The UGC Regulations-2010, while important, are not mandatory for all universities and higher educational institutions, and the expertise of the search committee in making selections is crucial.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The writ petitioner, through the instant writ petition, has made an endeavor, for this Court making a writ of quo warranto, to set aside the selection and consequent appointment of co-respondent No.3, as, Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4/ Himachal Pradesh University.

2. Through, an advertisement borne in Annexure P-4, the Governor (Chancellor) constituted a Search Committee for recommending a panel of names for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. Also, through Annexure P-4, the Search Committee invited applications from the aspirants concerned. Annexure P-4 of 6.1.2018, spells therein all the requisite terms and conditions, and, as, become embodied in Para 7.3.0 of the University Grants Commission Regulations-2010 read with Section 12(1) of the Himachal Pradesh University Act, 1970 (For short "UGC Regulations 2010") and also projects them, to be the prime anchor for the Search Committee making selection(s) of the aspirants concerned, to, the coveted post. However, through Annexure P-5, made on 30.6.2018, the date for the aspirants making an application for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor, became extended till 20th July, 2018.

3. Annexure P-6 of 18.7.2018, encloses the qualifications possessed by co-respondent No.3, for his hence succoring his claim, vis--vis, his fullest eligibility for his being considered for selection, and, for his being appointed to the coveted post of Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla.

4. On 2.8.2018, respondent No.3 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University, and, on 3.8.2018, respondent No.3 assumed the charge of the Office of Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.4/Himachal Pradesh University.

5. The gravamen of the entire lis is rested, upon, Para 7.3.0 (i) (for short "clause") of UGC Regulations 2010, which is extracted hereinafter:-

"persons of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment are to be appointed as Vice-Chancellors. The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/or academic administration organization."

6. A perusal of clause(supra) reveals that any aspirant, aspiring for appointment to the coveted post of Vice-Chancellor, hence compulsorily being a distinguished academician, and, his also holding a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research and/ or academic administrative organization.

7. Though the writ petitioner, does not challenge, the constitution of the Search Committee for its hence making recommendations, of the aspirants concerned, to the post of Vice- Chancellor of respondent No.4. However he challenges the trite factum of co-respondent No.3, possessing the requisite experience (supra) and as appertains to his serving for 10 years as Professor in a University. The writ petitioner draws, the, attention of this Court to Annexure P-10. Annexure P-10 are the minutes of the proceedings of the Executive Council, as, become drawn on 19.3.2011. Though, he does not challenge the recommendations, as made therein, for the promotion of respondent No.3 as a Professor w.e.f 1.1.2009. However, he argues that even if co-respondent No.3 became recommended to the promotional post of Professor w.e.f 1.1.2009, nonetheless he contends that co-respondent No.3, did not work, or function, as, a Professor from the year 2009 till 2011. He hence submits that the non-working of co- respondent No.3 as a Professor in a university from the year 2009 till 2011, does not confer, in him the requisite functional experience of 10 years, as a professor, in the Himachal Pradesh University, as is required rather by the afore extracted clause, to be possessed by him.

8. The afore submissio