Constitution of India – Art. 254 – UGC Regulations, 2010 – UGC Guidelines – APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (AAKTU) Act, 2015 (University Act, 2015/State Act) & Regulations – S. 13 – Appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor – Requirement of recommending a panel of names by search committee – State government’s discretion to adopt and implement UGC Regulations, 2010 – Repugnancy between State legislation and Central legislation – Appellant herein filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court to declare the appointment of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram as void on the ground the appointment was contrary to UGC Regulations, which required that the Search Committee should recommend a panel of three to five names for consideration, but in the instant case, only one name was recommended – Further contended that UGC Act shall prevail over State legislation – Single Judge dismissed the petition by noting that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically adopted by the State Government, the State legislation shall prevail and once the Search Committee was constituted as per Section 13 of the University Act enacted by the State, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be by a duly constituted Search Committee and as such the appointment cannot be said to be illegal – Appellant appealed before a Division Bench, which came to be dismissed – Question for the Supreme Court – Whether while making the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the AAKTU, Thiruvananthapuram, the appointment should be as per the prevailing UGC Regulations or in effect of the provisions of the University Act, 2015 (State Act)?; Whether the Search Committee constituted to recommend the name of the respondent No. 1 as Vice Chancellor of the University can be said to be duly constituted Committee? – Held: Any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the recommendation of the Search Committee, which is constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations shall be void ab initio – If there is any conflict between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the Union law shall prevail even as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India to the extent the provision of the State legislation is repugnant – Merely because the subsequent amendment has not been specifically adopted/accepted by the State cannot be a ground by the State to contend that the amendment to the Regulations shall not be binding on the State/State’s Universities – Search Committee in this case was not a duly constituted Search Committee as per UGC regulations – Under UGC regulations, the Search Committee duly constituted has to send a panel of 3-5 names for consideration as appointment as Vice Chancellor, and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee – Even under University Act, the Search Committee shall recommended unanimously a panel of not less than three suitable persons – When only one name was recommended and the panel of names was not recommended, the Chancellor had no option to consider the names of the other candidates – Thus, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 can be said to be dehors and/ or contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations as well as even to the University Act, 2015.