Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1079

Judgment Reserved on:11.03.2026 Judgment Delivered on :15.04.2026 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (PI L) 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anurag Tiwary
For the Respondents: K.H. Gupta, Lalit Sharma, Manoj Kumar, Anjali Bhargwa, Mohinder Rupral, K.S. Jagati

Courts should not interfere with the selection of candidates for academic positions made by expert committees unless there is evidence of mala fides or patent illegality, as judicial review does not extend to sitting in appeal over the academic and professional assessments of such expert bodies.

Headnote:(A) Writ of Quo-warranto - Scope of judicial review - Appointment to public office - Eligibility criteria - Requirement of 10 years of experience as a professor in a university or equivalent experience in a reputed research or academic administrative organization - Whether court can sit in appeal over the decision of an expert committee. (Paras 12, 17, 18)

(B) Judicial Review - Academic matters - Deference to expert bodies - Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions of experts in academic matters unless there are allegations of mala fides or patent illegality - Expert committee's evaluation of qualifications and experience is not subject to appellate scrutiny by the court. (Paras 23, 24, 38)

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging the appointment of a head of an educational institution, alleging that the appointee did not possess the mandatory 10 years of experience as a professor in a university. The petitioner contended that the appointee's experience in a research and training institute should not be counted toward the required experience.

Findings of Court:
The expert committee, comprising eminent academicians, evaluated the candidate's qualifications and experience, including service in a research and training institute, and found the candidate suitable. The court held that the selection process was in accordance with the statutory provisions and that the expert committee's assessment of eligibility is final in the absence of mala fides.

Issues: Whether the appointee met the eligibility criteria for the post and whether the court should interfere with the selection made by a duly constituted expert committee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it lacks the expertise to sit in appeal over the decisions of an expert committee in academic matters. Since the committee was properly constituted and acted within its mandate, and no mala fides were proven, the court declined to interfere with the appointment.

Result: Petition dismissed.

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 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 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.

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.

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:

vi) Respondent no.4 is having 8 years and 11 months experience as Professor in a University and the position held by him 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.

7. Learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1079

Courts should not interfere with the selection of candidates for academic positions made by expert committees unless there is evidence of mala fides or patent illegality, as judicial review does not extend to sitting in appeal over the academic and professional assessments of such expert bodies.

Cases Referred (4)