Dismissed

Prof. Velamala Simmanna, v. The Honble Chancellor of Government of

Telangana HC7 Feb 2012WP/3009/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging the inclusion of a U.G.C.-nominated, former Vice Chancellor in a Search Committee for selecting a new Vice Chancellor, the petitioner alleged a violation of U.G.C. norms and dominance by an influential person. The Court found the nominee eminently qualified, retired over a decade ago, and non-connected to the University, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Prof. Velamala Simmanna, Vs The Honble Chancellor… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3009 OF 2012

¶3

Dt:- 07.02.2012

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Prof. Velamala Simmanna.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

The Hon’ble Chancellor of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

This Court made the following:-

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.3009 of 2012

¶13

ORDER: -

¶14

Petitioner, who is one of the aspirants for the post of Vice Chancellor, has applied in response to the notification, dated 21.07.2011. Petitioner questioned the 6^th respondent as part of the Search Committee as nominee of the University Grants Commission (U.G.C.) on the ground that the nomination of the 6^th respondent is violative of the norms for the composition of Search Committee as per U.G.C. Regulations. Regulation 7.3.0.ii is as follows:

¶15

“ 7.3.0.ii. The selection of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification of a Panel of 3-5 names by a Search Committee through a public Notification or nomination or a talent search process or in combination. The members of the above Search Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the Unviersity concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the search committee must give proper weightage to 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. In respect of

¶16

State and Central Universities, the following shall be the constitution of the search committee. a) A nominee of the Visitor/Chancellor, who should be the Chairperson of the Committee. b) A nominee of the Chairman, University Grants Commission. c) A nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Council/Board of Management of the University.“

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Vice Chancellor of the same University during 1984-87 and as such he does not qualify to be considered as he is closely connected with the University and as such even according to the norms 7.3 referred to above, he should not have been nominated by the U.G.C. It is also alleged that the 6^th respondent is a very influential person and it is he who has selected only 19 candidates for interview out of 200 applicants. The learned counsel also places reliance upon a legal notice issued by a counsel, dated 25.01.2012, to the Chairman and Secretary, University Grants Commission as well as to other dignitaries making serious allegations against the 6^th respondent and on that ground submits that continuation of the 6^th respondent in the Search Committee is detrimental to the interest of the University itself as well as to all the meritorious candidates who have applied for.

¶18

I am unable to appreciate any of these grounds as firstly, the 6^th respondent has been nominated by the U.G.C. as one of its members and apart from him there is a nominee of the Vice Chancellor and nominee of the Syndicate/Executive Counsel/Board of Management of the University. The 6^th respondent admittedly was a Vice Chancellor of the same University during 1984-87 and his eminence in the field, therefore, cannot be doubted. It is also evident that he retired more than ten years back and as such it cannot be said that he is a person connected with the University. I am, therefore, unable to see any violation of norm 7.3 referred to above and I am not able to see any infirmity in the nomination of the 6^th respondent by the U.G.C. as one of

¶19

the members of the Search Committee. It is also evident that there are two other nominees, one by the Vice Chancellor and the other by the Syndicate/Executive Counsel. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the 6^th respondent alone has such influence as to dominate over the independent selection by the other two members of the Search Committee. The legal notice relied upon does not show as to the person on whose behalf it is issued. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said legal notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner. However, the notice as such does not disclose it. In the circumstances, therefore, I am not satisfied that there is any reasonable justification for the petitioner to make uncharitable allegations against the 6^th respondent and seek the relief of Mandamus as sought for.

¶20

Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶22

07.02.2012 Note:Issue C.C. Tomorrow. {B/o} lmv

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.3009 OF 2012

¶25

07.02.2012

¶26

lmv

Prof. Velamala Simmanna, v. The Honble Chancellor of Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof. Velamala Simmanna, v. The Honble Chancellor of Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pulaa Ison Vs The Mandal Parishad Development officer, Natametta

Merugu Kishore kumar, Vs The Managing Director

Smt. Salem Unnisa Begum Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by Principal Secretary

D.Nandya, Vs a.P.Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd.

M.Sudhakar Goud Vs Ap Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., rep.by

Liyakhath Ali Mohammad, Vs The Government of A.P.