PROFESSOR K. B. AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, styled as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Sec. 11(2) of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur Act, 2019 (Act No. 6 of 2019) [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2019'] and has prayed that the aforesaid provision be declared as ultra vires, non est and void ab initio insofar as it enables an academician from any discipline as Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No.3-Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Law University as it correspondingly confers power upon the Chancellor to appoint an academician from any discipline as Vice-Chancellor of the Law University. In the alternative, it has been prayed that Sec. 11, sub-sec. (2) of the Act of 2019 be read down to mean that only distinguished academician/person belonging to the field of law are eligible to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No.3-Law University.

(2.) Assailing the validity of the Act of 2019, particularly the provisions contained in Sec. 11(2) of the Act of 2019 prescribing eligibility criteria for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Law University, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Act of 2019 was promulgated after having received assent of the Governor with an object to establish and incorporate a law university in the State of Rajasthan. Referring to the objectives of the University as enshrined in Sec. 5 of the Act of 2019, it has been highlighted that the Act of 2019 seeks to establish the University for the purpose of making provision for imparting legal education in different branches of learning and furthering the prosecution of research in all branches of legal education. The powers and duties of the University as incorporated in Sec. 7 of the Act of 2019 are intended to provide for instruction in various branches of legal learning as the University may deem fit; to make provision for research and advancement of knowledge dissemination of the findings of research and knowledge as also to institute and confer degrees, diplomas and other academic distinctions; to confer honorary degrees and other distinctions. Other important functions of the University include admission of colleges, institutions and institutes not maintained by the University, to the privileges of the University and also confer autonomous status on colleges, institutions or departments. The powers and functions of the University also include cooperation with other university and authorities, to institute teaching, research and other posts required by the University and to make appointments in addition to creation of administrative, ministerial and other necessary posts. The ViceChancellor of the University, under the scheme of the Act of 2019, has to be a whole time paid officer of the University. However, the eligibility criteria as contained in Sec. 11, sub-sec. (2) of the Act of 2019 though provides that no person shall be eligible to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, unless he is a distinguished academician having a minimum ten years experience as Professor in a university or college or ten years experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organisation and of highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment, but nowhere takes care of ensuring that the person, who is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, has necessarily to be a person equipped with knowledge in the field of legal education. It is contended that the said provision, when read as it is, frustrates the objective of establishment of a law university, a single disciplinary institution as it allows persons of any other discipline of however excellence and however distinguished and knowledgeable they may be, to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. Such a provision allows and has, in fact, allowed first Vice-Chancellor to be appointed, who does not at all belong to the field of legal education, nor had the experience of teaching or research in the field of law and/or legal education. The Vice-Chancellor, as declared under Sec. 11, sub-sec. (18) of the Act of 2019, shall be the principal academic, administrative and executive officer of the University enjoined with powers, duties and functions to exercise overall supervision and control over the affairs of the University. Not only this, it is contended, the provisions contained in Sec. 13 of the Act of 2019 providing for powers and duties of the ViceChancellor declare that the Vice-Chancellor shall be ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Management and Academic Council also. He is responsible for presenting to the Board of Management for its deliberations and consideration matters of concern to the University. He is conferred powers to exercise general control over the affairs of the University. In addition, the Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No.3- Law University is responsible for close coordination and integration of teaching, research and other work. The scheme of the Act of 2019 requires that the Vice-Chancellor of the University, for efficient discharge of his duties and functions as such, has to be a person of distinguished personality in the field of legal education. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the provisions contained in Sec. 11, sub-sec. (2) of the Act of 2019, as it reads and on its literal meaning, do not require that the Vice-Chancellor should be a person having knowledge of legal education much less excellence in the field of legal education. Therefore, the eligibility criteria defeats the objective of establishment of a law university by allowing the head of the institution with vast powers and functions, having no background of legal education which is subversive of the objective of the enactment. It is, therefore, submitted that the provisions relating to eligibility criteria suffers from manifest arbitrariness and irrationality and, therefore, liable to be declared as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the statutory object enshrined under the Act of 2019. In the alternative, it is submitted, the aforesaid provision is required to be read down so as to ensure that "requirement of distinguished academician" is interpreted to mean "distinguished academician in the field of legal education".

(3.) Per contra, learned Advocate General representing the respondent No. 1 and 2-State of Rajasthan and Chancellor of the Law University would submit that present PIL at the instance of the petitioner seeks to challenge the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Vice-Chancellor which is a service matter and in view of settled legal position, in service matters, PIL is not maintainable. He would next submit that the prayer for issuance of writ of quo warranto is not maintainable as Respondent No. 4 was eligible to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor as he fulfills the statutorily prescribed eligibility criteria as contained in Sec. 11(2) of the Act of 2019. He would further argue that Respondent No. 4 is a distinguished academician with high credentials which would be clear from the averments made in the petition and the details highlighting his academic excellence and experience in various fields including administration of University as contained in Annexure-5 appended with the petition. Learned Advocate General further contends that the writ petition has been filed without proper research and the entire case has been built up with reference to regulations of the Bar Council of India which stood amended before the writ petition was filed. The petitioner has not come out with material details, particulars much less grounds to assail the process of appointment while alleging that there has been no effective consultation with the Government. The affidavits in support of averments so filed do not disclose the source of information, nor claim to be based on personal knowledge. Such half baked petition without proper research is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.