The Hindu : National : Court sets aside appointment of UGC Chairman

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, May 11, 2005

National

National

Court sets aside appointment of UGC Chairman

Staff Reporter

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday set aside the appointment of Arun Nigavekar as Chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

Allowing a quo warranto petition, Justice K. P. Sivasubramaniam said appointment of Prof. Nigavekar was erroneous and in violation of the UGC Act. The judge, however, suspended the order for two weeks to enable the UGC Chairman to file an appeal.

The petitioner, R. Natarajan, who cited the Secretary to the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Secretary to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice as other respondents, sought a direction to Prof. Nigavekar to show cause by what authority he used, enjoyed and performed the duties and privileges of the office of the UGC Chairman.

The petitioner contended that since Prof. Nigavekar had served one term as member and another as Vice-Chairman of the Commission, he was dis-entitled to be appointed Chairman under the provisions of the UGC Act.

In their counter-affidavits, the two Union Ministries submitted that the appointment of Prof. Nigavekar was not in accordance with Section 6 of the UGC Act.

Partial terms

Prof. Nigavekar, appointed as UGC Chairman by a notification dated July 16, 2002, in his counter said that only a person who held the office for two full terms was not eligible for the post. As he had not held the post of member and vice-chairman for the full term, he was entitled to be appointed Chairman.

The Judge said the total period of office might be for a particular length or prescribed period, also described as a term. But the word `term' from the perspective of the bar on the right to contest or to be appointed for a further term could refer to a person holding the post even for a partial spell of the term. Once the incumbent assumed office, it could be a short spell or full spell, but in either case, it had to be held that the person held office.

If the word `term' is to be assumed as full term, as pleaded by Prof. Nigavekar, then such a claim would become unquestionable and acceptable. Noting that interpretation of statutory provisions had to satisfy a test of reasonableness and avoid ambiguity, the Judge said to avoid absurd results it was necessary to conclude that a person holding office, irrespective of the tenure, had to be deemed as having held the post for one term.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National