Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed and set aside the order issued by the President of India appointing IIM Nagpur Director Bhimaraya Metri as the Acting Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya (MGAHV). Metri was appointed by the President in her capacity of being the university’s visitor.
A division bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Mukulika Jawalkar stated, “We are of the opinion that the President has committed error in handing over the additional charge of MGAHV VC to Metri, till the new one is appointed.”
Petitioner Prof Lella Karunyakara, represented by counsels Firdos and Shaad Mirza, contested the order issued by the visitor on October 19, 2023, assigning additional charge of the university’s VC to the IIM Director. The petitioner argued that the charge should have been given to the senior-most professor.
The petitioner highlighted that former VC Rajneesh Shukla had resigned on August 14, 2023 and had handed over the charge to him on the same day. The MGAHV published a notification confirming this change, and the petitioner received a congratulatory message from the Chancellor via email. However, on October 19, the President issued an order assigning the additional charge to Metri until a new VC is appointed.
The High Court quashed the October 19 notification issued by the Government of India’s undersecretary working in the President’s office. “We permit the President to take a fresh decision as regards to handing over the VC’s charge at the earliest. It is made clear that, if the respondent wants to proceed with the process of VC’s appointment, they may do so in accordance with law,” the judges said.
Clarifying that Metri was no way connected with the MGAHV, the bench said, in any case, he cannot perform the VC’s duties as an additional charge, as per Statute 2(7) governing the VC’s appointment. “In the October 19 communication/order, there is no reason given why the charge was not given to the senior-most professor. Or if any impediment was there in giving the charge to the senior-most professor, then why was it not given to the next senior professor from the MGAHV,” the court said.
