Mr. Counsel, Section 46(b) of the Act states that the first Registrar shall be appointed by the Visitor. But Statute No. 28 provides that the appointing authority for removal is the Executive Council. Is there not a conflict?

My Lord, there is no conflict. Section 46(b) is a transitional provision. It operates only for the first appointment. Once the first Registrar is appointed, the regular provisions under the Act and the Statutes govern the terms of service. However, Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the appointing authority also has the power to remove, unless a different intention appears. Statute No. 28 does not expressly exclude the Visitor's power. Moreover, Statute No. 28 speaks of the 'appointing authority' — for the first Registrar, the appointing authority was the Visitor. Therefore, the Visitor's action is in consonance with Statute No. 28. There is no conflict.

The First Registrar was appointed on 01.03.2019 for a term of three years. His term expired on 28.02.2022. The approval for termination was granted on 20.04.2022 — after his term had expired. How can you terminate the services of a person who is no longer in service?

My Lord, the First Registrar was in service when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Memorandum of Charges was served on 22.02.2022 — before the expiry of his term. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 23.03.2022 — after the expiry of his term. The termination relates back to the misconduct committed during his tenure. Moreover, the First Registrar had been reinstated pursuant to the Division Bench's order. He was in service until the termination order was issued. The expiry of the fixed term does not automatically terminate the relationship when disciplinary proceedings are pending. The University had the authority to conclude the proceedings and pass a final order.

The First Registrar was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Visitor approved the termination. Is that not a violation of natural justice?

My Lord, the First Registrar was given a full opportunity during the disciplinary enquiry. An Enquiry Committee was constituted. He was served with a Memorandum of Charges. He participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Committee gave him an opportunity to present his case. The Enquiry Report was forwarded to him. Only after considering the entire record did the Visitor approve the termination. There was no requirement for a separate hearing before the Visitor. The principles of natural justice were fully complied with. The High Court did not find any violation of natural justice.

The First Registrar's appointment letter dated 01.03.2019 says he was appointed on probation for one year. He was never confirmed. Under the terms of his appointment, he was entitled only to one month's notice. Why was a full disciplinary enquiry conducted?

My Lord, the Division Bench of the High Court had held that the earlier order of termination during probation was stigmatic. The Court remitted the matter to the University to proceed afresh in accordance with law. In compliance with that order, the University conducted a disciplinary enquiry. The First Registrar cannot now argue that a disciplinary enquiry was not required. The Division Bench's order attained finality. The University was merely complying with the directions of the Court. Moreover, the charges against the First Registrar were serious — indiscipline, gross insubordination, unprofessional conduct, and obstruction of public servants. A summary termination without enquiry would have been unjustified. The University acted correctly.

For PetitionerService Premium

Visitor Is Appointing Authority Under Section 46(b) of the Act — (2026) INSC 520

Under Section 46(b) of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013, the Visitor (President of India) appointed the First Registrar.

Vice Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University v. Jitendra Singh — (2026) INSC 520

Core Argument

Under Section 46(b) of the Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013, the Visitor (President of India) appointed the First Registrar. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the appointing authority has the power to remove. Therefore, the Visitor was competent to approve the termination.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in