupled  with  the  complete
chain of events, this Court  has  no  manner  of  doubt  to  hold  that  the
prosecution has succeeded in proving its case  against  the  accused  beyond
all reasonable doubt.





36.   Taking the entire case in its totality, we do not find  any  merit  in
these appeals requiring our interference. Resultantly, the appeals fail  and
are dismissed.

                    ......................................................J.
                              (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)



......................................................J.
(N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI
MARCH 11,  2015