Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, J
Navneet Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Writ Petition (S/B) No.582 of 2024 | Writ Petition (S/B) No.602 of 2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law
Act Referred
UGC Regulations, 2018: Reg.7.3
National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for Undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Teaching Hospitals) Regulations: R.34(5)
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Scope of interference in matters of academic appointments - Courts to show deference to expert selection committees - Interference permitted only on grounds of illegality, patent material irregularity, or proven mala fides. (Paras 16, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of an academic to the post of Vice Chancellor, arguing that their experience as a Principal was non-teaching experience, and thus, they failed to meet the mandatory prerequisite of ten years of experience as a Professor as per regulatory requirements. The state argued that the position involved teaching and administrative responsibilities, all of which were duly considered by the constituted selection committee alongside the candidate's other qualifications.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the selection committee had meticulously evaluated the candidates, and the individual in question possessed the requisite experience. The role of a Principal, in this context, was demonstrated to include teaching and research guidance. The court upheld that it is not the function of the judiciary to sit in appeal over the comparative merits assessed by an expert body in the absence of evidence demonstrating bias or illegality.
Issues: Whether the service rendered as a head of an educational institution constitutes teaching experience for the purpose of meeting eligibility criteria for high-level academic administrative posts, and the extent of judicial scrutiny permissible regarding decisions of expert selection committees.
Ratio Decidendi: In matters of academic appointments, courts should show deference to the opinions of expert bodies. Where a duly constituted committee examines the qualifications and experience of candidates, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the experts unless there is a clear case of legal infirmity or allegations of mala fides are substantiated.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhuwan Bhatt, Pradeep Kumar Chauhan
For the Respondents: B.S. Parihar, J.S. Bisht, Avtar Singh Rawat, Aman Rab, Anjali Bharagava
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of petitions and nature of quo warranto challenge regarding vice chancellor appointment qualifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. dispute on whether principal tenure constitutes requisite teaching experience under ugc regulations 2018. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. statutory requirements for vice chancellor selection and limits of judicial review over expert selection committees. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. judicial deference to expert academic committees regarding candidate suitability in the absence of mala fides. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. equivalence of administrative-teaching posts (principal) as teaching experience for vice chancellor eligibility. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. final validation of appointment process leading to dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
1. As the controversy involved in these two writ petitions relates to the challenge thrown to the appointment of respondent no.3 as the Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University, as such, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Petitioner in WPSB No.582/2024 claims himself to be a social activist, combating corruption by the public authorities. Petitioner in WPSB No.602/2024 claims to be working in Uttaranchal Crime News a Hindi daily, as a Reporter.
3. In these writ petitions, petitioners have prayed for a issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondent no.3, on the ground, that he lacks the requisite qualification for the post of Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University (hereinafter to be referred as the “University”).
4. The petitioners, in support of their submissions, have referred to the application submitted by respondent no.3 for the post of Vice Chancellor and contend that the respondent no.3 has worked as Professor, Kaya Chikitsa from 17.02.2009 to 07.11.2013 for a period of 04 years 08 months only and thereafter from 08.11.2013 he has worked as Principal of Government Ayurvedic PG College, Rishikul, Haridwar and Principal/Campus Director of Government Ayurved College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar, for a period of 09 years and 06 months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the post of Principal is a non-teaching post and as such the experience of respondent no.3 as a Principal from 08.11.2013 to 10.05.2023, i.e., the last date of submission of application form, for the post of Vice Chancellor, cannot be taken into consideration towards the experience for the post of Professor. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, contends that the appointment of respondent no.3 is in contravention to Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations of Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Universities And Colleges And Measures For the Maintenance of Standards In Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter to be referred as “ UGC Regulations, 2018 ). In support of their case, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari vs. Ravindra Jugran and Others , 2022 (17) SCC 679
(ii) Gambirdhan K. Gadhvi vs. The State of Gujarat & Others, 2022 (5) SCC 179.
(iii) Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan vs. State of Uttarakhand , WPSB No.567/2021
6. Per contra, learned Additional C.S.C. appearing for the State and learned counsel for the University submit that the Selection Committee constituted as per the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the University Act, 2009’) considered the case of eligible candidates as per Regulations 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 . The respondent no.3 possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Vice Chancellor, as the post of Principal is a teaching as well as administrative post. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there is no allegation of malafide against the duly constituted Selection Committee and the respondent no.3 was appointed
