1. These two writ petitions are filed challenging the appointment of Prof. Lokanath M.K. as the Vice Chancellor of the University of Mysuru, made by the Chancellor.

2. The petitioners were aspirants to said post of the Vice Chancellor. It is averred that Prof. Sharath Ananthmurthy, the petitioner in W.P.No.9068/2023, was one among the three names recommended by the Search Committee on both occasions, and that Dr. G. Venkatesh Kumar, the petitioner in W.P.No.11875/2023, was considered in the first list of three names recommended by said Search Committee.

3. For ease of reference, this order has been indexed as follows:

A. ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

4. Before embarking upon the issues raised in these writ petitions, it would be necessary to examine the statutory framework relating to the appointment of a Vice Chancellor in the State of Karnataka.

5. The Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (for short, referred to as “the State Act”) received the assent of the Governor on 12.09.2001.

6. Chapter-III of the State Act provides for ‘the Officers of the Universities’ and Section 14 of the State Act, which deals with the ‘Office of the Vice Chancellor’, reads as under:

“14. The Vice-Chancellor.- (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University .

(2) The State Government shall constitute a Search Committee consisting of four persons of whom, one shall be nominated by the Chancellor, one by the University Grants Commission, one by the State Government and one by the Syndicate. The State Government shall appoint one of the members as the Chairman of the Committee. The Secretary to Government incharge of higher education or his nominee not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary to Government shall be the convenor of the Search Committee.

(3) No person connected with the affairs of the State Government, the University or any college or institution affiliated to the University shall be nominated as the member of the Search Committee.

(4) The Search Committee shall submit to the State Government a panel of three persons who are eminent academicians, in the alphabetical order. The State Government shall forward the panel to the Chancellor who shall keeping in view merit, equity and social justice and with the concurrence of the State Government, appoint one person from the panel as the Vice-Chancellor:

Provided that the Chancellor may with the concurrence of the State Government call for a second panel if he considers it necessary and the Search Committee shall submit a second panel which shall be final.

Provided further that the Vice Chancellor of the [Akkamahadevi Women University] at Bijapur shall, as far as practicable be a women:

[Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section the First Vice

Chancellor of the [Akkamahadevi Women University] shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified.]

[Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section, the first Vice Chancellor of the Tumkur University shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it]

[Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section, the first Vice- Chancellor of the Davanagere University shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it.]

[Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section, the first Vice- Chancellors of the Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraya University and Ranichannamma University shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it.]

[Provided also that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this section, first Vice- Chancellors of the Bengaluru Central University and Bengaluru North University shall be appointed by the State Government subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by it]

(5) No person shall be appointed or hold office of the Vice- Chancellor if he has attained the age of sixty seven years.]

(6) The Vice-Chancellor shall, subject to the pleasure of the Chancellor and the provisions of sub-section (5) hold the office for a period of four years. He shall not be eligible for reappointment, for a second term.

(7) The Vice-Chancellor shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the Chancellor passed on the ground of willful omission or refusal to carry out the provisions of this Act or for abuse of the powers vested in him and on the advice tendered by the State Government on consideration of the report of an inquiry ordered by it under sub- section.

(8) For the purposes of holding an inquiry under this section the State Government shall appoint a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The inquiry authority shall hold the inquiry after giving an opportunity to make representation by the Vice- Chancellor and shall submit a report to the State Government on the action to be taken including penalty, if any, to be imposed, and the State Government shall on consideration of the report advise the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall act in accordance with such advice, as far as may be, within six months.

(9) The emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice- Chancellor shall be such as may be determined by the Chancellor and shall not be varied to his dis-advantage after his appointment as Vice-Chancellor. In the event of a Vice-Chancellor retiring on superannuation during his tenureship as Vice-Chancellor, his conditions of service already determined shall continue to be in vogue. All his pensionary benefits shall be kept in abeyance which shall be released after his demitting the office of the Vice-Chancellor.

(10) If a retired person is appointed as Vice- Chancellor, the terms and conditions of service upon his appointment as Vice-Chancellor including emoluments shall be determined by the Chancellor. The emoluments shall be reduced by the amount of pension and allowances drawn by him.

(11) If a Professor in the service of a University in the State is appointed as Vice- Chancellor, his terms and conditions of service as Professor shall not be revised to his dis-advantage during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor and he shall retain his lien in his post.”

7. As could be seen from Section 14(1), there is a declaration that the Vice Chancellor should be a whole- time officer of the University and for the purpose of appointing a Vice Chancellor, the State Government is mandated to constitute a Search Committee consisting of four persons. One is required to be nominated by the Chancellor, one by the University Grants Commission (for short, referred to as “the UGC”), one by the State Government and one by the Syndicate. It is also specified that the State Government is required to appoint one of the members as the Chairman of the Committee, and the Secretary to the Government in charge of higher education or his nominee would be the Convenor of the Search Committee.

8. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the State Act bars any person who is connected with the affairs of the State Government, the University or any college or institution affiliated to the University, to be nominated as a member of the Search Committee.

9. The fact that any person connected with the affairs of any of the above-mentioned four apex bodies are barred from being nominated as a member of the Search Committee indicates that it is the intent of the law that the Search Committee should be comprised of independent people who can recommend the most appropriate candidates to be considered for appointment as the Vice Chancellor.

10. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the State Act mandates that the Selection Committee should submit to the State Government a panel of three persons who are eminent academicians, in the alphabetical order. On the submission of such panel, the State Government is mandated to forward the panel to the Chancellor, and the Chancellor, shall, keeping in view the merit, equity and social justice as well as the concurrence of the State Government, appoint one person from among the panel of three as the Vice Chancellor.

11. Thus, under the statutory framework, the Search Committee is given the responsibility of undertaking the search of three eminent academicians and submitting the same to the Government for being forwarded to the Chancellor. The Chancellor is then entrusted with the task of appointing one among the three names recommended to him by considering merit, equity and social justice. However, the Chancellor can only appoint one among the panel of three names submitted to him, as the Vice Chancellor, with the concurrence of the State Government. Thus, essentially, from a panel of three names submitted by the Search Committee, the Chancellor is required to choose one among the three names, and thereafter, seek concurrence of the State Government for appointing his pick of the candidate as the Vice Chancellor.

12. A proviso, with which we would be concerned, is also appended to sub-section (4) of Section 14 and the same reads as follows:

“Provided that the Chancellor may with the concurrence of the State Government call for a second panel if he considers it necessary and the Search Committee shall submit a second panel which shall be final.”

13. As could be seen from this proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the State Act, it is open for the Chancellor to call for a second panel of three names, if he considers it necessary. However, before he chooses this course of action, he is required to seek concurrence of the State Government. On a second panel being called by the Chancellor after obtaining concurrence of the Government, the Search Committee is obliged to submit the second panel of names which shall be considered as the final panel.

14. Thus, if the Chancellor does not agree with the first panel of three names, he has been conferred with the option of seeking a second panel of three names, but this would have to be done after obtaining concurrence of the State Government. The second panel, which is thereafter submitted by the Selection Committee, cannot be returned or disregarded and is to be construed to be the final panel of three names. The Chancellor would, thereby, have to choose one candidate among the three for the post of the Vice Chancellor.

15. The Parliament has also enacted the University Grants Commissions Act, 1956 (for short, referred to as the “the UGC Act” or “the Parliamentary Act”) which is an Act that makes provisions for co-ordination and determination of standards in Universities. The UGC Act contemplates the establishment of a Commission and confers on the Commission certain powers and functions.

16. Section 14 of the UGC Act stipulates that if any University contravenes any regulation made under clause (e) or (f) or (g) of Section 26 of the UGC Act, the UGC is empowered to withhold from the University the grants that are proposed to be made out of the funds of the UGC. Thus, if any University which is in receipt of the grant from the UGC contravenes any of the regulations made under the UGC Act, it will be exposed to the risk of losing such grant from the UGC.

17. Section 26 of the UGC Act provides for the UGC to make regulations by way of a notification in the Official Gazette. Section 26(e) of the UGC Act provides for framing of regulations which enumerates the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed as a teaching staff of the University, and sub- section (g) provides for framing of regulations to regulate the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in the Universities. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 26 (e) and (g) read with Section 14 of the UGC Act, the UGC has framed the regulations titled “the 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, 2018”, (for short, referred to as “the UGC Regulations”).

18. Regulation 1.2 of the UGC Regulations states that the UGC regulations shall apply to every University established or incorporated by or under the Central Government, a Provincial Act or a State Act. Thus, the above-mentioned UGC Regulations would also apply to the present University established under the Karnataka State Universities Act.

19. Regulation 7 of the UGC Regulations specifies the manner in which the Vice Chancellor is required to be appointed and the same reads as under:

“7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR:

i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice- Chancellor. The person to be appointed as a Vice- Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years’ of experience as Professor in a University or ten years’ of experience in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership.

ii. The selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection- Committee, through a public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members of such Search-cum-Selection 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 cum-Selection Committee shall give proper weightage to the 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. One member of the Search cum- Selection Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.

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

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

20. As could be seen from the above regulation, it is the requirement of the Regulation that a person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment should be appointed as the Vice Chancellor, and the person so appointed should be a distinguished academician with a minimum of ten years’ experience as a Professor in a University or ten years’ experience in a reputed research and/or academic administrative organization with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership.

21. Regulation 7.3 (ii) of the Regulations states that the selection for the post of the Vice Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of three to five persons by a Search-cum-Selection Committee. This Committee is to be a panel of 3 or 5 persons and they are required to make a proper identification of probable candidates either through a public notification, by nomination, a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members of Search-cum-Selection Committee are required to be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected, in any manner, with the University concerned or its affiliated colleges.

22. The Search-cum-Selection Committee, while preparing the panel, is required to give proper weightage to the academic excellence, exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad, in addition to adequate experience in the academic and administrative governance. This weightage is to be given in writing along with panel to be submitted to the Chancellor. The Chancellor is, thereafter, required to appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

23. Thus, the process of appointing the Vice Chancellor both under the State Act as well as the Regulations framed under the UGC Act are almost similar, in the sense that the appointment is to be made by the Chancellor on the basis of a panel of names submitted to him by the Search- cum-Selection Committee, which is required to be comprised of persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education.

24. The State Act requires that the Selection Committee should be comprised of four persons, whereas the UGC Regulations contemplate that the Search-cum-Selection Committee should be comprised of three to five persons. The State Act stipulates that the panel of three names should be submitted by the Search Committee to the State Government, while the UGC Regulations do not stipulate the number of candidates to be recommended. There is, under the State Act, however, no requirement of furnishing weightage in writing with regard to the academic excellence, exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad and the experience in the academic and administrative governance as contemplated under the UGC Regulations.

25. The State Act provides for the State Government to forward the panel of three names to the Chancellor and the Chancellor is required to choose one among them, obtain the concurrence of the Government, and thereafter, appoint that person as the Vice Chancellor.

26. However, the UGC Regulations merely state that a panel of names is to be furnished to the Chancellor along with proper weightage to be given, in writing, in respect of the parameters stated therein, and the Chancellor is required to appoint one person among the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

27. The State Act provides for the Chancellor to disagree with the first panel of three names and seek a second panel of three names, with the concurrence of the State Government and on being furnishing with the second panel of three names by the Selection Committee, the Chancellor is required to choose one among them. However, under the UGC Regulations, there is no provision made which enables the Chancellor to call for a fresh panel of names.

28. A comparative study of the State Act and the UGC Regulations indicates that there is no conflict per se between the two processes, though there is a slight difference in the manner in which the process of appointing a Vice Chancellor is enumerated. Both provisions contemplate the Search-cum-Selection Committee to search for suitable candidates and from amongst the eligible candidates, prepare a panel and submit the same to the Chancellor for consideration.

29. The only major difference between the two is that under the State Act, the Search Committee is required to furnish a panel of three names to the Government and the Government is required to forward the same to the Chancellor, whereas under the UGC Regulations, the Search-cum-Selection Committee is required to furnish a panel of names to the Chancellor directly by giving proper weightage to the three prescribed parameters, in writing.

30. Another difference is that the Chancellor is entitled to seek a second panel of names, whereas under the Regulations, there is no provision for such an option. To put it differently, the Chancellor, under the State Act, is given an extra option of asking for a second panel of names, whereas under the UGC Regulations, the Chancellor has not been given such privilege.

31. It is, therefore, to be concluded that under the State Act as well as under the UGC Regulations, the State Government is required to essentially constitute a Search Committee, which is then required to submit a panel of names to the Chancellor, and the Chancellor is required to pick one among them as the Vice Chancellor. The additional requirement under the UGC Regulations is that the Search Committee is required to give proper weightage to the three parameters prescribed, in writing. Whereas the additional requirement under the State Act is that the Chancellor is required to obtain the concurrence of the State Government before appointing the Vice Chancellor or for seeking a second panel of names.

B. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY COUNSEL:

32. An elaborate argument was advanced by the counsel for the petitioners regarding the ineligibility of Prof. Lokanath to be considered. Arguments were also advanced on the suppression of the fact that the appointment of Prof. Lokanath was itself under a cloud and that he had also filed a writ petition challenging the annulment of his selection and this basically disentitled his name from being considered by the Search Committee. It was also submitted that a criminal case had been registered against Prof. Lokanath and that he had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and got the same quashed, which also disentitled him from being considered for appointment as the Vice Chancellor. In this regard, reliance was placed on Anil Kanwariya (Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 [LQ/SC/2021/3027 ;] .), Bhim Singh Meena (Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Bhim Singh Meena, 2022 (5) SLR 115 (SC).) and Mukesh Kumar Raigar (Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, AIR 2023 SC 482 [LQ/SC/2023/39 ;] .).

33. In addition to the above, the petitioners also advanced arguments on the issue of conflict between the provisions of the State Act and the UGC Regulations (framed under the UGC Act, a Parliamentary Legislation). It was also argued that the UGC Regulations did not provide for the additional power to the Chancellor to call for a second panel with the concurrence of the State Government to elaborate that the 1st proviso to Section 14 of the State Act was repugnant, and therefore, it was only the UGC Regulations which were required to be followed. Reliance, in this regard was placed on Prof. Sreejith P.S.(Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajashree M.S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1437.) and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi(Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 [LQ/SC/2022/294 ;] .).

34. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioners that direct contravention need not exist between the

"1 Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd. v. Anil Kanwariya (2021) 10 SCC 136 [LQ/SC/2021/3027 ;] .

2 Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Bhim Singh Meena, 2022 (5) SLR 115 (SC).

3 Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India, AIR 2023 SC 482 [LQ/SC/2023/39 ;] .

4 Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajashree M.S., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1437.

5 Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 [LQ/SC/2022/294 ;] . conflicting provisions and that a similarity in the subject matter is sufficient to fulfil the test of repugnancy."

35. Per contra, the respondents averred that the writ petition was not maintainable since the arguments were on the desirability of Prof. Lokanath being appointed and that this was beyond the power of judicial review. It was contended that the Search Committee comprising of experts had recommended the name of Prof. Lokanath and this recommendation could not be reviewed by this Court. Reliance, in support of this contention, was placed on W.B. Central School Service Commission (W.B. Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39 [LQ/SC/2019/1112 ;] .), Mahavir Singh (Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram, (2009) 3 SCC 249.), Mohd. Mynuddin (State Bank of India v. Mohd. Mynuddin, (1987) 4 SCC 486 [LQ/SC/1987/494] .), Harish Bansh Lal(Harish Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 [LQ/SC/2010/899] .) and B.S.N Joshi(B.S.N. Joshi & Sons v. Nair Coal Services Ltd, (2006) 11 SCC 548 [LQ/SC/2006/1018] .).

36. It was also argued that the non-disclosure of the litigation regarding the appointment was not material since the petition filed by Prof. Lokanath was allowed and his appointment had been upheld. It was argued that it was only if there was a litigation relating to his moral turpitude that had a bearing on his candidature would that be relevant. It was stated that the appointment of Prof. Lokanath, along with several others, had been annulled by a decision of the Syndicate, and the said decision taken vide Government Order dated 18.06.2014 was, thereafter, set aside by this Court in W.P. Nos.29220/2014 and 29402-29471/2014. This clearly indicates that there was no cloud, as such, over his appointment per se. It was argued that the omission, if any, in mentioning about the litigation was a minor digression and given the fact that an academician was filling up the application form, the same would have to be ignored.

37. As regards the criminal proceedings, it was argued that an FIR had been registered against several persons including Prof. Lokanath, in relation to an alleged encroachment of his site and it was his complaint that a neighbour of his had encroached upon his site, as a consequence of which, all the other site owners, including Prof. Lokanath who owned sites in the street were said to be guilty. It was averred that having regard to the nature of the complaint and the fact that Prof. Lokanath would have no idea of an FIR being registered and the further fact that registration of such FIR cannot be said to be pending litigation, the question of suppression of the criminal case does not arise at all. Reliance was placed on Avtar Singh(Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471.), Pawan Kumar(Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine 532.) and Mahendra Solanki(Mahendra Solanki v. Commissioner of Police, 2023 SCC OnLine 1423)

C. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS:

38. At the outset, the issue on repugnancy between the UGC Regulations and the State Act in the matter of appointment of the Vice Chancellor will have to be examined.

39. A Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K.T. Plantation(K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2011/1026] .) has opined on 'the tests of repugnancy' as follows:

“107. The plea of repugnancy can be urged only if both the legislations fall under the Concurrent Lidt. Under Article 254 of the Constitution, a State law passed in respect of a subject-matter comprised in List III would be invalied if its provisions are repugnant to a law passed on the same subject by Parliament and that too only if both the laws cannot exist together.

108. The question of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution arises when the provisions of both laws are fully inconsistent or are absolutely irreconcilable and it is impossible without disturbing the other, or conflicting results are produced, when both the suatutes covering the same field are applied to a given set of facts. Repugnancy between the two statutes would arise if there is a direct conflict between the two provisions and the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Court in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. Prem Nath Kaul v. State of J & K, Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, Bar Council of U.P. v. State of U.P.”

40. Thus, the first test to be applied is as to whether the two legislations are relatable to a subject matter in List III. Since Entry 25 of List III relates to ‘Education, including Technical education, medical education and Universities’, the question of repugnancy may arise between the provisions of the State Act relating to the appointment of a Vice Chancellor vis-à-vis the Regulations made under the Parliamentary Legislation i.e., the UGC Act.

41. The second test to be applied is as to whether the provisions of both laws are fully inconsistent or are absolutely irreconcilable and if both statutes are applied, conflicting results would be produced. Obviously, in such case, as held by the Constituional Bench of the Apex Court in K.T. Plantation (supra), the Parliamentary Law would prevail.

42. Thus, in the present case of appointment of the Vice Chancellor, in order to establish repugnancy between the two provisions of law and in order to make a determination as to whether the UGC Regulations would prevail or if the provisions of the State Act would prevail, there should necessarily exist a conflict between the two provisions. If there is a conflict, then the UGC Regulations framed by the Parliament would normally prevail over the conflicting provision under the State Act.

43. As stated above, under both laws, a Search Committee is to be constituted and the Committee is required to recommend a panel of names to the Chancellor and the Chancellor is then required to appoint one among them as the Vice Chancellor. Thus, in essence, there are no contradictory provisions and the application of both these provisions does not result in a situation where different results would be obtained.

44. At the risk of repetition, it is to be observed that the only difference between the two provisions is that under the State Act, the panel of names are first sent to the Government and the Government would have to forward the names to the Chancellor, who is required to pick one among the three names, obtain the concurrence of the Government and then appoint the Vice Chancellor, whereas under the UGC Regulations, the panel of names are required to be submitted to the Chancellor and the Chancellor could appoint the Vice Chancellor without seeking concurrence of the State Government. In my view, there is no conflict as such between these provisions, since the authority to appoint the Vice Chancellor vests with the Chancellor and the mere requirement of obtaining concurrence of the State Government is an extra degree of safeguard which has been incorporated, since the State Government would have the requisite knowledge or means to secure the details of the candidate in a far more comprehensive manner than the Search Committee. The concurrence of the State Government, being an aid to the Chancellor in achieving the ultimate objective of appointing an eminent person as the Vice Chancellor, cannot result in any conflict which would make the provision relating to the concurrence, repugnant.

45. The statutory provision under the State Act which provides the Chancellor the privilege of seeking a second panel cannot be held to be a provision which is in conflict with the UGC Regulations framed under the Parliamentary Act. It is to be stated here that the responsibility of appointing the Vice Chancellor ultimately rests on the Chancellor under both laws and the Chancellor, being the appointing authority, cannot be made subservient to the recommendatory body. If a Chancellor has some misgivings about the panel of names furnished (as provided under the State Act), he can, with the concurrence of the State Government, seek a fresh panel of names. The State law provides for a check, in as much as, the State Government is required to give its concurrence to this wish of the Chancellor and this provision, which grants an extra degree of flexibility in the matter of appointment to the highest position in a University, cannot be termed as being in conflict with the UGC Regulations. Any provision in the State Act which improves upon the Parliamentary Act or makes the process of recruitment more robust and secure, cannot be considered as being in conflict with the Parliamentary Act.

46. In order to establish conflict between the State Act and the UGC Regulations framed by the Parliamentary Act, the provisions under the State Act would have to be diametrically opposite to each other or in direct contravention to the law made by the Parliament. If an extra degree of flexibility or latitude is provided under the State Act, it cannot be construed as being in conflict with the Parliamentary Act.

47. It is to be kept in mind that the State Act, in fact, provides for a nomination to be made by the UGC and the UGC, in this regard, has exercised that right in the present case and has made a nomination to the Selection Committee. The University has also followed the Regulations inasmuch as it has issued the Notification calling for applications from eligible candidates. Thus, as a matter of fact, the State and the University adopted and followed both the provisions of the State Act as well as the UGC Regulations, wherever it was necessary, and it is, therefore, clear that the procedure adopted by them has not resulted in any conflict between the two provisions. In a way, the requirement of both the provisions being adhered to would result in the best of both the provisions being given effect to.

48. With regard to the submission that two provisions can be said to be in conflict merely because they pertain to the same subject matter, reference may be made to the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Forum for People's Collective Efforts(5 Forum for People's Collective Efforts and Ors. v. the State of West Bengal and Ors., (2021) 8 SCC 599 [LQ/SC/2021/2744 ;] .), wherein the tests to determine repugnancy are thoroughly enumerated. As per said judgment, it may be observed that the first step to deduce repugnancy is to determine whether there is a “conflict” between the provisions or an “overlap” thereof. If a conflict actually exists, an attempt is to first be made to read such provisions harmoniously and only if such inconsistency cannot be cured or if the conflicting provisions are irreconcilable and cannot stand/operate together, will the question of repugnancy arise, even if it pertains to the same subject matter. In this case, the State, by applying the provisions of the State Act as well as the UGC Regulations, has, in fact, ensured that the entire process of appointing a Vice Chancellor has resulted in a harmonious and homogenous outcome by applying both the provisions. Hence, this argument of the petitioners on the issue of repugnancy cannot be accepted.

D. APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THE PRESENT FACTS:

49. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, the undisputed facts are that on 02.08.2022, the Chancellor requested the Government to initiate the process to constitute a Selection Committee as contemplated under Section 14(2) of the State Act. The Chancellor also nominated Prof. Prakash Mani Tripathi as his nominee on 27.09.2022 and on 02.11.2022, the Selection Committee comprising of four persons was constituted by the State Government by issuance of a Notification.

50. On 08.11.2022, a Notification was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates, for the post of the Vice Chancellor, and the last date fixed for submission of applications was 28.11.2022. A total of sixty eight applications were received in time and two were received beyond the stipulated time. One application was withdrawn by a candidate.

51. On 20.12.2022, the details of the scrutinized applications that had been received were uploaded with certain remarks made in the column relating to Departmental Enquiry Certificate. Pertaining to Dr.G.Venkatesh Kumar, it is indicated that no enquiry was pending. The remarks relating to the Departmental Enquiry Certificate in relation to Prof. Lokanath reads as follows:

“An appointment dispute against him. Hence he is not eligible as per UGC Regulations”

52. On the same day, i.e., on 20.12.2022, the Selection Committee prepared a panel of three names i.e., Sharath Ananthmurthy, the petitioner in W.P. No. 9068/2023; Dr. G. Venkatesh Kumar, the petitioner in W.P.No. 11875/2023 and one Mr. Guru D.S.

53. On 21.12.2022, Prof. Lokanath submitted a representation to the Chancellor contending that improper and incorrect remarks were made in respect of his application and that he had been wrongly excluded from the zone of consideration by virtue of the remarks.

54. On the same day, i.e., on 21.12.2022, one Prof H. Rajashekar also submitted a representation to the Chancellor. He also preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.25759/2022 seeking quashing of the remarks made against him in the details of scrutiny of the application that were uploaded to the website.

55. On 22.12.2022, an interim order was granted in the above-mentioned writ petition staying all further proceedings pursuant to the details of the scrutiny of the application that were uploaded.

56. As stated above, before this interim order was granted, the Selection Committee had already prepared a panel of three names. A noting in the original file submitted by the learned Advocate General at paragraphs 81 and 82 state as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

57. Thus, according to this noting, status-quo was required to be maintained in respect of the panel of three names which was submitted by the Selection Committee and the same was to be retained in a sealed cover.

58. On the same day i.e., on 22.12.2022, the Special Secretary to the Chancellor opined that it would be appropriate to forward the complaint of Prof. Lokanath to the Personal Secretary to the Minister of Higher Education, observing that the complaint was of a serious nature and that a report along with the specific opinion of the Minister is be obtained. This opinion of the Special Secretary of the Chancellor was approved by the Chancellor and accordingly, a letter was addressed to the Personal Secretary of the Minister of Higher Education seeking a report along with the specific opinion of the Minister.

59. A noting has been made on 23.01.2023 in the original file to the following effect:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

60. As could be seen from the said noting, the Minister opined that the consideration of the case of Prof. Lokanath as the Vice Chancellor could be construed as improper in view of the fact that the report of his appointment, pursuant to the order of this Court a final decision was still pending consideration of the Government. The Minister also noted that one Mr. Hemantha K., who had been appointed along with Prof. Lokanath and whose appointment was also subject to the same cloud that the appointment of Prof. Lokanath faced, but he had already been appointed as the Vice Chancellor and therefore, the exclusion of Prof. Lokanath for consideration of appointment as the Vice Chancellor was improper.

61. The Minister also opined that the Selection Committee was required to be reconstituted since one of the aspirants to the post of Vice Chancellor was a part of the Committee from the Syndicate which nominated a person to the Selection Committee. The Minister, accordingly, sought appropriate orders to be obtained from the Chancellor.

62. On 06.03.2023, the writ petition filed by Prof. H. Rajashekar was disposed of in the following terms:

“12. Taking into consideration the aforementioned aspects on record, I am of the view that the post of Vice-Chancellor to the University of Mysore is vacant, on account of retirement of the previous Vice-Chancellor as per Annexure-R-1 to the writ petition and in that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the Notification dated 08.11.2022 as per Annexure-C has to be given effect to by the respondent-authorities as well as grievance addressed by the petitioner herein, I am of the view that the respondent-authorities shall act in accordance with Section 14 of the act for the purpose of appointment of vice-Chancellor to the University of Mysore, Mysuru. The said exercise shall be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

13. It is made clear that the respondent-authorities shall appoint Vice-Chancellor to the University of Mysore, Mysuru, strictly in adherence to the provisions contemplated under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, and take further steps in the matter as mentioned above.”

63. As could be seen from this order, this Court did not grant relief in terms of the prayer of Prof H. Rajashekar for quashing the remarks in dispute. This Court stated that the Government is required to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the State Act and while doing so, made an observation that the grievance of the petitioner was also required to be addressed. This Court was not ostensibly informed of the fact that a panel of three names had already been submitted by the Selection Committee on 20.12.2022, to the State Government.

64. There are 2 notings in the file prepared on 14.03.2023, which read as follows: Noting in Para 81 and 82.

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

"Noting in Para 84.

“As per note #79 to 81, following points are observed:

“HHC in its W.P.No.25759/2022 has been disposed of by instructing that the respondent shall act in accordance with Section (14) of the Act for the purpose of appointment of VC to the University within Six weeks of receipt of copy of said order.

Accordingly the Court has already constituted Search Committee as per Section (14) of KSU Act. The Search Committee has already conducted a meeting and submitted a panel of 3 persons who are eminent academicians in the alphabetical order.

Now, as per the SG shall forward the panel to the Chancellor who shall keeping in view merit, equity and social justice and with the concurrence of SG, appoint one person from the panel as the Vice- Chancellor.

Hence, the panel of names is submitted by the Search Committee to the Government. The Government may submit the panel of names to the Chancellor as per Section (14) of KSU Act.

Submitted for kind consideration and further orders.”

65. As could be seen from this noting, it has been observed that since the Selection Committee had already submitted a panel of three names, the same were required to be forwarded to the Chancellor. However, there is a noting in this very file by the Minister in the following terms:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

66. However, on the following day i.e., on 15.03.2023, there was another noting of the Minister stating that in view of the order passed in W.P.No.25759/2022, the Selection Committee was required to consider all the eligible names once again and submit a fresh panel of three names, at the earliest. The Minister also directed that the orders of the Chancellor be secured in this regard. The said noting reads as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

67. Thus, the Minister, on the basis of his understanding of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25759/2022, took a view that all the eligible names were required to be considered afresh and a fresh panel of three names was required to be submitted to the Chancellor.

68. As noticed above, this Court did not order, expressly or impliedly, that the Selection Committee was required to reconsider all the eligible names afresh and a fresh panel of three names was required to be submitted to the Chancellor.

69. On 15.03.2023, the Additional Chief Secretary submitted a note to the Chancellor and in the submission note, he narrated the opinion of the Minister, and the Chancellor, on consideration of the opinion of the Minister, proceeded to agree with the same and directed the State Government to expressly call for a fresh meeting of the Selection Committee to recommend a panel of three names considering all the eligible candidates.

70. Thus, though a panel of three names had already submitted to the Government, based on the opinion of the Minister, the Chancellor directed the State Government to call for a fresh meeting of the Selection Committee to recommend a panel of three names by considering all the eligible candidates.

71. As already narrated above, the legal position under the State Act was that on the Selection Committee submitting a panel of three names, the State Government was bound to forward the same to the Chancellor. Even under the UGC Regulations, the Search-cum-Selection Committee was required to furnish a panel of names to the Chancellor. The Chancellor, both under the State Act as well as UGC Regulations, was required to appoint one among the panel of three names as his choice for the post of Vice Chancellor. As also noticed above, the only difference between the two was that under the State Act, he was required to seek concurrence of the Government, while under the UGC Regulations, there was no such requirement.

72. In the instant case, though the Selection Committee had submitted a panel of three names to the State Government, the State Government did not forward the panel of three names to the Chancellor. It was contended by the State Government that this was because of the interim order that had been granted in W.P.No.25759/2022 on 22.12.2022.

73. The State Government, acting upon the letter of the Chancellor, which was, in turn, an outcome of the representation submitted by Prof. Lokanath, deviated from the procedure prescribed under the statute and proceeded to recommend the calling for a fresh panel of three names, thereby fundamentally ignoring the first panel of three names submitted by the Selection Committee.

74. It is to be noticed here that neither under the provisions of the State Act nor under the UGC Regulations is there an express provision which enables the Chancellor to entertain the representations from the applicants to the effect that the process adopted by the Selection Committee was flawed. The Chancellor, by virtue of being the appointing authority, no doubt, could forward such representations received to the Selection Committee so as to ensure that there was no irregularity or illegality in the process adopted by the Selection Committee. However, this process could have been adopted before the submission of the panel of three names.

75. The Chancellor, in my view, deviated from the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 14 and sought a report from the Minister since he entertained the view that the complaint of Prof. Lokanath was of a serious nature and warranted consideration. He referred the representation to the Minister of Higher Education on the assumption that he represented the State Government.

76. The Minister, without noticing the requirement of law that the panel of three names already submitted to the State Government was required to be forwarded to the Chancellor, also deviated from the statutory process. The Minister, in fact, gave an opinion that by virtue of the order passed in W.P.No.25759/2022, the Search Committee was required to consider all the eligible names once again and submit a fresh panel of three names. He also submitted an opinion to the Chancellor stating that exclusion of Prof. Lokanath from the zone of consideration was improper and that the very constitution of the Selection Committee was also improper. In my view, this opinion of the Minister was totally without jurisdiction.

77. It is to be noticed here that under the statutory scheme, the role of the Government is rather limited. It is only required to forward the panel of names submitted by the Selection Committee to the Chancellor and after the Chancellor picks one of the names in the panel submitted to him, it is required to give its concurrence for the choice of the Chancellor. Apart from these two functions, the Government really has no role to play in the manner of selection of the Vice Chancellor.

78. The entire process essentially got deviated because of the representation submitted by Prof. Lokanath and by misunderstanding the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.25759/2022, the Selection Committee was called upon to submit a fresh panel of three names. The Selection Committee, has thereafter, proceeded to furnish afresh panel, in which, it included the name of Prof. Lokanath apart from reiterating the other two names i.e., Guru D.S. and Sharath Ananthmurthy. The Chancellor has, thereafter, proceeded to appoint Prof. Lokanath as the Vice Chancellor and a notification to this effect has also been published. Thus, the process prescribed under the State Act and the UGC Regulations have not been adhered to and have vitiated the fresh pnael of three names submitted by the Search Committee.

79. It is to be stated here that there is yet another anomaly in the manner in which the names were submitted by the Search Committee on both occasions.

80. As already stated above, the UGC Regulations contemplate that the Search-cum-Selection Committee is required to give proper weightage to three factors, in writing, along with the panel of names:

"a. the academic excellence;

b. exposure to higher education system in the country and abroad; and

c. adequate expertise in academic and administrative governance."

81. However, the Selection Committee, in the instant case, has not given the weightage of these three factors in writing as required under the UGC Regulations and it has merely followed the provisions of the State Act while furnishing the panel of three names.

82. As already stated above, on a conjoint reading of the State Act and the UGC Regulations, there was no conflict between the procedures prescribed under both statutes, and admittedly, the Chancellor, the State and the University were adhering to the requirement under both statutes. Thus, the Search committee, which was admittedly following the UGC Regulations, by issuing a notification and calling for applications, was also required to give due weightage to the three factors mentioned above, in writing, to the Chancellor.

83. Obviously, the requirement of giving weightage to the three factors in writing was to ensure that the Chancellor would be able to make a relative comparison of the weightage and make his decision to choose the best of the three names submitted to him. The Search Committee, however, has committed a statutory infraction by not giving proper weightage, in writing, to the three factors mentioned above, as required under the UGC Regulations.

84. As stated above, the requirement of the statutory regulation to give weightage to the three factors, in writing, to the Chancellor, is to enable the Chancellor to appoint the most competent person on the basis of the weightage of the three factors, and therefore, it cannot be said to be a minor omission or a mere irregularity. Since the Selection Committee has, admittedly, not given proper weightage to the factors specified in UGC Regulations in writing on both the occasions, there is a clear contravention of the Regulations.

85. Yet another anomaly noticed is that the Chancellor had not sought the concurrence of the State Government, as required under Section 14 (4) of the State Act, before making the appointment. In the instant case, the Chancellor has appointed Prof. Lokanath with this noting, which reads as follows:

“Perused the recommendations of the Search Committee. As per Section 14(4) of Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, keeping in view merit, equity and social justice and with the concurrence of the State Government, I appoint Prof. Loknath N.K., Director, Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation Board, University of Mysore as vice Chancellor of University of Mysore, Mysuru. Issue notification immediately.”

86. On a perusal of the file noting, it is clear that the Chancellor has not even sought concurrence of the State Government though the noting states that there was concurrence of the State Government. The noting in the file indicates that the Submission Note was submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary on 15.03.2023 and on 16.03.2023; the Chancellor called for a fresh panel of three names and on 18.03.2023; and the fresh panel of three names was submitted by the Search Committee which was also forwarded by the Additional Chief Secretary on 18.03.2023.

87. The Chancellor has, thereafter, passed an order on 23.03.2023 appointing Prof. Lokanath and ordered the issuance of the impugned Notification. There is nothing in the file which indicates that the Chancellor had obtained the concurrence of the Government after he took a decision to appoint Prof. Lokanath on 23.03.2023. Since the Chancellor has not sought concurrence, which is a mandatory statutory requirement, the decision of his in appointing Prof. Lokanath as the Vice Chancellor would also be in contravention of the statutory provisions.

88. It is no doubt true that the State Government has not opposed the choice of the Chancellor and it has proceeded to accept the same. However, since the statutory provision requires the obtaining of concurrence before appointing the Vice Chancellor, the procedure adopted by the Chancellor would be a clear transgression of the statutory provision.

89. As far as the argument advanced by the Learned Senior Counsel regarding the ineligibility and the undesirability of the candidature of Prof. Lokanath is concerned, the same is untenable for the following reasons.

90. The first argument was that Prof. Lokanath had suppressed the fact that his appointment in the University was tainted since the same was subject to litigation, and that on this ground, he would be disentitled from his candidature being considered.

91. It is not in dispute that the appointment of Prof. Lokanath and several other candidates who had been selected were annulled by the Syndicate and it was not that it was the appointment of Prof. Lokanath alone had been questioned. It is also not in dispute that Prof. Lokanath had challenged the annulment of his selection along with several other candidates, and this Court had set aside the said annulment. Thus, this Court, basically had taken the view that the annulment of the selection by the Syndicate was illegal and could not be sustained. If the decision of the Syndicate was held to be illegal, it cannot be argued that the selection of Prof. Lokanath was tainted. The argument that Prof. Lokanath would be an undesirable candidate since his selection was tainted, would be available to the petitioners if there was a specific charge that he did not possess the necessary qualifications or that he had secured the appointment by unfair means. If the selection of the entire batch of selected candidates was held to be illegal, it cannot be contended that the appointment of Prof. Lokanath was tainted.

92. It is also to be noticed here that Prof. Lokanath was appointed in 2007 and on the basis of certain allegations in respect of the selections made during the period 2006- 07, an enquiry had been ordered by the Chancellor and on the basis of a report received in that regard, the Chancellor had ordered action to be taken, and as a consequence, the Government had passed an order annulling the Syndicate proceedings, resulting in all the appointments being annulled. Prof. Lokanath along with 70 other persons whose appointments were also annulled had approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 29220/2014 and 29402-29471/2014, and this Court had allowed the said writ petitions, as a result of which the appointments were restored. While allowing the writ petitions, this Court reserved liberty to the State to proceed afresh against all the appointees after hearing them. Admittedly, despite this liberty bring reserved, the Government has chosen to take no action though more 5 years have elapsed since the order was passed by this Court. In fact, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that even as per the Committee report on the basis of which the selections were annulled, the selection of Prof. Lokanath was held to be proper.

93. It is no doubt true that there was an omission on the part of Prof. Lokanath when he stated, in his application, that there was no litigation in which he was involved in the past 10 years, though he had filed the writ petition challenging the annulment of his selection. In my view, this omission on his part, though an omission, cannot be treated as suppression of a material fact since the University, to which he had applied for being appointed as the Vice Chancellor, was aware of the litigation and there was, therefore, no question of really hiding this fact.

94. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in Avtar Singh (supra), in which it is stated as follows, would be aptly applicable to conclude that the omission on the part of Prof. Lokanath was not very relevant:

“36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in to nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.

38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects.

37. The “McCarthyism” is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in to nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service.

38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:

38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted:

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.”

95. The second argument advanced was that there was a criminal case registered against Prof. Lokanath and that he had suppressed the same, is also untenable for the following reason.

96. On 01.02.2020, a complaint was lodged by one M. Shashidhar D.V. contending that he was the owner of a site and in the row of sites where his site was situated, the adjoining site holders had all collectively encroached on each other’s site, as a result of which the complainant’s site in the middle of the row of sites had been diminished. The complaint was against more than 20 people and Prof. Lokanath was arrayed as Accused No. 5. It is to be stated here that the knowledge of the registration of an FIR cannot be assumed or attributed to Prof. Lokanath when, admittedly, he had not been summoned by the Police or by the Court. Thus, the question of Prof. Lokanath suppressing the registration of the FIR would clearly be untenable.

97. It may also be pertinent to state here that immediately after becoming aware of the FIR, Prof. Lokanath had challenged the registration of the FIR by filing a Criminal petition bearing Crl.P. No.11327/2022 and this Court not only granted him an interim order on 29.11.2022, but it also proceeded to ultimately quash the FIR registered against him and this has also attained finality. Thus, in respect of a complaint of an alleged encroachment by the adjoining site holder, not only against Prof. Lokanath but also against 20 others, it cannot be contended that he had criminal antecedents which made his candidature unfit for consideration.

98. The fact that he disclosed these developments in his representation to the Chancellor and the further fact that the Search Committee, along with the Chancellor, proceeded to accept his grievance on his exclusion from the zone of consideration on these grounds, which had no bearing to his academic eligibility or expertise, is clear proof of the fact that the allegations attributed by the petitioners on Prof. Lokanath cannot be accepted and his candidature was required to be considered.

E. CONCLUSION:

99. In view of the discussion above, it will have to be held that the appointment of Prof. Lokanath as the Vice Chancellor is in contravention of the UGC Regulations as well as the State Act and the same cannot, therefore, be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed.

100. The matter, however, would not rest with the quashing of the above appointment and having regard to the anomalies noticed, it is imperative that further orders in the manner of appointing the Vice Chancellor afresh would have to be passed.

101. In view of the finding that the first panel of three names submitted by the Search Committee on 20.12.2022, so also the second panel of three names submitted by the Search Committee on 18.03.2023 did not comply with the requirement of giving weightage of the three factors in writing, both panels of three names cannot be held to be valid. Consequently, the recommendation of the Search Committee of both panels of names would have to be quashed.

102. It is no doubt true that the first panel of three names prepared by the Search Committee on 20.12.2022 is not the subject matter of challenge in these petitions but having noticed the glaring illegality in not giving due weightage to the three factors in writing, this Court is compelled to pass this order to set right the illegality.

103. It would also be necessary to make it clear that for the reasons stated above, the allegations made against the suitability of Prof. Lokanath to be considered for appointment as Vice Chancellor are untenable and deserve to be rejected. Consequently, his candidature would have to be considered afresh by the Search Committee on merits without reference to the litigation relating to his recruitment and the FIR that had been registered against him.

104. As a result of the above,

"a. The State Government shall now proceed to direct the Search Committee to undertake the exercise of furnishing a fresh panel of three names. It would be open for the State Government to reconstitute the Search Committee if the earlier members of the Search Committee are unavailable.

b. The Search Committee shall consider the applications of all the eligible candidates afresh, including that of Prof. Lokanath and give due weightage of the three factors stipulated in Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, in writing, and forward the same to the Government.

c. The State Government shall, thereafter, forward the panel of three names that would be submitted by the Search Committee to the Chancellor.

d. The Chancellor, on receipt of the same, shall proceed to pick one of the three candidates from the fresh panel of names forwarded to him, obtain the concurrence of the State Government, and thereafter, appoint his nominee as the Vice Chancellor.

e. If the Chancellor is of the view that a second panel of names is required to be called for, it would be open for him to seek concurrence of the StateGovernment and call for a second panel of three names as provided under the State Act. In such an event, the Search Committee shall follow the same procedure as indicated above.

f. It will be open for the Chancellor to pass appropriate orders regarding making in-charge arrangements for this existing vacancy of the Vice-Chancellor.

105. The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed subject to the above directions.