Supreme Court upholds Calcutta High Court order quashing reappointment of Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as Calcutta University Vice-Chancellor

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Calcutta High Court's decision which had set aside the State of West Bengal's decision to reappoint Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of the Calcutta University [State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das]..A division bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli was of the view that the State could not have done away with the clause under the Calcutta University Act (CU Act) requiring approval of the Chancellor (Governor of West Bengal) while ordering reappointment of Banerjee as the VC."Allowing such actions would be antithetical to the principles of rule of law," the Court observed in context of the State government relying on Section 60 of the CU Act to do away with the Chancellor's concurrence..The Supreme Court had last month reserved its verdict in the appeal by the West Bengal government against a Calcutta High Court order that had set aside the State's decision to re-appoint Sonali Chakravarti Banerjee as the VC of Calcutta University.Banerjee was re-appointed to the post with effect from August 28, 2021 for a period of 4 years or till she attains 70 years, through a notification.The State government had relied on Section 60 of the CU Act, which gives it powers to remove difficulties on account of any lacunae in the law towards enforcing any of the Act's provisions. Calcutta High Court lawyer Anindya Sundar Das then filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the High Court, contending that the VC had been reappointed in violation of the provisions of the CU Act. The High Court had allowed the plea, holding that the State government did not have the authority to take such a decision.The respondents had argued before the High Court that Governor was not in agreement with the interpretation of the amended provisions of the CU Act. Relying on the same, the State government had contended that when a reappointment was proposed under the amended Section 8(2)(a), there was no necessity of undergoing a further selection process. The State government had urged before the High Court that Section 8(2)(a) only postulates satisfaction of the State government and does not require the concurrence of the Chancellor. In other words, according to the State government, it has unfettered rights in the matter of reappointment to the post of VC. This submission was rejected by the High Court..Counsel for the State argued before the Supreme Court that the Governor's nod is needed only when the State has not exercised its existing powers of re-appointment. Counsel for the PIL-petitioner submitted that University Grants Commission regulations state that a Chancellor's approval is needed for VC appointments. It was pointed out that a file was submitted to the Governor in this regard. .The top court at the outset noted that the State government notification reappointing the VC specifically stated that the proposal submitted by it for their reappointment was not accepted by the Chancellor, that is, the Governor. Analysing the provisions of the CU Act, the Bench noted that there was no specific proviso nor was it intended that the Chancellors' powers of appointing VCs is taken away in cases of re-appointment. "There is no intrinsic reason or rationale to accept the interpretation which has been urged on behalf of the State of West Bengal. A reappointment is the appointment of an existing incumbent who fulfils the conditions of eligibility. The fulfilment of the conditions makes a person eligible for reappointment. The power of appointment including of reappointment is entrusted to the Chancellor and not to the State government."Pointing to the reference earlier made to the Chancellor for the appointment which was rejected, the Bench observed that it was clear that the State government was in agreement with the necessity of the same. On the West Bengal government using Section 60 of the CU Act to issue the reappointment notification, the judges noted that it had chosen an incorrect path by misusing the “removal of difficulty clause” to usurp the power of the Chancellor to make the appointment. "A government cannot misuse the “removal of difficulty clause” to remove all obstacles in its path which arise due to statutory restrictions ... Misusing the limited power granted to make minor adaptations and peripheral adjustments in a statute for making its implementation effective, to side-step the provisions of the statute altogether would defeat the purpose of the legislation," the Supreme Court said.The Bench also made clear that even if the CU Act had allowed for such re-appointments, they would be violative of UGC Regulations. .Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the State government. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for Das while Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for Banerjee.[Read Judgment]