Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal vs Hnb Garhwal University And Others on 15 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2669-DB
Judgment Reserved on:11.03.2026
Judgment Delivered on :15.04.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (PIL) No.209 of 2025
Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal -----Petitioner
Versus
HNB Garhwal University and Others ----Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Anurag Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner through
V.C.
Dr. K.H. Gupta, learned counsel for H.N.B. Garhwal University/
respondent no.1.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along
with Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of
India/ respondent no.2.
Ms. Anjali Bhargwa, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Mr. Mohinder Rupral, learned counsel with Mr. K.S. Jagati,
learned counsel for respondent no.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay J.)
1. The present public interest litigation has been
filed with a prayer to issue a writ of Quo-warranto for
quashing the notification dated 18.06.2025 whereby
private respondent no.4 has been appointed as Vice-
Chancellor of the H.N.B. Garhwal Central University
(hereinafter referred to as “HNBG University”).
2. The petitioner who had earlier worked as an
Assistant Professor (Guest Faculty) in the Department
1
2026:UHC:2669-DB
of Sociology and Social Work at the HNBG University
resigned from the said post on 25.03.2021.
3. The petitioner, who claims to be an
academician turned social activist has challenged the
appointment of Prof. Shri Prakash Singh (respondent
no.4) to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the HNBG
University on the ground that the said appointment is
in violation of the provisions of the Central Universities
Act, 2009 and the University Grants Commission
(Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers
and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges
and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in
Higher Education Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter
referred to as “UGC Regulations 2018”).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support
of his contention has made the following submissions:
i) HNBG University was originally a State
University but w.e.f. 15.01.2009, the said
University became a Central University and
as per Central Universities Act, 2009, the
appointment of Vice-Chancellor has to be
made by the Visitor in such manner as
prescribed by the Statutes.
ii) As per Clause 7.3(i) of the UGC
Regulations 2018 notified on 18.07.2018, a
2
2026:UHC:2669-DB
person possessing the highest level ofcompetence, integrity, morals and
institutional commitment is to be appointed
as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be
appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a
distinguished academician, with a minimum
of ten years’ of experience as Professor in a
University or ten years’ of experience in a
reputed research and / or academic
administrative organisation with proof of
having demonstrated academic leadership.
iii) An advertisement was issued by the
Ministry of Education (Department of Higher
Education), Government of India (respondent
no.2) for appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor in the HNBG University wherein
the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post
was akin to the eligibility criteria prescribed
under Section 7(3) (i) of the UGC Regulations
2018.
iv) On the last date of submission of the
applications form i.e. 26.06.2024, respondent
no.4 was not having the minimum 10 years
of experience as a Professor in a University.
3
2026:UHC:2669-DB
v) As per curriculum vitae (CV) of
respondent no.4, enclosed as Annexure No.5
to the writ petition and details of which have
been provided in paragraph no.12 of the writ
petition, respondent no.4 possessed the
following qualification:
S.No. Tenure Position Held
1. 24.07.2015 Professor, Department
onwards of Political Science,
University of Delhi
2. 29.05.2014 Chair Professor, Dr.
to Ambedkar Chair in
23.07.2015 Social Justice, Indian
Institute of Public
Administration (IIPA),
New Delhi
3. 15.12.1995 Associate Professor,
to Department of
28.05.2014 Political Science, Sri
Aurobindo College
(University of Delhi)
4. 01.05.2002 Reader, Department of
to Political Science, Sri
01.01.2006 Aurobindo College
(University of Delhi)
5. 15.12.1995 Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer,
to Department of
30.04.2002 Political Science, Sri
Aurobindo College
(University of Delhi)
6. 17.07.1992 Ad-hoc Lecturer,
to Department of
13.12.1995 Political Science, Sri
Aurobindo College
(University of Delhi)
vi) Respondent no.4 is having 8 years and
11 months experience as Professor in a
University and the position held by him
4
2026:UHC:2669-DB
outside the University system as Chair
Professor, Dr. Ambedkar Chair in Social
Justice Department, Indian Institute of Public
Administration (IIPA), New Delhi cannot be
counted towards the experience as a
Professor in a University as IIPA is not a
university and does not fall within the
purview of the UGC Act or UGC Regulations
2018.
5. Thus, in sum and substance, the contention
of the petitioner is that, as respondent no.4 has the
experience of only 8 years 11 months as Professor in a
University on the last date of submission of application
form, as such appointment of respondent no.4 is
dehors the statutory rules and the same is liable to be
struck down by the Court by issuance of a writ of quo-
warranto.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari
Vs. Ravindra Jugran and Others (2022) 17 SCC 679
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court also considered the
judgment in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat
and Others (2022) 5 SCC 179.
5
2026:UHC:2669-DB
7. Learned counsel for the official respondents
no.1 to 3 and private respondent no.4 have filed their
counter affidavits and have refuted the contentions of
the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 made
the following submissions:
i) As per the provisions of the Central
Universities Act, 2009, statutes framed
thereunder and the UGC Regulations, 2018, a
search-cum-selection committee was
constituted for making recommendations for
appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor.
Constitution of the Selection Committee was
as follows:
“(a) Dr. Shekhar C. Mande, Former
Secretary, DSIR and Director General,
Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research (CSIR), New Delhi-
(Convenor)
(b) Prof. Anil Kumar Tripathi, Director,
Indian Insitute of Science Education &
Research (IISER) Mohali-(Member)
(c) Prof. Anand Bhalerao, Vice-
Chancellor, CU Rajasthan-(Member)
(d) Prof. Shri Prakash Mani Tripathi,
Vice-Chancellor, IGNTU Amarkantak
(M.P.)-(Member)
(e) Prof. N.C. Gautam, Former Vice-
Chancellor, MGCGV, Chitrakoot, Satna
(M.P.)-(Member)”
6
2026:UHC:2669-DB
ii) The Selection Committee held its meeting
on 05.11.2024 and after going through all the
applications submitted by the candidates,
shortlisted 32 candidates for interaction. The
interaction with the shortlisted candidates
was held on 16th and 17th December, 2024
and the committee recommended names of 5
candidates including the name of respondent
no.4.
iii) The panel of 5 names recommended by
the committee along with recommendation of
Hon’ble Minister of Education was placed
before the Hon’ble President of India in her
capacity as Visitor of the HNBG University
and respondent no.4 was appointed as Vice-
Chancellor of HNBG University on 18.06.2025
and he assumed office w.e.f. 21.06.2025.
iv) The Selection Committee comprising of
experts considered the qualification of
respondent no.4 as appropriate. The counsel
for respondent no.2 relies on the submission
made in paragraph no.15 and 16 of the
counter affidavit, which reads as under:
“15. That the contents of paragraph
No. 8 to 10 of the Writ Petition are not
correct hence denied. It is submitted7
2026:UHC:2669-DB
that the advertisement for the post
included a condition that for the post of
VC a person should be a distinguished
academician, with a minimum of 10
years’ experience as Professor in a
University or 10 years’ experience in
reputed research and/or academic
administrative organization with proof of
having demonstrated academic
leadership The reading of this condition
brings clearly out that the 10 years’
experience is not exclusive for
professorship only. The condition is
inclusive of the research and
administrative experience. The Vice
Chancellor happens to be the chief
executive authority of the University and
in performance of his duty, he has to
undertake administrative work while
guiding and monitoring the academic
work of the University. Therefore, the
condition for appointment for the Vice
Chancellor includes both the academic
and administrative experience. In para 9
of the petition, the petitioner has mis-
interpreted and mis-represented the
condition by hiding the administrative
experience while describing the
requirement for the post of Vice
Chancellor.
16. That the contents of paragraph
No. 11 to 15 of the Writ Petition are not
correct hence denied it is submitted that
Prof Shri Prakash Singh was appointed
as Chair Professor at Dr. Ambedkar
Chair, in Indian Institute of Public
Administration (IIPA), New Delhi w.e.f
29.05.2014. His nature of duty at IIPA
involved academic research, teaching
and guiding research scholars and
monitoring administrative work. At IIPA,
he drew the pay of Rs 37,400-
67,000+AGP Rs 10,000 which is drawn
by a professor A true copy of Service
Details of Shri Prakash Singh is being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure
No.-CA-2 of this affidavit. Subsequently,
Prof Shri Prakash Singh was appointed8
2026:UHC:2669-DB
as professor in University of Delhi w.e.f
24.07.2015 in the pay of Rs 37,400-
67,000+AGP Rs 10,000. The total
experience of Prof Shri Prakash Singh as
Professor at IIPA and University of Delhi
as on 26.06.2024 (ie the last date for
submission of application) exceeds 10
Years Apart from this academic
experience, Prof Shri Prakash Singh has
administrative experience of 03 Years 06
Months as Director, South Campus,
University of Delhi during the
overlapping period 17.12.2021 to
20.06.2025. The contention of the
Petitioner as made in para-15 of the
Writ Petition that IIPA is not a university
and does not fall within the purview of
the UGC regulation and by that
implication the term as professor at IIPA
may not be taken into consideration is
baseless because there are many
institutions within the purview of this
Ministry itself which carry out academic
and/or research activity and employ
professors for that purpose but do not
come under the purview of University
Grants Commission. For example,
institutions such as Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT), National Institute of
Technology (NIT), Indian Institute of
Science Education & Research (IISER),
Indian Institute of Information
Technology (IIIT), Indian Institute of
Management (IIM); undertake academic
and research activity and for that
purpose recruit Professors but these
institutes are not covered under the
UGC regulations. Apart from these,
several other Ministries have also
established their domain specific
institutes to undertake academic and
research activities and for that purpose
recruit Professors but these institutions
do not come under the purview of UGC.
For example, Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare has established
Agricultural Universities such as Rani
Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural
University at Jhansi, Madhya Pradesh9
2026:UHC:2669-DB
and Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural
University at Samastipur, Bihar. The
Ministry of External Affairs has
established Nalanda University in Bihar.
Ministry of Civil Aviation has established
Rajiv Gandhi National Civil Aviation
University, Amethi Uttar Pradesh.
Ministry Ports Shipping and Waterways
has established Indian Maritime
University headquartered at Chennai. All
Law Institutions are governed by Bar
Council of India. These institutions
although do not come under the purview
of UGC but they recruit Professors. It
doesn’t mean these professors are not
eligible for appointment to the post of
Vice Chancellor. Moreover, the
advertisement for the post of Vice
Chancellor in a Central University does
not prescribe that professor should come
from only UGC regulated institutions;
nor does it proscribe a professor or
researcher or a personnel of an
academic administrative institution
having demonstrated academic
leadership from being eligible for
applying for the post of VC in a Central
University. IIPA, though established by
DoPT, also carries out research and
engages/employs professors as its
faculty members. Therefore, the
petitioner has again mis-interpreted the
condition that professor should be in a
UGC regulated institutions and that such
an institution should be a university
only; whereas the advertisement does
not impose any such restrictions. It is
also submitted that Prof Shri Prakash
Singh has good academic and
administrative experience for holding
the post of Vice Chancellor as per the
requirement published in the
advertisement. The Selection Committee
for appointment for the post of Vice
Chancellor in HNBGU which was
constituted as per the provision of the
Central Universities Act, 2009 consisted
of five distinguished academicians which
included (i) Dr. Shekhar C. Mande,10
2026:UHC:2669-DB
Former Secretary, DSIR and Director
General, Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research (CSIR), New Delhi- (Convener)
(ii) Prof. Anil Kumar Tripathi, Director,
Indian Institute of Science Education &
Research (IISER) Mohali- (Member) (iii)
Prof. Anand Bhalerao, Vice-Chancellor,
CU Rajasthan- (Member) (iv) Prof. Shri
Prakash Mani Tripathi, Vice-Chancellor,
IGNTU Amarkantak (M.P) -(Member)
and (v) Prof. N.C. Gautam, Former Vice-
Chancellor, MGCGV, Chitrakoot, Satna
(M.P). The Committee has
recommended the suitability of Prof Shri
Prakash Singh by scrutinizing his
application form and by holding personal
interaction with him. On the
recommendation of the Committee,
Hon’ble Visitor of the University (the
President of India) appointed Shri
Prakash Singh Vice-Chancellor of the
University.”
9. Learned counsel for the HNBG University and
the UGC also adopted the same argument. Learned
counsel for respondent no.4, apart from adopting the
submissions made by respondent no.2, made the
following submissions:
i) The post of Vice-Chancellor is an important
post in the Central University and is subject
to rigorous scrutiny and selection process,
and as per Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulation
2018, the eligibility is reckoned on the
yardstick of both academic and administrative
leadership.
11
2026:UHC:2669-DB
ii) The search-cum-selection committee
comprised of persons of eminence in the
sphere of higher education /academics and
were not connected in any manner with
HNBG University or the constituent colleges,
which prepared a panel of the eligible
meritorious candidates and respondent no.4
was included in the panel of 5 meritorious
candidates owing to his qualification and
academic experience.
iii) IIPA is a reputed research and academic
organization and the eligibility criteria and
selection procedure for appointing Chair
Professor, Dr. Ambedkar Chair at IIPA is
same as appointment of a professor under
the UGC regulations.
iv) Respondent no.4 was promoted as Senior
Professor (Academic Level 15) w.e.f.
29.05.2024 by the University of Delhi under
the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)
prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Under the CAS for promotion to the post of
Senior Professor, the eligibility prescribed is
10 years of service as a Professor. The
experience of the respondent no.4 as Chair
12
2026:UHC:2669-DB
Professor at IIPA was taken into consideration
for granting promotion to the post of Senior
Professor.
v) The search-cum-selection committee
considered the entire qualification /
experience of respondent no.4 and there is
no allegation of malafide, corruption or bias
and the decision of the expert committee as
such is not liable to be interfered.
10. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8
SCC 372.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
12. For issuance of a writ of quo-warranto, court
has to consider the following aspects:
i) As to whether, person against whom writ of
quo-warranto is sought is holding a public
office.
ii) As to whether the said person fulfills the
eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed
to such an office.
iii) As to whether appointment is in
conformity with the statutory rules.
13
2026:UHC:2669-DB
13. In the present case, respondent no.4 is
holding post of Vice-Chancellor of the HNBG University,
as such, there is no dispute that the said respondent is
holding a public office.
14. The next question for consideration before
the Court is as to whether respondent no.4 fulfills the
eligibility criteria as prescribed by the UGC regulation
and as to whether the appointment was made in
accordance with the provisions of Central Universities
Act, 2009 and the statute framed therein.
15. The appointment to the post of Vice-
Chancellor of the HNBG University is governed by the
Central Universities Act, 2009 and Section 11(i) of the
said Act reads as under:-
“11. Vice-Chancellor.–(1) The
Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by
the Visitor in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Statutes”
16. The statute framed under Section 27 of the
Central Universities Act, 2009 lays down the procedure
for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, which is as follows:
“2. Vice-Chancellor–(1) The Vice-
Chancellor shall be appointed by the Visitor
from out of a panel commended by a
Committee as constituted under clause (2):
Provided that if the Visitor does not
approve any of the persons included in the
panel, he may call for extended fresh panel.
2) The Committee referred to in clause
(1) shall consist of five persons, out of whom
three shall be nominated by the Executive14
2026:UHC:2669-DB
Council and two by the Visitor, and one of the
nominees of the Visitor shall be the convener
of the Committee:
Provided that none of the members of
the Committee shall be an employee of the
University or a College or an Institution
maintained by the University or a member of
any authority of the University.”
17. Essential qualification and the mode of
selection to the post of Vice-Chancellor is provided
under Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations 2018, which
reads as under:
“7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR:
i. A person possessing the highest level of
competence, integrity, morals and
institutional commitment is to be appointed
as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be
appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a
distinguished academician, with a minimum
of ten years of experience as Professor in a
University or ten years of experience in a
reputed research and / or academic
administrative organisation with proof of
having demonstrated academic leadership.
ii. The selection for the post of Vice-
Chancellor should be through proper
identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a
Search-cum-Selection-Committee, through a
public notification or nomination or a talent
search process or a combination thereof. The
members of such Search-cum-Selection
Committee shall be persons of eminence in
the sphere of higher education and shall not
be connected in any manner with the
University concerned or its colleges. While
preparing the panel, the Search cum-
Selection Committee shall give proper
weightage to the academic excellence,
exposure to the higher education system in
the country and abroad, and adequate
experience in academic and administrative
governance, to be given in writing along with
the panel to be submitted to the
15
2026:UHC:2669-DB
Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the
Search cum-Selection Committee shall be
nominated by the Chairman, University
Grants Commission, for selection of Vice
Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to
be Universities.
iii. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the
Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee.”
18. Thus, a person to be appointed as Vice-
Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with
a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor in a
University or ten years of experience in a reputed
research and / or academic administrative organisation
with proof of having demonstrated academic
leadership. The question, therefore, is whether the
service rendered by respondent no.4 at IIPA of 1 year
55 days would qualify for the prescribed 10 years
experience.
19. A perusal of the record reveals that the
Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a
premier Research and Training Institute under
Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Govt. of
India, catering to the needs of Central and State
Governments and other Govt. organizations. It was
established in 1954 as an Autonomous Society under
the Society Registration Act, 1860, to spread the study
and awareness of Public Administration and Governance
16
2026:UHC:2669-DB
and to change the colonial mindset of the nascent
Indian Civil Services post-Independence. Hon’ble Vice
President of India is the ex-Officio President and
Hon’ble Minister of State in charge of DoPT is the ex-
Officio Chairman of IIPA Executive Council.
It provides mid-career Capacity Building
Programmes to Officers of Central and State
Governments as well as Corporate Sector and conducts
applied research and evaluation work for Central
Ministries and State Governments.
IIPA conducts Research Studies for various
Ministries/Departments as well as undertakes
Evaluation of several Schemes of Central and State
Governments. IIPA completed 24 research and
evaluation studies in 2024-25. Some of the notable
ones are Restructuring of DRDO, Evaluation of BADP,
Border Infrastructure Management (BIM) and other
Schemes of MHA, Evaluation of PM USHA, Evaluation of
PM UNNAT Scheme, NLM, various Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) studies, Evaluation of MeitY, Govt. of
India schemes, Ministry of Panchayati Raj schemes etc.
20. A MoU was signed between the Director, Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar Foundation (an autonomous body)
under the jurisdiction of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India and IIPA for
17
2026:UHC:2669-DB
setting up Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Chair under the IIPA. The
post of Professor to be filled up carried the pay-scale of
₹37,400-67000 + Grade pay of ₹10,000/- which is the
pay-scale of the post of Professor.
21. The procedure of appointment prescribes that
the appointment would be made on the basis of the
UGC guidelines issued for the said purpose. Respondent
no.4 was selected and appointed to the post of Chair
Professor on deputation basis and thereafter was
promoted as Senior Professor (Academic Level-15)
w.e.f. 29.05.2024 by the University of Delhi by counting
the aforesaid period spent by him as Professor at IIPA.
22. There is no dispute that in pursuance to an
advertisement for the post of Vice-Chancellor, a
selection committee, as provided under law, was
constituted which short-listed 32 candidates and
thereafter recommended the name of 5 meritorious
candidates after interaction with them.
23. The name of respondent no.4 was included in
the panel of 5 candidates and there is no allegation of
malafide or bias against the constitution of selection
committee and its recommendation. The qualification
and the experience of the respondent no.4 and other
candidates was considered by the expert search
committee which consisted of eminent academicians.
18
2026:UHC:2669-DB
The committee after going through the experience of
respondent no.4 at IIPA, being satisfied that it was
experience gained in a reputed research and/ or
academic organization, included his name in the panel
of 5 meritorious candidates. The Court under judicial
review of the decision of the expert body cannot sit as
an appellate authority and question the
recommendation made by the expert committee.
24. As discussed above, in the present case in
pursuance to an advertisement issued and on the
recommendation of the duly constituted search-cum-
selection committee, appointment of respondent no.4
was made on the post of Vice-Chancellor. Clause 7.3 (i)
of the UGC Regulations also lays down the condition
that the said experience should be 10 years at a
university or a reputed research institute. As to
whether the decision of the duly constituted body can
be interfered by the Court in absence of any malafide
against the expert committee was considered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Basavaiah Vs. Dr.
H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein the Hon’ble
Apex court, while considering the judgment of the
Constitutional Bench in the case of University of
Maysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 in
paragraph nos.20 to 38, has held as under:
19
2026:UHC:2669-DB
“20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit
filed by the University that the Expert
Committee had carefully examined and
scrutinised the qualification, experience and
published work of the appellants before
selecting them for the posts of Readers in
Sericulture. In our considered opinion, the
Division Bench was not justified in sitting in
appeal over the unanimous recommendations of
the Expert Committee consisting of five experts.
The Expert Committee had in fact scrutinised
the merits and demerits of each candidate
including qualification and the equivalent
published work and its recommendations were
sent to the University for appointment which
were accepted by the University.
21. It is the settled legal position that the
courts have to show deference and
consideration to the recommendation of an
Expert Committee consisting of distinguished
experts in the field. In the instant case, the
experts had evaluated the qualification,
experience and published work of the appellants
and thereafter recommendations for their
appointments were made. The Division Bench of
the High Court ought not to have sat as an
appellate court on the recommendations made
by the country’s leading experts in the field of
Sericulture.
22. A similar controversy arose about 45
years ago regarding appointment of Anniah
Gowda to the post of Research Reader in
English in Central College, Bangalore
in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda
Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] in which the
Constitution Bench unanimously held that
normally the courts should be slow to interfere
with the opinions expressed by the experts
particularly in a case when there is no allegation
of mala fides against the experts who had
constituted the Selection Board. The Court
further observed that it would normally be wise
and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of
academic matters to the experts who are more
familiar with the problems they face than the
courts generally can be.
23. We have been called upon to adjudicate
a similar matter of the same University almost
after half a century. In a judicial system
20
2026:UHC:2669-DB
governed by precedents, the judgments
delivered by the Constitution Bench and other
Benches must be respected and relied on with
meticulous care and sincerity. The ratio of the
Constitution Bench has not been properly
appreciated by the learned Judges in the
impugned judgment.
24. In M.C. Gupta (Dr.) v. Dr. Arun Kumar
Gupta [(1979) 2 SCC 339 : 1979 SCC (L&S)
168] , somewhat similar controversy arose for
adjudication, in which the State Public Service
Commission invited applications for two posts of
Professors of Medicine in the State Medical
Colleges. The two appellants as well as
Respondents 1, 2 and 3 applied for the said
post. Appellant 1 had teaching experience of
about 6 years and 6 months as a Lecturer in
Cardiology in the Department of Medicine and
about 3 years and 2 months as Reader in
Medicine in S.N. Medical College, Agra. Since
there was no separate Department of
Cardiology in that College, Cardiology formed
part of General Medicine and as such he was
required to teach General Medicine to
undergraduate students and to some
postgraduate students in addition to Cardiology.
Similarly, Appellant 2 had one year’s experience
as post-doctoral teaching fellow in the
Department of Medicine, State University of
New York, Buffalo, one year’s teaching
experience as Lecturer while posted as a Pool
Officer and 15 months’ teaching experience as
post-doctoral research fellow in the Department
of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur
and about 4 years and 6 months’ teaching
experience as Assistant Professor of Medicine,
State University of New York, Buffalo.
Cardiology is a part of Medicine and the
teaching experience acquired while holding the
post of Lecturer in Cardiology was teaching
experience in a subject which substantially
formed part of General Medicine over and above
the same. The Commission was amply justified
in reaching to the conclusion that he had the
requisite teaching experience. The High Court
was, therefore, in error in quashing its selection
of the appellant in this case.
25. The teaching experience of foreign
teaching institutions can be taken into
21
2026:UHC:2669-DB
consideration if it is from a recognised
institution of repute. It cannot be said that
State University of New York at Buffalo, where
Appellant 2 served as an Assistant Professor
would not be an institution of repute. The
experts aiding and advising the Commission
must be quite aware of institutions in which the
teaching experience was acquired by him and
this one is a reputed University. According to
the experts of the Selection Board, both the
appellants had requisite qualification and were
eligible for appointment. If they were selected
by the Commission and appointed by the
Government, no fault can be found with the
same. The High Court interfered and set aside
the selections made by the Expert Committee.
This Court while setting aside the judgment of
the High Court reminded the High Court that it
would normally be prudent and safe for the
courts to leave the decision of academic matters
to experts. The Court observed as under: [M.C.
Gupta (Dr.) case [(1979) 2 SCC 339 : 1979
SCC (L&S) 168] , SCC pp. 344-45, para 7]
“7. … When selection is made by the
Commission aided and advised by experts
having technical experience and high
academic qualifications in the specialist field,
probing teaching/research experience in
technical subjects, the courts should be slow
to interfere with the opinion expressed by
experts unless there are allegations of mala
fides against them. It would normally be
prudent and safe for the courts to leave the
decision of academic matters to experts who
are more familiar with the problems they face
than the courts generally can be.”
26. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad
University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S)
436] the Court observed that the court should
not substitute its judgment for that of
academicians: (SCC p. 426, para 17)
“17. Rulings of this Court were cited before
us to hammer home the point that the court
should not substitute its judgment for that of
academicians when the dispute relates to
educational affairs. While there is no absolute
ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts
should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic bodies.”
22
2026:UHC:2669-DB
27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] the
Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29)
“29. … As has been repeatedly pointed out
by this Court, the Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own views as to
what is wise, prudent and proper in relation
to academic matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing
technical expertise and rich experience of
actual day-to-day working of educational
institutions and the departments controlling
them.”
28. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur
Paintal [(1990) 2 SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (L&S)
395 : (1990) 13 ATC 732] the Court relied on
the judgment in University of Mysore [AIR 1965
SC 491] and observed that in the matter of
appointments in the academic field, the court
generally does not interfere. The Court further
observed that the High Court should show due
regard to the opinion expressed by the experts
constituting the Selection Committee and its
recommendation on which the Chancellor had
acted.
29. In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. B.J. Medical
College [(1992) 2 SCC 220 : 1992 SCC (L&S)
554 : (1992) 20 ATC 223] the Court placed
reliance on the Constitution Bench decision
in University of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 491] and
reiterated the same legal position and observed
as under: (Bhushan Uttam case [(1992) 2 SCC
220 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 554 : (1992) 20 ATC
223] , SCC p. 223, para 8)
“8. … the Court should normally be very
slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because
matters falling within the jurisdiction of
educational authorities should normally be
left to their decision and the Court should
interfere with them only when it thinks it
must do so in the interest of justice.”
30. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S.
Mahajan [(1990) 1 SCC 305 : 1990 SCC (L&S)
80 : (1991) 16 ATC 528] the Court in somewhat
similar matter observed thus: (SCC pp. 309-10,
para 12)
“12. … It is needless to emphasise that it is
not the function of the court to hear appeals
23
2026:UHC:2669-DB
over the decisions of the Selection
Committees and to scrutinise the relative
merits of the candidates. Whether a
candidate is fit for a particular post or not has
to be decided by the duly constituted
Selection Committee which has the expertise
on the subject. The court has no such
expertise. The decision of the Selection
Committee can be interfered with only on
limited grounds, such as illegality or patent
material irregularity in the constitution of the
Committee or its procedure vitiating the
selection, or proved mala fides affecting the
selection, etc. It is not disputed that in the
present case the University had constituted
the Committee in due compliance with the
relevant statutes. The Committee consisted
of experts and it selected the candidates
after going through all the relevant material
before it. In sitting in appeal over the
selection so made and in setting it aside on
the ground of the so-called comparative
merits of the candidates as assessed by the
court, the High Court went wrong and
exceeded its jurisdiction.
31. In Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda
Kar [(1994) 1 SCC 169 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 296 :
(1994) 26 ATC 570] the Court observed thus:
(SCC pp. 174-75, para 9)
“9. This Court has repeatedly held that the
decisions of the academic authorities should
not ordinarily be interfered with by the
courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the
requisite qualifications or not is a matter
which should be entirely left to be decided by
the academic bodies and the Selection
Committees concerned which invariably
consist of experts on the subjects relevant to
the selection.”
32. In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz
Ahmed Malik [(2000) 3 SCC 59] the Court while
stressing on the importance of the functions of
the expert body observed that the expert body
consisted of persons coming from different
walks of life who were engaged in or interested
in the field of education and had wide
experience and were entrusted with the duty of
maintaining higher standards of education. The
24
2026:UHC:2669-DB
decision of such an expert body should be given
due weightage by courts.
33. In Dental Council of India v. Subharti
K.K.B. Charitable Trust [(2001) 5 SCC 486] the
Court reminded the High Courts that the Court’s
jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion
exercised by the expert body is extremely
limited.
34. In Medical Council of
India v. Sarang [(2001) 8 SCC 427] the Court
again reiterated the legal principle that the
court should not normally interfere or interpret
the rules and should instead leave the matter to
the experts in the field.
35. In B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R.
Venkatasubbaiah [(2008) 14 SCC 306 : (2009)
2 SCC (L&S) 148] the Court again reiterated the
legal principles and observed regarding
importance of the recommendations made by
the expert committees.
36. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari
Devi Lal University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008)
2 SCC (L&S) 887] the Court reminded that it is
not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in
appeal over the opinion of the experts.
37. In All India Council for Technical
Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009)
11 SCC 726] again the legal position has been
reiterated that it is a rule of prudence that
courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic bodies.
38. We have dealt with the aforesaid
judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal
position that in the academic matters, the
courts have a very limited role particularly when
no mala fides have been alleged against the
experts constituting the Selection Committee. It
would normally be prudent, wholesome and
safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the
academicians and experts. As a matter of
principle, the courts should never make an
endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of
the experts. The courts must realise and
appreciate its constraints and limitations in
academic matters.”
25
2026:UHC:2669-DB
25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance in the case of Professor N.S. Bhandari (supra)
and has referred to paragraph nos.18 to 20, 22, 23, 25,
28, 29 of the said judgment to contend that the
selection of respondent no.4 was illegal. Paragraph
nos.18 to 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29 of the said judgment
read as under:
“18. Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC
Regulations, 2018 prescribes that the person
to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should
be a distinguished academician, with a
minimum of ten years’ teaching experience
as Professor in a university. As per the UGC
Regulations, 2018, the selection for the post
of Vice-Chancellor should be through proper
identification by a panel of 3-5 persons by a
Search-cum-Selection Committee, through a
public notification or nomination or a talent
search process or a combination thereof.
Regulation 7.3(ii) provides for constitution of
a Search Committee. As per Regulation
7.3(iii), the Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint
the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel of names
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee.
19. Thus, on conjoint reading of Section
10 of the University Act, 2019 and Regulation
7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, a person
to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor shall have
a minimum of 10 years’ teaching experience
as Professor in a university or ten years of
experience in a reputed research and/or
academic administrative organisation with
proof of having demonstrated academic
leadership. On conjoint reading of the
aforesaid provisions, the selection for the
post of Vice-Chancellor should be through
proper identification by a panel of 3-5
persons by a Search-cum-Selection
Committee and the Vice-Chancellor shall be
appointed out of the panel of the names26
2026:UHC:2669-DB
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee.
20. In the present case, the
appointment of the appellant as Vice-
Chancellor cannot be said to be as per the
requirement of Section 10 of the University
Act, 2019 read with Regulation 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018. It is an admitted
position that no advertisement was issued
before appointing the appellant as Vice-
Chancellor. The name of the appellant was
not recommended by the Search-cum-
Selection Committee. The selection of the
appellant for the post of Vice-Chancellor was
not by a panel of persons by Search-cum-
Selection Committee and therefore he was
not appointed as Vice-Chancellor out of the
panel of the names recommended by Search-
cum-Selection Committee.
22. At this stage, it is required to be noted
that the post of Vice-Chancellor of the
University, as observed by this Court in a
catena of decisions, more particularly
in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi [Gambhirdan K.
Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179
: (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 813] ; Anindya Sundar
Das [State of W.B. v. Anindya Sundar Das,
(2022) 16 SCC 318] ; and Rajasree
M.S. [Sreejith P.S. v. Rajasree M.S., (2023)
17 SCC 338 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1473] , is
a very important post and therefore the most
meritorious person should be appointed as
Vice-Chancellor of the University from and
amongst the other eligible meritorious
candidates out of the panel of the names
recommended by the Search-cum-Selection
Committee.
23. On the importance of the post of Vice-
Chancellor, this Court in Gambhirdan K.
Gadhvi [Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of
Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179 : (2022) 1 SCC
(L&S) 813] , in paras 53 to 56, has observed
as under : (SCC pp. 207-09)
53. It is to be noted that the post of
Vice-Chancellor of the university is a very
important post so far as the university is
concerned. Being a leader and head of the
institution, the Vice-Chancellor of the
university has to play a very important
27
2026:UHC:2669-DB
role. While academic qualifications,
administrative experience, research
credentials and track record could be
considered as basic eligibility
requirements, the greater qualities of a
Vice-Chancellor would be one who is a true
leader and a passionate visionary. A Vice-
Chancellor needs to be one who
understands and handles the affairs of the
university as ethical business and
maintains a pellucidity in his conduct
towards the betterment of the university
as well as the students therein. A Vice-
Chancellor should be one who can inspire
students and guarantee entry of high
quality teachers into the university system.
A Vice-Chancellor functions as a bridge
between the executive and academic wings
of a university as he is the head of both a
“teacher” and an “administrator”.
54. We may refer to some of the
significant Commission Reports concerning
the personality and role of a Vice-
Chancellor of a university as under:
54.1. The 1949 Radhakrishnan
Commission stated that originally, the
Vice-Chancellorship of an Indian university
was regarded as an honorary post to be
filled by a prominent man in his leisure
time. But now the position has changed,
there is enough work to justify a full-time
appointment and the universities should
have full-time paid Vice-Chancellors. While
discussing the duties of a Vice-Chancellor,
the Commission stated that a Vice-
Chancellor must be the chief liaison
between the university and the public and
must be a keeper of the university’s
conscience, both setting the highest
standard by example and dealing firmly
and promptly with indiscipline and
malpractice of any kind. He/she must have
the strength of character to resist
unflinchingly the many forms of pressure.
Being a full-time task, it needs an
exceptional man (or woman) to undertake
it. The Commission rejected the proposal
of selecting the Vice-Chancellor by an
external body and recommended that the
28
2026:UHC:2669-DB
Chancellor should appoint the Vice-
Chancellor upon the recommendation of
the executive.
54.2. The 1971 Report of the Committee
on Governance of Universities and Colleges
by the University Grants Commission
chaired by Dr P.B. Gajendragadkar, former
Chief Justice of India while reiterating the
recommendations and observations made
by the aforesaid commissions also stated
that the selection of a Vice-Chancellor is
the single most important decision that the
governing body of the university may be
called upon to make. While the Chancellor
of a university may be a high dignitary of
the State or the Union of India or an
eminent scholar or eminent person in
public life of the State, the appointment of
Vice-Chancellor, being the important
functionary of the university is most
strategic. The powers of proper
maintenance of discipline and a healthy
environment for both teachers and
students in the university is vested with
the Vice-Chancellor along with all the other
powers vested in him/her by various
Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations. The
Commission also stated that appointment
of a Vice-Chancellor is made in most of the
universities out of a panel of at least three
names by the Chancellor in case of State
Universities and by the Visitor in case of
Central Universities. The panel of names is
prepared by a Search Committee
constituted in accordance with the
provision of the Act/Statute. Since it was
difficult to have a uniform system of
forming a committee in all the States, the
alternatives to constitute the Search
Committee were also provided in the
Report.
54.3. The 1990 Report of the UGC
Committee towards New Educational
Management by Professor A. Gnanam (also
called as the Gnanam Committee Report,
1990) accentuated the role of a Vice-
Chancellor, stating that the Vice-Chancellor
should be a person with vision and
qualities of academic leadership and with a
29
2026:UHC:2669-DB
flair for administration because what the
universities need is a sensitive, efficient,
fair and bold administrator. The Vice-
Chancellor should be a distinguished
educationist from the higher education
system having highest level of
competence, integrity, morals and self-
respect.
54.4. The Ramlal Parikh Committee
1993 accented that the universities need
distinguished and dignified persons as
Vice-Chancellors and it is necessary to
ensure that they are treated with dignity
and regard, which the office merits.
54.5. The University Grants Commission
in its handbook titled Governance in Higher
Education : Handbook for Vice-
Chancellors published in 2019 has penned
down the role of Vice-Chancellor of Indian
universities having gained a paramount
importance in the recent times. In the
words of Prof. D.P. Singh, the then
Chairman of University Grants Commission
and former Director of National
Assessment and Accreditation Council
(“NAAC”):
‘As Chief Executives and Academic
Heads of Universities, the Vice-
Chancellors are expected to be efficient
and effective in terms of:
(a) Implementation of National
Higher Education Policy and
programmes,
(b) Institutional change in tune
with the national reforms package,
(c) Quality and innovation
enhancement and their sustainability,
(d) Productive engagement with
“communities of scholars” from within
their universities and from national
and international domains,
(e) Nurturing of “Research and
Innovation Ecosystem” and
translation of deliverables to society
and economy,
(f) Adoption of international best
practices of “Good Governance”.’30
2026:UHC:2669-DB
‘The Vice-Chancellor has to evolve as
the leader of a symphony of orchestra
with the attributes of:
(a) Developing teams and
teamwork, building partnerships and
collaborations delicately interwoven
by collegiality, friendship and
intellectual engagement;
(b) Devising a strategy and action
plan with defined milestones and
deliverables;
(c) Ensuring primary
accountabilities of self and the
abovementioned university governing
bodies; and
(d) Steering an institutional
monitoring and evaluation mechanism
on university performance built on
principles of transparency.’
55. Discussing the situation in the
backdrop of principle of governance as
quoted by Chanakya in his Nitishastra —
“Yatha Raja Tatha Praja”, the sense of
morality must begin from the door of the
leader who preaches it.
56. Thus, universities are autonomous
and the Vice-Chancellor is the leader of a
higher education institution. As per the
norm, he/she should be an eminent
academician, excellent administrator and
also someone who has a high moral
stature. The aforesaid Reports of the
Radhakrishnan Commission, Kothari
Commission, Gnanam Committee and
Ramlal Parikh Committee have highlighted
the importance of the role of Vice-
Chancellor in maintaining the quality and
relevance of universities, in addition to its
growth and development, keeping in view,
the much needed changes from time to
time. Further, these committees have also
made suggestions and recommendations
for identifying the right person for the said
position. At this stage, it is correct to say
that a Vice-Chancellor is the kingpin of a
university’s system and a keeper of the
university’s conscience.”
31
2026:UHC:2669-DB
25. In the present case, at the time when
the appellant was appointed as Vice-
Chancellor, even according to the appellant
he was having a teaching experience of 8
years and 5 months as Professor in the
University. The appellant rendered service as
a Professor for the period between 2009 to
2017 till he was appointed as Member of the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 7-
10-2017. He continued as a Member of the
Public Service Commission till 13-8-2020
when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of
the University. It is the case on behalf of the
appellant that while serving as a Member of
the Public Service Commission, the appellant
was on a long leave and his lien was
continued on the post of Professor and
therefore the said period between 7-10-2017
to 13-8-2020 may be considered for the
purpose of counting the experience cannot be
accepted. Merely because his lien was
continued on the post of a Professor, it
cannot be said that he continued to teach
and/or he was having the teaching
experience during the period of lien. Even
considering Article 319 of the Constitution of
India, while working as a Member of the
Public Service Commission, he could not have
rendered any other work on any other post.
Therefore, the contention on behalf of the
appellant that the period spent by the
appellant from 7-10-2017 to 13-8-2020 as a
Member of the Public Service Commission
should be added to his teaching experience,
holding lien on the substantive post, cannot
be accepted. Merely because such lien is
held, the period of lien, by no stretch of
imagination, can be treated and/or
considered as teaching experience.
28. Now so far as the submission on behalf
of the appellant that the appellant was the
most meritorious person and looking to his
academic career and having been satisfied
that he is the suitable and meritorious person
to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor,
thereafter he was appointed as Vice-
Chancellor by the State Government is
concerned, it may be true that the appellant
might have a very good/bright academic
32
2026:UHC:2669-DB
career. However, at the same time, it cannot
be said that he was the most meritorious
person as his case was not compared with
other meritorious persons. Therefore, the
State Government had no opportunity to
compare his case with other eligible
meritorious candidates.
29. As observed hereinabove, and as per
the requirement of Regulation 7.3.0 of the
UGC Regulations, 2018 and even as per
Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, the
selection for the post of Vice-Chancellor
should be through proper identification by a
panel of 3-5 persons by Search-cum-
Selection Committee and the members of
such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall
be the persons of eminence in the sphere of
higher education and shall not be connected
in any manner with the University concerned
or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the
Search Committee shall give proper
weightage to the academic excellence, etc.
and thereafter the Visitor/Chancellor shall
appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel
of the names recommended by the Search-
cum-Selection Committee. The reason behind
this seems to be that the person who is
ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-
Chancellor, his case is compared with other
eligible meritorious candidates who were part
of the panel recommended by the Search
Committee. In the present case, such a
procedure has not been followed at all. The
merit of the appellant has not at all been
compared with other eligible meritorious
persons who may be more meritorious than
the appellant.”
26. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Professor N.S. Bhandari (supra) is
misplaced as the facts of the said case are totally
different from the present case. In the case of
Professor N.S. Bhandari (supra), the allegation was that
33
2026:UHC:2669-DB
neither any advertisement was issued for filling the
post of Vice-Chancellor nor any selection committee
was constituted. Moreover, the issue before the Court
was that as to whether the services rendered on a non-
academic post claiming lien on an academic post can be
counted to the 10 years requisite experience for the
post of Vice-Chancellor. However, in the present case
not only the post was advertised but a duly constituted
search committee after interaction with candidates
prepared a panel of meritorious candidates. Thus, there
was a compliance of the statutory rules and the said
action of the search committee was in consonance with
the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
para 29 of the case of Professor N.S. Bhandari (supra).
27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered view that the selection and appointment of
the respondent no.4 as a Vice-Chancellor of the HNBG
University is in conformity with the Central Universities
Act, 2009, statutes framed thereunder and the UGC
Regulations, 2018.
28. The challenge made to the said appointment
fails, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
29. No orders as to cost.
34
2026:UHC:2669-DB
30. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated:15.04.2026
SS
SUKHBANT
Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129
a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2
B7D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT
SINGH
Date: 2026.04.15 17:16:14 +05’30’
35
