UGC Draft Regulation on Vice Chancellor Appointment

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has proposed a draft regulation concerning the selection and appointment of vice chancellors in universities, which has sparked protests from some State governments. They argue that this regulation infringes upon the federal principles outlined in the Indian Constitution.

Proposed Amendments

• The UGC aims to amend the 2010 regulation concerning the selection of vice chancellors by broadening the eligibility criteria.
• Currently, only academicians with at least 10 years of experience as professors are eligible.
• The amendment would allow professionals with over 10 years of experience in industry, public administration, or public policy to be considered.

Constitutional Concerns

The draft regulation raises constitutional issues regarding the UGC's authority to regulate areas not explicitly covered by the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

• The Act was enacted to coordinate and determine standards in universities and to establish the UGC for this purpose.
• The UGC is tasked with promoting and coordinating university education and maintaining standards of teaching, examination, and research.

Limits of UGC Authority

• The Act does not contain provisions for the selection and appointment of vice chancellors, focusing instead on educational standards and staff qualifications.
• Regulations made under Section 26 of the UGC Act must align with the Act's provisions. If they extend beyond the Act's scope, they are invalid.

Judicial Perspectives

Legal cases have examined the UGC's regulatory powers:

• The Bombay High Court ruled that vice chancellor qualifications and appointment methods do not directly impact educational standards.
• In the Kalyani Mathivanan case, the Supreme Court held that UGC regulations have a binding effect on universities, provided they are approved by both Houses of Parliament.

Constitutional Question on State Law

The issue of whether UGC regulations can override State laws involves Article 254 of the Constitution, dealing with conflicts between central and state laws.

• A regulation is not considered a central law under Article 254, which pertains to laws enacted by Parliament.

Resolution of Controversy

The Supreme Court, in the Kalyani Mathivanan case, maintained that Regulation 7.3.0 is recommendatory for universities under State legislation, offering potential resolution to the current dispute.