In a significant ruling on university governance and regulatory supremacy, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday upheld the validity of UGC norms in the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, while allowing Dr. S. Mohan to continue as Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University until the end of his tenure or till a fresh appointment is made.
The judgment brings clarity on the long-running legal battle over whether state universities can bypass University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations while appointing their heads.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Suicide Abetment Case, Says Angry Words Alone Don’t Prove Criminal
Background of the Case
Dr. S. Mohan was appointed Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University (PTU) in December 2021 following a selection process conducted under the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019.
However, his appointment was challenged before the Madras High Court by two petitioners, who argued that the Search-cum-Selection Committee was not formed in accordance with UGC Regulations, 2018.
The High Court agreed with this view and struck down his appointment in December 2023, holding that the committee lacked a nominee of the UGC Chairman-an essential requirement under Regulation 7.3. Still, to avoid an administrative vacuum, the court allowed Dr. Mohan to continue temporarily.
Dr. Mohan then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.
Read Also:-Delhi High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Show ‘Ba*ds
The central question before the Supreme Court was:
Can a State law governing university appointments override UGC Regulations framed under central law?
The case also examined whether the absence of a UGC nominee in the selection committee invalidated the entire appointment process.
What the Court Observed
The Supreme Court, after a detailed analysis of constitutional provisions and previous rulings, made the following key observations:
- The UGC Regulations, 2018 are framed under Entry 66 of the Union List, which deals with coordination and determination of standards in higher education.
- These regulations have statutory force and are binding on all universities, including state universities.
- Any appointment made in violation of these regulations is legally unsustainable.
The Bench noted:
“The composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee must strictly conform to the UGC Regulations. Any deviation strikes at the root of the appointment process.”
The Court also clarified that the issue was not one of repugnancy under Article 254, but of lack of legislative competence, since the field of higher education standards lies exclusively with Parliament.
Read Also:- UGC's 2026 Anti-Discrimination Rules Face Protest by Lawyers Near Allahabad High Court
Why the PTU Appointment Was Faulty
The Court found two major flaws in the PTU appointment process:
- No UGC Nominee in Selection Committee
Regulation 7.3 mandates inclusion of a UGC nominee. This was missing. - Conflict of Interest
The Secretary (Higher & Technical Education), who was part of the committee, had institutional links with the university, violating the requirement of independence.
Because of these defects, Section 14(5) of the PTU Act was held to be inconsistent with UGC Regulations.
Relief Granted to Dr. S. Mohan
Despite upholding the High Court’s findings, the Supreme Court took a balanced view on the consequences.
The Bench observed:
“There is no allegation against the appellant’s integrity, competence, or academic credentials.”
Considering that Dr. Mohan had already served for over four years and his tenure was nearing completion, the Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice.”
The Court Ordered:
- Dr. S. Mohan shall continue as Vice-Chancellor till:
- the end of his tenure (December 2026), or
- appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor as per UGC rules,
whichever is earlier.
- He will be eligible to apply again, if a fresh selection process is initiated.
- The Puducherry government is free to amend the PTU Act to bring it in line with UGC Regulations.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Odisha Land Dispute Orders, Says Section 47 CPC Misused After Decree
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment declaring the appointment process defective but protected Dr. Mohan’s tenure to prevent institutional instability.
The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Dr. S. Mohan v. Secretary to the Chancellor, PTU
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 54–55 of 2025
Decision Date: January 30, 2026
