IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment as Vice-Chancellor of University – Post of Vice-Chancellor of University is a very important post and most meritorious person should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor of University from and amongst other eligible meritorious candidates out of panel of names recommended by Search-cum-Selection Committee – Period of lien cannot be treated and/or considered as teaching experience.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 190/2020, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 herein and has quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellant herein – original respondent No.5 as the Vice-Chancellor of Soban Singh Jeena University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’), original respondent No.5 – Vice-Chancellor of the said University has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the appellant herein was appointed as Professor and worked as such for the period between 23.5.2009 to 7.10.2017 till he was appointed as Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. That thereafter he was appointed by the State Government as Vice-Chancellor of the University by order dated 11.08.2020. He assumed the charge as Vice-Chancellor on 13.08.2020. The appointment of the appellant was challenged before the High Court by way of present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that at the time when he was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, i.e., on 11.08.2020, he was not having the requisite experience of minimum 10 years as Professor, which was required as per the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 (for short, ‘UGC Regulations, 2018’) which were adopted by the State Government.

2.1 It was also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that even otherwise his appointment as Vice-Chancellor was illegal inasmuch as his name was not recommended by the Search Committee and only one name was placed before the Chief Minister and thereafter without any advertisement he was selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor.

2.2 The said writ petition was opposed by the appellant contending, inter alia, that as per the Soban Singh Jeena University Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University Act, 2019’), there was no such requirement of having minimum 10 years’ experience as Professor. It was submitted that at the relevant time, the length of service as Professor as on 01.11.2017 was more than 8 years and 5 months. It was submitted that while he continued as Member of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, he was on long leave as Professor and his lien on the post of Professor was continued. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that while serving as Member of the Public Service Commission, he was supervising PhD scholars and therefore the same was required to be counted for considering the minimum 10 years’ experience. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that he was found to be meritorious and looking to his academic career the merit was not compromised. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University by holding that as the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor was just contrary to Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 which prescribes the eligibility requirements for appointment as Vice-Chancellor. While setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University, the High Court has observed and held that even otherwise the appellant was not having the minimum 10 years’ experience as Professor, even as required as per Section 10(1) of the University Act, 2019.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, quashing, and setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor of the University, original respondent No.5 – Vice-Chancellor of the University has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – Vice-Chancellor of the University, Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner, Shri Atul Sharma, learned