Experience As Principal Can Be Counted For Appointment As Vice Chancellor : Uttarakhand High Court

Background Facts

Two writ petitions were filed before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the appointment of the Vice Chancellor (respondent) of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. Both petitioners contended that the respondent lacked the requisite qualifications for the post of Vice Chancellor. The petitioners argued that respondent had served as Professor, Kaya Chikitsa for a period of only 4 years and 8 months. Then he worked as Principal of Government Ayurvedic PG College, Rishikul, Haridwar and Principal/Campus Director of Government Ayurved College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar for 9 years and 6 months.

The post of Principal was a non-teaching post. Therefore this experience could not be counted towards the mandatory 10 years of experience as Professor required under UGC Regulations, 2018. The University contended that the post of Principal was both a teaching and administrative post. The respondent possessed the requisite qualifications. It was further submitted that there was no allegation of malafide against the Selection Committee, and respondent was appointed as Vice Chancellor since his name appeared in the panel of three meritorious candidates recommended by the Committee.

The Selection Committee had issued a Press Note inviting applications. Out of 29 applications received, 18 applicants were found eligible, out of which 15 appeared for interview before the Search Committee. After interacting with all candidates and examining their certificates and documents, the Committee met again and prepared a panel of three candidates in alphabetical order, which included the respondent.

It was argued by the petitioners that the appointment of respondent as Vice Chancellor was in clear violation of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. The petitioners contended that respondent had only 4 years and 8 months of actual experience as a Professor, and the remaining period of 9 years and 6 months that he served as Principal could not be counted towards the mandatory requirement of 10 years of experience as a Professor.

On the other hand, it was argued by the State that the Selection Committee was duly constituted under Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 and had followed the provisions of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. It was submitted that Rule 34(5) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Regulations permits the Head of the Institute (Principal) to teach. It was further contended that respondent had total experience of more than 14 years in reputed academic organizations, which was duly considered by the Selection Committee.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Court that the appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor was governed by the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009, and the eligibility requirements were provided in the UGC Regulations, 2018. It was observed that the Selection Committee was duly constituted by the State Government as per the provisions of the 2009 Act.

It was further observed that there was no imputation or allegation of malafide against the Selection Committee, which consisted of a sitting Judge of the High Court and other distinguished experts. The Court relied upon the judgment in Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, wherein it was held that courts have a very limited role in academic matters and should show deference to the recommendations of expert committees, especially when no malafides have been alleged.

For examining whether experience as Principal could be counted as experience as Professor, the Uttarakhand (Ayush Ayurvedic College Teachers) Service Rules, 2011 were examined by the Division Bench. It was found that the post of Principal is covered under the teaching cadre. It was observed that during his tenure as Principal, the respondent taught Kaya Chikitsa subject to students and guided researchers. The Government of Uttarakhand had clarified that the post of Principal is a teaching post, and the same age of superannuation of 65 years as stipulated for teachers would apply to Principals.

It was noted by the Division Bench that the respondent was appointed as Professor on 17.02.2009 and the position of Principal was held by him much after he was promoted as Professor. It was held by the Division Bench that the experience gained by respondent as Principal would also count towards his experience as Professor for reckoning his eligibility for the post of Vice Chancellor.

It was concluded by the Court that the selection and appointment of respondent as Vice Chancellor was in full conformity with the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 and the UGC Regulations, 2018.

With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Dr. Navneet Parmar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others

Case No. : Writ Petition (S/B) No.582 of 2024

Counsel for the Petitioners : Bhuwan Bhatt and Pradeep Kumar Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents : B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C., J.S. Bisht, Avtar Singh Rawat, assisted by Aman Rab, Anjali Bharagava