![Visitor Who Appointed First Registrar Could Terminate Him: Supreme Court in Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh [2026 INSC 520]](/assets/images/article-criminal.svg)
Quick Answer: The Visitor (the President of India), who appoints the first Registrar of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University under the transitional provision in Section 46(b) of the 2013 Act, is also the authority competent to terminate his services, by virtue of Statute No. 28(1) read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Allahabad High Court’s finding that the Visitor had no role in disciplinary proceedings against the First Registrar, but, given the expiry of his term and repeated litigation, did not interfere with the High Court’s operative directions.
In Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh & Ors. (2026 INSC 520), the Supreme Court held that Section 46(b) of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 and Statute No. 28(1) must be read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, so that the Visitor, as the appointing authority of the First Registrar, also had the power to terminate his services (paras 25, 27). A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe found the exercise of power by the Visitor just and proper and could not concur with the High Court’s contrary finding, yet declined to disturb the High Court’s operative directions in view of the expiry of the appointment period and the repeated rounds of litigation (paras 28–29).
Status: Appeals disposed of; finding of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in its order dated 22.05.2024 that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary proceedings disapproved, but its operative directions left undisturbed; no order as to costs (paras 28–30).
Headnote: Power to Terminate the First Registrar of a Central University
Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 – Sections 2(b), 2(l), 2(x), 9, 14, 20 and 46(b) – Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, First Statute, 2016 – Statute No. 28 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 16 – First Registrar – Appointment by Visitor under transitional provision – Power to terminate – Appointing authority – Disciplinary proceedings – Service law.
Held: (i) Under the Act, the Registrar is appointed by the Executive Council, and the President of India is the Visitor of the University; until the first Executive Council is formed, the Steering Committee of MOCA functions as the interim Executive Council (para 20).
(ii) Section 46 is a transitional provision; its operation is temporary, and the power under Section 46(b) exhausts itself once it is exercised by making an appointment (para 23).
(iii) Under Statute No. 28(1), the power to remove an employee on the ground of misconduct is conferred on the appointing authority; for a regular Registrar, that is the Executive Council (paras 22, 24).
(iv) The First Registrar stands on a distinct footing; Section 46(b) and Statute No. 28(1) must be read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, under which the authority with power to appoint also has power to suspend or dismiss (para 25).
(v) The First Registrar was terminated by the Visitor, who was also his appointing authority, in consonance with Statute No. 28(1); he had not, in the earlier round, pleaded that the Visitor lacked authority to terminate him (paras 26–27).
(vi) The exercise of power by the Visitor was just and proper, but given the expiry of the appointment period and the repeated litigation, the High Court’s operative directions were not interfered with (paras 28–29).
(paras 20–30)
Case Details: Vice Chancellor, RGNAU v. Jitendra Singh (2026 INSC 520)
Final Outcome: Appeals disposed of; High Court’s finding that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary proceedings disapproved; its operative directions not interfered with; no costs (paras 28–30).
Case: Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 520
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16265 of 2024), with Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. ___ of 2026, Diary No. 38863 of 2024)
Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable
Date of Decision: 21 May 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe (author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013 – Sections 2(b), 2(l), 2(x), 9, 12, 14, 20, 27(1) and 46; Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University, First Statute, 2016 – Clause 7 and Statute No. 28; General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 16
Impugned Order: Order dated 22.05.2024 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowing the First Registrar’s intra-court appeal and setting aside the Single Judge’s order dated 25.04.2023 and the termination order dated 27.04.2022 (paras 2, 14)
Source: Supreme Court of India
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- Section 46(b) is a transitional provision under which the Visitor appoints the first Registrar; the power exhausts itself once the appointment is made (paras 21, 23).
- Under Statute No. 28(1), the power to remove an employee for misconduct rests with the appointing authority (paras 22, 24).
- By Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the authority that appoints also has the power to suspend or dismiss, unless a different intention appears (para 25).
- The Visitor, being the appointing authority of the First Registrar, could terminate his services, and the action was in consonance with Statute No. 28(1) (para 27).
- The High Court’s finding that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary proceedings was not accepted (para 28).
- In view of the expiry of the appointment period and repeated litigation, the High Court’s operative directions were not disturbed (para 29).
Brief Facts of the Case
The University was established under the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013, and the Central Government framed the First Statute on 07.03.2016. On 28.02.2019 the President of India, as Visitor, approved the appointment of the First Registrar, who was appointed on probation for one year by offer dated 01.03.2019 and assumed charge on 08.04.2019 (paras 4–5).
His services were terminated during probation by order dated 08/09.01.2020. In the first round, the Single Judge directed reinstatement, but the Division Bench on 17.12.2021 held the termination stigmatic and remitted the matter to the University to proceed afresh. His SLP against that order was dismissed on 04.02.2022 with liberty to make a representation (paras 6–9).
He was reinstated on 31.12.2021 and suspended the same day. A Memorandum of Charges was served on 22.02.2022, an Enquiry Committee found charges of indiscipline, gross insubordination and unprofessional conduct proved, the Visitor approved the proposal on 20.04.2022, and termination was conveyed by the Deputy Secretary, MOCA on 27.04.2022 (paras 10–11).
The Single Judge on 25.04.2023 held that he was entitled only to one month’s salary in lieu of notice. On appeal, the Division Bench on 22.05.2024 held that MOCA and the Visitor had no role in disciplinary proceedings, quashed the termination as without jurisdiction and awarded back wages up to 07.04.2022. The University and the Union of India appealed (paras 12–14).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Visitor, who appointed the First Registrar under Section 46(b) of the Act, had the power to terminate his services after disciplinary proceedings (paras 15–19, 23–27).
- Whether the High Court was right in holding the termination to be without jurisdiction, and what relief should follow (paras 28–29).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Scheme of the Act (para 20): An employee is any person appointed by the University; the Registrar is appointed by the Executive Council; the President is the Visitor; and till the first Executive Council is formed, the Steering Committee of MOCA acts as the interim Executive Council.
Transitional provision (paras 21, 23): Section 46(b) provides that, notwithstanding the Act and Statutes, the first Registrar shall be appointed by the Visitor on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor for a term of three years. Drawing on Thornton on Legislative Drafting and Britnell v. Secretary of State for Social Security, the Court held that a transitional provision is temporary and the power under Section 46(b) is exhausted once the appointment is made.
Statute No. 28 (paras 22, 24): Statute No. 28 confers the power to suspend and remove an employee other than a teacher or academic staff on the authority competent to appoint. For a regular Registrar, the appointing authority, and so the removing authority, is the Executive Council.
Section 16 of the General Clauses Act (para 25): As the case concerned the First Registrar, Section 46(b) and Statute No. 28(1) had to be read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, so that the authority having power to appoint also has power to suspend or dismiss the person so appointed.
Earlier round and remand (paras 26–27): The Division Bench order of 17.12.2021 remitting the matter attained finality, and the First Registrar did not then plead that the Visitor lacked authority. After the remand, the enquiry was held and the Visitor approved termination; his three-year tenure ran from 01.03.2019 to 28.02.2022. The termination by the Visitor, as appointing authority, appeared to be in consonance with Statute No. 28(1).
Relief (paras 28–29): The Court found the exercise of power by the Visitor just and proper and could not concur with the High Court that the Visitor had no role. However, given the expiry of the appointment period and the repeated rounds of litigation, it declined to interfere with the High Court’s operative directions.
Final Outcome and Directions
- The High Court’s finding that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary proceedings against the First Registrar not accepted (para 28).
- The operative directions issued by the High Court not interfered with (para 29).
- Appeals disposed of in these terms; no order as to costs (para 30).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Where a statute’s transitional provision vests the power to appoint the first holder of an office in a particular authority, that authority, by virtue of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, also holds the power to suspend or dismiss the person so appointed, unless a different intention appears. A transitional power is temporary and exhausts itself on appointment, but the appointing authority under it remains the removing authority for the person so appointed (paras 23, 25, 27).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Britnell v. Secretary of State for Social Security, [1991] 2 All ER 726 – Referred to – a transitional provision becomes spent once past circumstances are dealt with. Cited at para 23 (footnote 2).
- Thornton on Legislative Drafting, 3rd ed. (1987), p. 319 – Referred to – function of a transitional provision. Cited at para 23 (footnote 1).
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 23: "The power under Section 46(b) of the Act, exhausts itself when it is exercised by making an appointment."
Para 25: "Thus, the appointing authority necessarily possesses the power to terminate the services of the employee appointed by it."
Para 26: "It is noteworthy that in the aforesaid round of litigation, the First Registrar did not take the plea that Visitor lacked authority to terminate his services."
Para 27: "Therefore, in terms of Statute No.28(1), the services of the First Registrar were terminated by the Visitor who was also the appointing authority of the First Registrar."
Para 28: "We are, therefore, unable to concur with the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in its judgment dated 22.05.2024 that the Visitor had no role in the disciplinary proceedings against the First Registrar of University."
Para 29: "However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, namely, the expiry of period of appointment of the First Registrar and the repeated rounds of litigation between the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the operative directions issued by the High Court."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For central universities: Where the Visitor appoints the first officers under a transitional provision, the Visitor is also competent to remove them, read with Section 16 of the General Clauses Act (paras 25, 27).
- For employees: A plea that the terminating authority lacked jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest round; the Court noted it was not taken earlier (para 26).
- For High Courts: Disciplinary power over officers appointed under a transitional provision must be traced to the appointing authority, not only to the regular scheme of the Act (paras 24–25, 28).
- For litigants: Even when the Supreme Court disagrees with a High Court’s reasoning, it may decline to disturb the relief granted, given the expiry of tenure and prolonged litigation (para 29).
FAQs on Termination of the First Registrar by the Visitor
1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Vice Chancellor, RGNAU v. Jitendra Singh?
It held that the Visitor could terminate the First Registrar as his appointing authority and disagreed with the High Court, but left the High Court’s operative directions undisturbed (paras 27–29).
2. Who appoints the first Registrar of the University?
Under Section 46(b) of the Act, the Visitor appoints the first Registrar on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor, for a term of three years (para 21).
3. Who can remove a regular Registrar?
The Executive Council, as the appointing authority under Section 14, can remove the Registrar for misconduct under Statute No. 28(1) (para 24).
4. How does Section 16 of the General Clauses Act apply?
It provides that, unless a different intention appears, the authority with power to appoint also has power to suspend or dismiss the person appointed (para 25).
5. Why were the High Court’s directions not set aside?
Because of the expiry of the First Registrar’s period of appointment and the repeated rounds of litigation between the parties (para 29).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 520, Vice Chancellor Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act 2013, Section 46(b), transitional provision, First Registrar, Visitor, President of India, Statute No. 28, Section 16 General Clauses Act, appointing authority, power to dismiss, termination, disciplinary proceedings, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Supreme Court judgment
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Vice Chancellor, RGNAU v. Jitendra Singh
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).