The Madras High Court has called for responses from the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Tamil Nadu government, and other relevant parties regarding a petition that highlights the absence of Vice Chancellors in several state universities across Tamil Nadu. The petition, filed by P. Bhaskar, was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadikari and Justice Arul Murugan.
Allegations of Non-Compliance with UGC Norms
Bhaskar’s plea insists on the necessity of appointing Vice Chancellors in line with the University Grants Commission Act and the UGC Regulations of 2018. He contends that the lack of appointed Vice Chancellors has thrown the state’s higher education sector into disarray. The petitioner has requested the UGC to exercise its supervisory authority to ensure compliance with its norms in universities where Vice Chancellor positions remain unfilled.
Role of the UGC in Vice Chancellor Appointments
Senior Advocate N.L. Rajah, representing Bhaskar, pressed the point that the UGC should not passively observe the situation. He argued that the body has the power of superintendence and should not “wring its hands in desperation.” The argument underscores the need for the UGC to take a proactive role in addressing the vacancies.
Proposed Solution and Precedent
Bhaskar has suggested that a resolution similar to that of the Supreme Court in a previous West Bengal Vice Chancellor appointment case be adopted. In that instance, the Supreme Court established a committee led by former Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit to manage the appointment process, following a deadlock between the state government and the Governor. Bhaskar claims that Tamil Nadu is now facing a similar impasse.
Formation of a High-Powered Panel
The petitioner has urged the court to consider forming a high-powered panel to oversee the appointment process. He proposed that this panel be chaired by either a former Chief Justice of a High Court or a retired Supreme Court judge. However, the court noted that such a directive could not be issued without first hearing from the state and other respondents.
More Read
Next Steps and Future Hearings
The court emphasized the necessity of issuing notices before any committee could be constituted. The respondents have been asked to address the issues raised in the petition and to consider the Supreme Court’s approach in the West Bengal case. The court has scheduled further hearings on July 29, alongside related cases concerning Vice Chancellor appointments.
The petitioner is represented by Senior Advocate N.L. Rajah, with Advocate B. Jagannath also appearing in the case.
