Rajasthan High Court quashes appointment of Dr Dev Swaroop as Vice-Chancellor of Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University

The Rajasthan High Court on Friday quashed and set aside the appointment of Dr Dev Swaroop as vice-chancellor of Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University in Jaipur on the ground that he has no background in legal education [Professor KB Agarwal vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.].A bench of Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani stated that it is reasonable for universities in specific fields such as health science, technical and agricultural, to have vice-chancellors with expertise in their respective fields.Accordingly, the Court found it illogical that a law university would not require a distinguished academician in the field of legal education to serve as its vice-chancellor.."If a health science university is to be manned, the vice-chancellor of that university has to be from the field of medical science, the vice chancellor of a technical university is an expert in technical education, the vice-chancellor of an agricultural University is an expert of that specific field, it does not stand to logic and reasoning that the vice-chancellor a law university need not be a distinguished academician in the field of legal education," the Court said.Pertinently, the Court read down Section 11(2) of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Law University, Jaipur Act of 2019 to hold that no person shall be eligible to be appointed as vice-chancellor unless he is a distinguished academician in the field of legal education. .The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Professor KB Agarwal challenging the validity of Section 11(2)..The petition prayed that the provision be declared as ultra vires, non est and void ab initio on the ground that it enabled the appointment of an academic from any discipline as vice-chancellor of the University.In the alternative, it prayed that the provision be read down to mean that only distinguished academics in the field of law are eligible to be appointed as vice-chancellor.The petition also sought a declaration that Section 11(17) of the Act violate Articles 14 and 254 of the Constitution by being grossly arbitrary and irrational in that it empowered the chancellor to appoint the first vice-chancellor of the university in defiance of the mandatory procedure prescribed by the Act.Lastly, it sought quashing of the February 2020 order that appointed Dr. Dev Swaroop as the vice-chancellor.The counsel for Bar Council of India supported the case of the petitioner and raised similar arguments..Advocate General MS Singhvi, on the other hand, argued that vice-chancellor is not directly involved in teaching law, but he is principal and executive officer of the university vested with powers and duties to have overall control over the functions of the university.Hence, it is not necessary that he should be a legal expert, it was contended.Further, he stated that procedure for appointment of vice-chancellor could not be followed for the appointment of the first vice chancellor given the practical impossibility due to the board of management not having been constituted..The Court noted that the eligibility criteria for appointment of vice-chancellor provided under the Act was clearly unreasonable as it enabled appointment of a person with no background in legal education. Accordingly, the Court held that it suffered from manifest arbitrariness and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India..Taking into account the objectives of establishing the university as a single discipline institution of excellence in the field of legal education, the Court read down Section 11(2)."In order to save the constitutionality of the provision, the eligibility criteria as contained in Section 11(2) of the Act of 2019 is read down to mean that no person shall be eligible to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor unless he is a distinguished academician in the field of legal education with other experiences also in the field of legal education and/or research in the field of legal education," it directed.As a consequence of reading down the eligibility criteria as contained in Section 11(2) of the Act, the appointment Dr Dev Swaroop as vice-chancellor of the University was set aside. It also held that Section 11(17) was not inconsistent with any provision of the Act as it was necessary for appointment of the first vice-chancellor and clarified that the eligibility criteria was still applicable..The petitioner was represented by advocates Sunil Samdaria and Ramesh Chand Bairwa..Advocate General MS Singhvi appeared along with advocate Siddhant Jain for the State..[Read Order]