Speaking to Border News Mirror, Proctor of MGCU Prof. (Dr.) Prashun Datt stated that eligibility calculations in Bihar consider experience from the due date of promotion, not merely the date of formal approval, and confirmed that a formal reply is being prepared.

Sagar Suraj

MOTIHARI : A legal storm has engulfed Mahatma Gandhi Central University (MGCU), Motihari, following a notice challenging the appointment of its Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Sanjay Shrivastva.

A serious legal challenge has emerged, bringing questions of eligibility, statutory compliance, and transparency to the forefront.

 The appointment of Prof. Sanjay Srivastava is under scrutiny following a formal legal notice alleging violation of mandatory norms prescribed under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.

The challenge has been initiated by academician Dr. Sandeep Pahal of Meerut through Advocate Alok Anand and has been served upon the UGC and the Ministry of Education. 

At the center of the dispute is Regulation 7.3.0(i) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which requires a Vice-Chancellor to possess a minimum of ten years’ experience as a Professor in a university, or equivalent experience in a reputed research or academic administrative organization. 

These regulations, framed under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, have statutory force and are binding on all universities across India.

According to the notice, the Ministry’s advertisement dated 21 May 2022 for the MGCU Vice-Chancellor post explicitly adopted these UGC norms. 

However, information obtained under the Right to Information Act from Banaras Hindu University (BHU) indicates that Prof. Srivastava was promoted to the rank of Professor (Stage-5) only on 4 October 2012 after approval by BHU’s Executive Council. 

Based on this date, the petitioner argues that by the June 2022 cut-off, Prof. Srivastava had completed only nine years and eight months of service as a Professor, falling short of the mandatory ten-year requirement.
The notice draws strength from judicial precedents as well .

 In a 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that experience in non-teaching bodies cannot be equated with experience “as Professor” under UGC Regulation 7.3.0.

 Similarly, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Dr. Dharam Pal Singh v. State of H.P. (2021), relying on Union of India v. M. Bhaskar (1996), held that notional or retrospective promotions cannot be counted for eligibility; only actual service from the date of promotion is valid.

The notice, issued under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, alleges procedural arbitrariness in the selection process and seeks an immediate review of the appointment.

 It also flags alleged inconsistencies in Prof. Srivastava’s curriculum vitae regarding his Fulbright association with American University, Washington D.C., suggesting possible misrepresentation. He was there as visiting scholar instead of visiting professor, Pahal claimed.

Responding to the allegations, MGCU officials defended the appointment. Speaking to Border News Mirror, Prof. (Dr.) Prashun Datt stated that eligibility calculations in Bihar consider experience from the due date of promotion, not merely the date of formal approval, and confirmed that a formal reply is being prepared.

Meanwhile, sources indicate that no Bihar-specific regulation overrides UGC norms, reinforcing their statutory supremacy. 

If no action is taken within 60 days, the petitioner plans to approach the courts, potentially triggering a precedent-setting ruling on how “experience” under UGC Regulation 7.3.0(i) must be legally computed, notice reads

Previous Next