The Supreme Court has held that the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of a University Vice-Chancellor forms part of the “standards of higher education”, a subject that falls exclusively within Parliament’s legislative competence under the Union List.
The Court ruled that if a State law prescribes a Search Committee composition contrary to the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018, the appointment made pursuant to such a process is illegal and unsustainable in law.
Madras High Court Decision Affirmed
Upholding the Madras High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University (PTU) Act, 2019, insofar as it provided a Search-cum-Selection Committee structure inconsistent with the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The Court categorically held:
“Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, to the extent it prescribes a Search-cum-Selection Committee contrary to the mandate of the UGC Regulations, 2018, is ultra vires and cannot stand.”
Bench & Interim Continuation of VC
The verdict was delivered by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Despite declaring the selection process illegal, the Court allowed the incumbent Vice-Chancellor, Dr. S. Mohan, to continue in office till:
-
the completion of his tenure in December 2026, or
-
the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor in accordance with law,
whichever occurs earlier.
The Court emphasised that there were no allegations regarding Dr. Mohan’s integrity, qualifications, or administrative competence.
Facts Leading to the Dispute
-
Section 14(5) of the PTU Act constituted a three-member Search Committee, comprising nominees of the Chancellor, the Government, and the Board of Governors.
-
The Committee did not include a nominee of the UGC Chairman, a mandatory requirement under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
-
Dr. Mohan was appointed VC on December 17, 2021 pursuant to this process.
Two writ petitions before the Madras High Court:
-
Challenged Dr. Mohan’s appointment, and
-
Assailed the constitutional validity of Section 14(5) of the PTU Act.
Mandatory Nature of UGC Regulations
Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 requires:
-
Inclusion of a nominee of the UGC Chairman in the Search Committee, and
-
Committee members to be unconnected with the concerned University.
The High Court found these mandatory requirements violated, rendering the Search Committee illegal.
Article 254 Repugnancy Test Held Inapplicable
The Supreme Court clarified that the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 does not apply in this case.
UGC legislation and regulations are traceable to Entry 66 of List I, which confers exclusive legislative power on Parliament to determine standards of higher education.
Since the subject does not fall within the Concurrent List, the question of Presidential assent or curing repugnancy does not arise.
Article 142 Powers Invoked
Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that:
-
Dr. Mohan shall continue as Vice-Chancellor till December 2026 or until a fresh appointment is made, and
-
He shall be eligible to participate in any fresh selection process without prejudice.
Liberty Granted to Amend State Law
The Court clarified that the Legislature of the Union Territory of Puducherry is free to amend the PTU Act to align it with the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Case Details
-
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 54–55 of 2025
-
Case Title: Dr. S. Mohan v. Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University & Ors.
-
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 96
