In a notable ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal of Professor N.D.R. Chandra, former Vice-Chancellor of Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, who challenged his removal from office. The court upheld the State’s authority to invoke Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, empowering the government to intervene in the administration of state universities under extraordinary circumstances. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that “there is no judicially laid criteria of standards to test the satisfaction reached by the Governor.”
Background of the Case
Professor N.D.R. Chandra, who had served as Vice-Chancellor of Bastar University since January 2013, was removed from his post following a series of allegations, including administrative misconduct and financial irregularities. The Chhattisgarh government appointed an inquiry committee in 2015 to examine these accusations, leading to findings that suggested severe lapses in university management. Based on the committee’s report, the State Government issued notifications in September 2016 to remove Chandra and replace him with the Commissioner of Bastar Division.
Chandra challenged these notifications, claiming that the inquiry was procedurally flawed, biased, and that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. His appeal was initially dismissed by a Single Judge bench, leading him to appeal the decision before a Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru.
Key Legal Issues
1. Interpretation of Section 52: The primary legal issue centered on the State’s interpretation and application of Section 52 of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, which allows the government to intervene in university administration if it believes the institution cannot be managed according to the Act’s provisions.
2. Governor’s Satisfaction and Judicial Review: The court was tasked with determining whether the “subjective satisfaction” of the Governor—who, based on the inquiry findings, sanctioned the appellant’s removal—was open to judicial scrutiny.
3. Right to Procedural Fairness: Chandra argued that he was denied due process, as the notifications were issued without sufficient hearing or an opportunity to challenge the findings of the inquiry report.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court upheld the State Government’s decision, emphasizing that the Governor’s subjective satisfaction, a requirement under Section 52, cannot be assessed by judicial standards. Drawing on precedents such as S.B. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994), the court noted that “the satisfaction of the Governor is subjective and cannot be reassessed by this Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, delivering the judgment, observed that in instances where the administration of a university cannot be effectively managed, the State is authorized to modify provisions of the Act to protect institutional interests. The court cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s interpretation in Umrao Singh Choudhary vs. State of MP, emphasizing that the State’s discretion under Section 52 is valid when supported by evidence of administrative dysfunction.
Counsel and Representation
– For the Appellant: Senior Advocate Shri Kishore Bhaduri, accompanied by Shri Harishankar Patel, Shri Pankaj Singh, and Shri Harsh Dave.
– For the Respondents: Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, represented the State, while Shri Neeraj Choubey appeared for the University’s Chancellor.
