As a consequence of this, there was no need to follow the selection procedure as per UGC regulations for the appointment of a Vice Chancellor to an agricultural University.
Further, the petitioner highlighted the High Court’s error in proceeding on the premise that the selection of the Vice Chancellor of KUFOS would come within the concurrent list which deals with education and universities.
“When a specific entry deals with agricultural education, Entry 25 in the concurrent list ought not to have been referred to by the High Court,” it was submitted.
Hence, it was argued that the appointment was in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Act and could not be invalidated for not conforming to the UGC regulations.
Source: Barandbench
