The Himachal Pradesh High Court has struck down provisions of the State's amended Universities Act governing the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, holding that subordinating the appointment to the aid and advice of the State Government was in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and beyond the legislative competence of the State.

The Court declared the impugned provisions ultra vires the Constitution and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, and consequently quashed them.

Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur & Justice Ranjan Sharma remarked that: “...to subordinate the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor to the aid and advice of the State Government in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018, is beyond legislative competence of the State Legislation and is declared ultra vires the Constitution of India and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956...”

The petitions challenged the amendments to the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986, and the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Rules, 2026, which altered the procedure for appointment of Vice-Chancellors.

The petitioners contended that the amended framework was inconsistent with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, particularly regarding the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the role of the Chancellor.

The challenge also arose from advertisements dated February 26, 2026, inviting applications for the posts of Vice-Chancellors of CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur and Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni.

The Court held that Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 is binding on the State and that the State's power to legislate on agricultural education cannot be exercised in conflict with Parliament's power under Entry 66 of List I to prescribe standards for higher education.

It further found that the exclusion of the UGC nominee from the Search-cum-Selection Committee and appointment of the Chief Secretary as its Chairperson were contrary to the UGC Regulations, particularly as the Chief Secretary had a direct connection with the universities.

The Court also held that ICAR's Model Act could not override the UGC Regulations, as ICAR had not issued binding statutory norms comparable to those framed by the UGC under the UGC Act, 1956.

Finally, the Court held that when the Governor acts as Chancellor, the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor is a statutory function and cannot be made subject to the aid and advice of the State Government.

Case Name: Narender Kumar Sankhyan, Sanjeev Kumar Sankhyan v/s State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No.4259 of 2026, CWP No.5087 of 2026

Date of Decision: 27.08.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order