UGC Regulations on Vice-Chancellor Appointment Prevail Over State Law Under Entry 66 List I: Supreme Court Upholds Invalidation but Grants Continuation Under Article 142
Case Name: Dr. S. Mohan v. The Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Puducherry & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 100
Date of Judgment/Order: 30 January 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Held: The Supreme Court held that the UGC Regulations, 2018 framed under the UGC Act, 1956 are traceable to Entry 66 of List I and therefore possess overriding effect in matters concerning standards in higher education, including the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of a Vice-Chancellor. Since Section 14(5) of the Puducherry Technological University Act, 2019 prescribed a composition contrary to Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018—particularly by excluding a nominee of the Chairman, UGC and including a person connected with the University—the statutory provision was inconsistent with binding Central standards and could not stand. The doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 was held inapplicable as the field was exclusively occupied by Entry 66 of List I.
Summary: The appellant, Dr. S. Mohan, was appointed as the first Vice-Chancellor of Puducherry Technological University pursuant to a Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted under Section 14(5) of the PTU Act. The Madras High Court set aside his appointment on the ground that the Committee was not constituted in accordance with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which mandates inclusion of a nominee of the Chairman, UGC and prohibits persons connected with the University from serving on the Committee. The High Court also declared Section 14(5) ultra vires and invalid. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that Presidential assent validated the PTU Act and that composition of the Committee fell within Entry 25 of List III. The respondents argued that standards in higher education are exclusively governed by Entry 66 of List I and that UGC Regulations are mandatory. The Court examined Article 246, Entries 25 and 66 of the Seventh Schedule, Dr. Preeti Srivastava, Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi, and Hoechst Pharmaceuticals, and concluded that standards prescribed by the UGC cannot be diluted by State legislation. It held that since the UGC Regulations occupy the field under Entry 66, no question of Article 254 repugnancy or Presidential assent arose.
Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s conclusion that the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee was illegal and inconsistent with the UGC Regulations, 2018; however, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, it directed that Dr. S. Mohan shall continue as Vice-Chancellor until completion of his normal tenure or until a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed in accordance with law, whichever is earlier, and permitted him to participate in any fresh selection process without prejudice. The appeals were disposed of and pending applications stood disposed of.