Supreme Court Explains Appointment Law: The Authority That Appoints the First Registrar Can Also Remove Him

Case Name: Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 520

Date of Judgment/Order: 21 May 2026

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Held: The Supreme Court held that where the First Registrar of a statutory university is appointed by the Visitor under a transitional provision, the Visitor, being the appointing authority, also has the power to suspend or remove him unless a contrary intention appears in the statute. The Court explained that Section 46(b) of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 is a transitional provision meant to deal with the initial appointment of the First Registrar, and such appointment power must be read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that the authority having power to appoint also has power to suspend or dismiss. Therefore, the High Court erred in holding that the Visitor had no role in disciplinary proceedings against the First Registrar.

Summary: The dispute concerned the termination of the First Registrar of Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, who was appointed after approval of the President of India as Visitor under the transitional framework of Section 46 of the Act. His services were initially terminated during probation, but the High Court found that termination stigmatic and remitted the matter for fresh action. After reinstatement, he was placed under suspension, served with a charge memorandum, and subjected to enquiry, in which charges of indiscipline, gross insubordination, unprofessional conduct and obstruction of public servants were held proved. The Visitor approved termination, which was communicated by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Ministry and Visitor had no jurisdiction in disciplinary matters and set aside the termination. The Supreme Court disagreed on the jurisdictional issue, holding that the case involved the First Registrar, not a regular Registrar, and therefore stood on a distinct footing under Section 46(b). Since the Visitor was the appointing authority for the First Registrar, the Visitor could also approve termination under the combined operation of the Act, Statute No. 28 and Section 16 of the General Clauses Act.

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by holding that the Visitor’s exercise of disciplinary power against the First Registrar was just and proper, and that the High Court’s finding that the Visitor had no role in such proceedings was legally incorrect. However, considering the peculiar facts, including expiry of the First Registrar’s appointment period and repeated rounds of litigation, the Court declined to interfere with the operative directions issued by the High Court. The appeals were disposed of in those terms, with no order as to costs.