Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court declared that the appointment of the Chancellor of CMJ University was invalid due to the failure to secure the mandatory approval of the Visitor (Governor of Meghalaya). It upheld the State Government’s dissolution order under Section 48 of the CMJ University Act, 2009, concluding that procedural requirements and principles of natural justice were fulfilled. The court dismissed the appeal filed by CMJ University challenging the dissolution order.
Facts
- Establishment of CMJ University: CMJ University was established under the CMJ University Act, 2009, with the goal of providing high-quality education in Meghalaya. The act required the appointment of the Chancellor by the Sponsor, subject to the approval of the Visitor, who is the Governor of Meghalaya.
- Chancellor’s Appointment Without Approval: The Sponsor appointed Shri Chander Mohan Jha as the Chancellor in July 2009, but the appointment was not approved by the Visitor, as required by Section 14 of the Act. Despite repeated reminders to the Visitor, the approval was neither granted nor formally refused. The university assumed “deemed approval” and began operations.
- Visitor’s Observations: In 2013, the Visitor identified severe irregularities, including:
- The Chancellor’s appointment without approval.
- Granting illegal Ph.D. degrees to over 400 students.
- Misleading advertisements.
- Violations of UGC and National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) guidelines.
- Unauthorized establishment of off-campus centers.
- Dissolution Order: Following non-compliance with the Visitor’s directions, the State Government issued a show cause notice to the university and later dissolved it under Section 48 of the Act on 31st March 2014.
Issues
- Was the appointment of the Chancellor made in accordance with the CMJ University Act, 2009?
- Was the dissolution order issued by the State Government in compliance with Section 48 of the Act?
- Was the High Court Division Bench justified in remanding the case for fresh adjudication?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Validity of Chancellor’s Appointment: The petitioners argued that the Chancellor’s appointment was valid unless explicitly disapproved by the Visitor. They claimed that the Visitor’s inaction amounted to “deemed approval.”
- Procedural Flaws in Dissolution: They contended that the State Government failed to issue clear directions for rectification under Section 48(2) of the Act before dissolving the university. The dissolution order violated the principles of natural justice.
- Significant Investment and Impact on Students: They emphasized the substantial investment in infrastructure and the adverse impact on students if the university were dissolved.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Mandatory Visitor Approval: The respondents maintained that the Chancellor’s appointment required the explicit approval of the Visitor under Section 14 of the Act. The assumption of “deemed approval” was legally untenable.
- Justification for Dissolution: The respondents argued that the university’s non-compliance with the Visitor’s directives and the repeated violations of statutory norms justified its dissolution.
- Principles of Natural Justice Followed: The State issued show cause notices and provided adequate opportunities for the university to rectify the identified issues before dissolving it.
Analysis of the Law
- Chancellor’s Appointment:
- Section 14 of the Act requires the Sponsor to appoint the Chancellor subject to the approval of the Visitor.
- The court held that “subject to” means “conditional upon.” Without the Visitor’s explicit approval, the appointment is invalid.
- The court rejected the petitioners’ argument of “deemed approval,” emphasizing that such legal fiction must be explicitly provided by statute, which was absent in this case.
- Dissolution Procedure under Section 48:
- Section 48 mandates that the State Government issue directions for rectifying mismanagement and maladministration. If the directions are not followed, the State may proceed with dissolution after affording the university an opportunity to show cause.
- The court found that the State complied with these requirements by issuing show cause notices and considering the university’s replies before passing the dissolution order.
Precedent Analysis
- K.R.C.S. Balakrishna Chetty & Sons & Co. v. State of Madras: Interpreted “subject to” as “conditional upon,” meaning that an action is valid only if the specified condition is fulfilled.
- Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society: Held that legal fictions such as “deemed approval” must be explicitly created by the legislature.
- Chet Ram Vashist v. MCD: Affirmed that legal consequences cannot be presumed in the absence of statutory authority.
Court’s Reasoning
- Chancellor’s Appointment:
- The court emphasized that the legislature deliberately included the Visitor’s approval as a mandatory condition to ensure accountability in the appointment of the university’s head.
- It ruled that the university’s assumption of “deemed approval” violated the statutory framework and lacked legal basis.
- Dissolution Order:
- The court noted that the State Government followed the procedural steps outlined in Section 48 of the Act, including issuing show cause notices and considering the university’s replies.
- The dissolution was justified due to overwhelming evidence of mismanagement, including:
- Granting unapproved degrees.
- Operating unauthorized off-campus centers.
- Misleading advertisements.
- The Visitor’s multiple directives were ignored, and the university failed to rectify the identified deficiencies.
- High Court Remand:
- The court upheld the Division Bench’s decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication by the Single Judge, emphasizing that the process must be fair and thorough.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court declared the appointment of the Chancellor invalid and upheld the dissolution of CMJ University. It held that the State Government adhered to procedural requirements under Section 48 of the Act and acted lawfully.
Implications
- Accountability in Private Universities: The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in the governance of private universities.
- Protection of Students’ Interests: The ruling highlights the need for regulatory oversight to prevent institutions from misleading students and compromising academic standards.
- Compliance with Regulatory Bodies: The case underscores the obligation of universities to comply with UGC and other statutory norms.