Supreme Court Upholds Invalidation of PTU Search Committee Provisions But Allows Incumbent VC To Complete Tenure

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by special leave against a Madras High Court order setting aside the appointment of the first Vice‑Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University (PTU) and declaring Section 14(5) of the PTU Act ultra vires. The appeals arose from challenges to the constitution of the Search‑cum‑Selection Committee under the PTU Act and its consistency with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's conclusion that the PTU Act must conform to the UGC Regulations, 2018 framed under Entry 66 of List I, and held that the composition of the Search‑cum‑Selection Committee without a nominee of the Chairman, UGC, and with a member connected to the University, was inconsistent with the mandatory standards. The Court observed that the UGC Regulations “occupy the field and therefore, possess overriding effect” in matters of standards for higher education. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “On that anvil, the PTU Act was required to operate in strict conformity with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which lays down a mandatory framework for appointment of a Vice‑Chancellor and, inter alia, stipulates that the Search‑cum‑Selection Committee must necessarily include one nominee of the Chairman, UGC. The inclusion of a UGC nominee being an integral component of the standards prescribed for appointments in higher education, any deviation therefrom strikes at the root of the scheme envisaged under the Regulations. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Search‑cum‑Selection Committee was constituted without the inclusion of the nominee of the Chairman, UGC, in clear disregard of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Consequently, Section 14(5) of the PTU Act, to the extent it prescribes a composition of the Search‑cum‑Selection Committee contrary to the mandate of the UGC Regulations, 2018, has to be declared ultra vires the UGC Regulations, 2018, which have been framed under a Central enactment traceable to Entry 66 of List I, which occupies the field and therefore, possess overriding effect.” The Court also noted the Regulation's mandate that members of such committees “shall not be connected in any manner with the University”.

Background The Puducherry Legislative Assembly enacted the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 to establish PTU. Section 14 provided for appointment of the Vice‑Chancellor from a panel recommended by a Search‑cum‑Selection Committee constituted under Section 14(5). The Committee constituted by the Lieutenant Governor in January 2021 omitted a nominee of the UGC Chairman and included the Secretary (Higher & Technical Education), who had prior connections with the erstwhile college and served as Pro‑Chancellor. Following advertisement and selection, Dr. S. Mohan was appointed as the first Vice‑Chancellor in December 2021.

Writ petitions in the Madras High Court challenged the appointment and the vires of Section 14(5), contending that Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 required a UGC Chairman nominee and that members must not be connected with the university. The High Court struck down Section 14(5) as inconsistent with the UGC Regulations and set aside the appointment, while permitting the incumbent to continue until a successor assumed charge or until 30 June 2024. The petitions relied on precedents including Dr. Preeti Srivastava, Kaiser‑I‑Hind and Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi; respondent arguments emphasised the exclusive role of Entry 66 in determining standards in higher education and the statutory force of UGC Regulations.

On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional distribution of legislative powers under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule, concluded that Regulation 7.3 derived from Entry 66 and thus governed standards for appointment, and held that the PTU Act's deviation from the Regulation rendered the relevant provision ultra vires. The Court declined to engage with Article 254 repugnancy analysis because the UGC Act and Regulations trace to List I (Entry 66) and therefore occupy the field. Noting that there was no challenge to the appellant’s qualifications or integrity and to avoid disruption, the Court exercised its equitable powers under Article 142 and directed that the appellant would continue as Vice‑Chancellor until the end of his normal tenure or until a new Vice‑Chancellor was validly selected, whichever was earlier, and that he could participate in any fresh selection process. The Court left the Union Territory legislature free to amend the PTU Act to bring it into conformity with the UGC Regulations.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 54‑55 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 4593‑4594 of 2024); 2026 INSC 100 Case Title: Dr. S. Mohan v. The Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry & Ors. Appearances: For the Appellant(s): Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Counsel for respondents and for the University and UGC (names not specified in the reported judgment)