2026:UHC:4313- DB

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 18.05.2026

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 30.05.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

Writ Petition (S/B) No.582 of 2024

Dr. Navneet Parmar ----Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents

With

Writ Petition (S/B) No.602 of 2024

Deepmala ----Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the

petitioners

Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State

Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Ayurved University.

Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. (Dr.) Aman Rab,

learned counsel for the respondent no.3 through V.C.

Ms. Anjali Bharagava, learned counsel for the UGC

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.

1

2026:UHC:4313- DB

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

2

2026:UHC:4313- DB

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 n o.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 (hereinafte r 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

3

2026:UHC:4313- DB

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 respondent s further

submitted that there is no allegation of malafide against

the duly constituted Selection Committee and the

respondent no.3 was appointed as Vice Chancellor , as his

name was amongst the panel of three meritorious

candidates recommended by the Selection Committee.

7. Shri Avtar Singh Rawat, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for respondent no.3 submit s that advertisement

was issued on 19.04.2023 inviting applications for the post

of Vice Chancellor and the last date of submission of the

application form was 10.05.2023. The respondent no.3,

being fully eligible, submitted his candidature for the said

post and the Committee constituted as per Section 11 of

the University Act, 2009 met on 22.07.2023 and

01.09.2023, and after interacting with the eligible

candidates, prepared a panel of three meritorious

candidates. The name of respondent no.3 was amongst the

panel of three candidates recommended for appointment

and the State Government appointed the respondent no.3

owing to his merit.

4

2026:UHC:4313- DB

8. Learned senior counsel further submits that the

entire case of the petitioners is based on the fact that the

post of Principal is a non-teaching post, however, the said

stand is misconceived as the respondent no.3 , while

working as Principal, had performed the teaching work and

guided the researchers. He referred to the order passed by

Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 05.01.2026 , where

considering the said submission, the Court had directed the

respondent no.3 to file an additional counter affidavit.

Learned senior counsel for respondent no.3 submits that

the additional counter affidavit was filed on 10.01.2026 and

thereafter, vide order dated 09.03.2026, the petitioners

were granted an opportunity to rebut the averments made

in additional counter affidavit, however, the petitioners did

not file any reply to the said counter affidavit and rather

made a statement that they do not wish to file any reply to

the said additional counter affidavit. The said statement of

the petitioners was taken on record by the Court , in its

order dated 09.03.2026. The contents of paragraph nos.2

to 13 of the additional counter affidavit filed by respondent

no.3 in pursuance of the order passed by this Court are as

follows:-

“2) That the above noted matter was last listed before this Hon’ble

Court on 05.01.2026 and vide order dated 05.01.2026 this Hon’ble

Court has been pleased to direct as under:-

“…………..

5

2026:UHC:4313- DB

At the time of arguments, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

private respondent submits that, in fact, the private respondent is

still a professor. He was promoted as Principal and he is still taking

classes as a Professor, guiding the researchers. He seeks time to file

additional counter affidavit to that effect.

Let it be filed within next three days.

Thereafter, within a week, respondent affidavit , if any, may be filed

by the petitioners.

………………”

3) That the instant additional counter affidavit is being filed in

compliance with the aforementioned order.

4) That the deponent has continuously been a Professor of

Kayachikitsa from 2009 till date. A detailed table of the

responsibilities undertaken by the deponent while discharging the

role of a Professor is as specified below:

Sr.

No.

Position Charge taken

from

Date of

Handing Over

the Charge

Duration

Professor, Govt.

Ayurvedic

College, Gurukul

Kangri, Haridwar

17.02.2009 07.11.2013 4 years 8 months

21 days

Principal Govt.

Ayurvedic PG

College Rishikul,

Haridwar

08.11.2013 07.08.2015 1 year 8 months 30

days

Principal, Govt.

Ayurvedic PG

College, Gurukul

Kangri, Haridwar

08.08.2015 14.12.2015 4 months 6 days

Director,

Ayurveda and

Unani Services

15.12.2015 11.07.2019 3 years 6 months

26 days

Principal, Govt.

Ayurvedic PG

College, Gurukul

Kangri, Hardiwar

(rejoined)

25.07.2019 10.05.2023 (last

date of application)

3 years 9 months

16 days

Total Duration (as

Professor/Principal)

10 years 7 months

11 days

Total length of

service including

additional charge of

Director

14 years 2 months

9 days

6

2026:UHC:4313- DB

5) That the deponent was appointed as Professor (teacher code AYKC

02680) at Government Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar

on 17.02.2009 as is certified in the Appointment Letter dated

22.01.2009 (annexure 3 at page 41 of Counter Affidavit on behalf of

Respondent No. 3) and the certificate of assuming c harge dated

17.02.2009 (annexure 3, page 38 of Counter Affidavit on behalf of

Respondent No. 3). Further, the deponent served for a duration of 4

years 8 months 21 days, which is calculated as per the dates certified

in the Certificate of Experience awarded by Director, Ayurvedic and

Unani Services, Dehradun dated 05.04.2014 (Annexure 3, page 50 of

Counter Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3).

6) That the deponent was appointed as the Principal of Government

Ayurvedic PG College, Rishikul, Haridwar is through the Appointment

Letter dated 07.11.2013 (annexure 3 at page 46 of Counter Affidavit

on behalf of Respondent No. 3) and assumed charge on 08.11.2013

(annexure 3 at page 36 of Counter Affidavit on behalf of Respondent

No. 3). Additionally, he remained at the post till 07.08.2015 as

certified by the Certificate dated 08.10.2024 issued by Campus

Director, Rishikul Campus, Haridwar (Annexure 7 at page 58 of

Counter Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3).

7) That the deponent then assumed the charge of Principal/Campus

Director of Government Ayurved College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar

on 08.08.2015 as certified in Certificate of Assuming Charge dated

08.08.2015. In this connection, copy of certificate dated 08.08.2015

endorsed by the Registrar, Uttarakhand Ayurved University,

Dehradun, along with its typed copy is being 2002 marked and filed

as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this additional Counter affidavit. The

deponent served as the Principal and was present at the campus until

his charge was assumed by Prof. (Dr.) Meena Ahuja on 14.12.2015.

In this connection, copy of certificate dated 17.12.2015 endorsed by

the Registrar, Uttarakhand Ayurved University, Dehradun, along with

its typed copy is being marked and filed as ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this

additional counter affidavit. The deponent was also continuously

guiding MD (Ayurveda) and PhD scholars in their research work.

8) That the deponent, was also discharging the additional charge of

Director, Uttarakhand Ayurved and Unani Services from 24.07.2014

to 11.07.2019, while handling the core charge of Principal as certified

by the Certificate of Experience issued by Secretary, AYUSH and

AYUSH Education, Government of Uttarakhand dated 08.05.2023 at

7

2026:UHC:4313- DB

paragraph 2 (Annexure 3 at page 37 of Counter Affidavit on behalf of

Respondent No. 3).

9) That the deponent resumed his post as Principal/Campus Director

of Gurukul Kangri Campus on 25.07.2019 as per certificate dated

25.07.2019 (Annexure No. 3 at page 35 of the counter affidavit on

behalf of Respondent No. 3). The deponent has served at the above-

mentioned post continuously till his appointment as the Vice -

Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University, Harrrawala, Dehradun

as per the Experience Certificate issued by Campus Director, Gurukul

Kangri Campus (annexure no. 7 at page 5 9 of the counter affidavit

on behalf of Respondent No. 3).

10) That the deponent was also teaching regular classes of B.A.M.S.

(kayachikitsa) and M.D. students in the capacity of a professor during

his tenure in the respective colleges. (Annexure No. 7 at Page 58 and

59 of the counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3) The

deponent has conducted regular classes & Examinations in the

respective educational institutions as per the time-tables approved

by the HoD and Principal from time to time, along with supervising

the PhD and MD/MS students allotted to him by the Research Degree

Committee (RDC). Copy of time tables of Rishikul and Gurukul Kangri

Campus Colleges along with the minutes of the meeting of RDC,

along with the typed copy of the relevant portions, are being marked

and filed as ANNEXURE NO. 3 to this additional counter affidavit.

11) That the deponent assumed the post of Principal through

promotion after selection conducted by PSC since the cadre of

professor is a source for recruiting principals under Section 3 of

Uttarakhand Ayush (Ayurvedic) College Teacher Service Regulations,

2011. (Annexure no. 4 at page 53 of the counter affidavit on behalf

of Respondent No. 3)

12) That Rule 34(5) of National Commission for Indian S ystem of

Medicine (Minimum Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for

Undergraduate Ayurveda Colleges and attached Teaching Hospitals)

Regulations permits the Head of the Institute (in this case, the

Principal) to teach. (Annexure No. 5 at page 55 of the counter

affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 3)

13) That the Government of Uttarakhand vide letter no. 314/XL-

1/2023-04/2017 dated 21.03.2023 clarified that service as a

principal fall under teaching services. In this connection, Copy of AR

8

2026:UHC:4313- DB

letter dated 21.03.2023 issued by the Government of Uttarakhand is

being marked and filed as ANNEXURE NO. 4 to this additional counter

affidavit. Further, the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009

includes professors in the definition of -Teacher under section 2(v),

which is being marked and filed as ANNEXURE NO. 5 to this

additional counter affidavit. ”

9. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.3

submits that the respondent no.3 was having the

experience of more than 14 years in a reputed academic

organization. The aforesaid experience was duly considered

by the Selection Committee which found the said

experience to be in conformity with the eligibility prescribed

for the post of Vice Chancellor.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

11. The appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor of

the University is governed by the Uttarakhand Ayurved

University Act, 2009. Section 11 of the said Act postulates

the process of selection. Sub -Section (1), (2) and (3) of

Section 11 of the University Act, which are relevant for the

purpose, read as under:-

“11. (1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time salaried

officer of the University and shall be appointed by the

Chancellor except as provided from amongst the persons

whose names are submitted to him by the Committee

9

2026:UHC:4313- DB

constituted in accordance with the provisions of sub- section

(2) by the State Government.

[(2) The Committee specified to in sub- section (1) shall

have following members, namely :-

(a) A serving/ retired Judge of State H igh Court

nominated by the Chief Justice;

(b) A renowned educationist nominated by the State

Government;

(c) A member nominated by the Chancellor;

(d) A nominated member by the executive council;

(e) Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary/

Secretary, Ayush education as a member secretary;

The State Government shall appoint one of the members

of committee as a Chairperson of the Committee.

The Committee shall forward a panel of three to five

such renowned Ayush educationists or retired offi cers from

higher level suitable to hold the post of Vice -chancellor,

showing their educational and specific administrative

experience in the alphabetical order to the State Government.

At the time of recommendation by the committee, the

maximum age of recommended person in the panel shall be 65

years. The recommendation by the State Government shall be

forwarded to the Chancellor. ]¹

(3) The Committee shall, as for as may be, atleast sixty

days before the date on which a vacancy the office of the Vice-

Chancellor is due to occur by reason of expiry of term or resignation under sub-section (6), and also whenever so

required and before such date as may be specified by the Chancellor, submit to the Chancellor the names of not less than three and not more than five persons suitable to hold the

office of the Vice- Chancellor. The Committee Shall, while

10

2026:UHC:4313- DB

submitting the names, also forward to the Chancellor a concise

statement showing the academic qualifications and other

distinctions of each of the persons so recommended, but shall

not indicate any order of preference.”

12. The eligibility requirement for the post of Vice

Chancellor is stipulated in Clause 7.3 of the UGC

Regulations, 2018, which reads as under: -

“7.3 VICE CHANCELLOR

i. 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.

ii. The selection for the post of Vice- Chancellor should be through

proper identification by a Panel of 3 -5 persons by a Search- cum-

Selection-Committee, through a public notification or nomination

or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members

of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be persons' of

eminence in the sphere of hig her education and shall not be

connected in any manner with the University concerned or its

colleges. While preparing the panel, the Search cum -Selection

Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic

excellence, exposure to the higher education sys tem in the

country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and

administrative governance, to be given in writing along with the

panel to be submitted to the Visitor/Chancellor. One member of

the Search cum-Selection Committee shall be nominated by the

11

2026:UHC:4313- DB

Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice

Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.

iii. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the

Panel of names recommended by the Search- cum-Selection

Committee. ”

13. The Committee constituted by the State

Government on 04.07.2023, as per provisions of sub -

section (2) of Section 11 of the University Act, 2009

considered the candidature of eligible candidates and

prepared a panel of three candidates in alphabetical order

and recommended their names to the State Government.

The name of respondent no.3 was amongst the name of

three candidates, who were recommended and , based on

the recommendation of the Committee , the appointment

was made by the State Government. The minutes of the

meeting of the Committee held on 22.07.2023 and

01.09.2023, which are enclosed as Annexure -2 to the

counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3 reads as under:-

“Minutes of the meeting of the Committee for forwardi ng a

Panel for appointment of Vice -Chancellor of the Uttarakhand

Ayurved University, Harrawala, Dehradun

In the light of sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the

Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009, as amended by the

Uttarakhand Ayurved University (Amendment) Act, 2017 hereinafter

referred to as "the Act, 2009"), the Search Committee , has been

constituted by the Office Memorandum No. 1034/XL -1/2020-

149/2010 TC-Il dated 04.07.2023, comprising-

12

2026:UHC:4313- DB

(1) Honourable Justice Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari,

High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital. – Chairperson

(2) Shri Sanjeev Chopra, I.A.S.(Retd), Former Secretary, - Member

Government of Uttarakhand and former Director ,

Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration,

Mussoorie.

(3) Prof. Naresh Chandra Gautam, Former

Vice-Chancellor Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya

University, Agra, U.P. - Member

(4) Shri Dalip Chandra Nath, Retired Vice-Chancellor,

Assam University. - Member

(5) Secretary, AYUSH and AYUSH Education,

Uttarakhand Government. -Member

Secretary

1. The first meeting of the Committee was held on 22.07.2023

2. The Committee was informed by the Member Secretary of Search

Committee (Secretary, AYUSH and AYUSH Education, Government of

Uttarakhand) that a Press Note was issued on 19.04.2023 through

which applications have been invited for the appointment to the post

of the Vice- Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. The last

date for submitting the applications was 10.05.2023.

3- The Member Secretary informed that total 29 applications were

received for the post of the Vice -Chancellor till last date of

submission. (Annexure).

4- The member secretary pointed out that through the judgements of

Writ Petition (Civil) No-1525/2019 Gambhirdan K Gadhvi vs

State of Gujarat filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, New Delhi, Civil

Appeal No-8184/2022 filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, New

Delhi and Writ petition (S/B) N0-567 of 2021 Vinod Kumar

Chauhan vs state of Uttarakhand and others filed in the Hon'ble High

Court of Uttarakhand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble

High Court has directed that the selection criteria of the Vice -

Chancellor of the University should be as per the provisions and

qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission

regulations, 2018. It has also been clarified by the Hon'ble High

Court that in the prescribed provision for the selection of the Vice-

Chancellor, the maximum age is fixed at 65 years.

13

2026:UHC:4313- DB

5- The Member Secretary informed that Secretary, Hon'ble

Governor/Hon'ble Chancellor's vide his demi -official letter

No.-484/J-22/GS(Edu.)/2023 dated 14 may, 2023 and letter

No.-E 3839/GS(Edu.)/C12-1(II)/2017, dated 21 july, 2023, clarified

that the appointment of Vice Chancellors in the State by the

Honorable Governor/ Chancellor would be done according to the

minimum qualification prescribed for the appointment of Vice

Chancellors in accordance with the provisions laid down in the

University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018.

6- University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018 prescribes "A

person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity,

morals and institutional commitment is to be pointed 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."

7- The Committee was informed by the Member Secretary of Search

Committee (Secretary, AYUSH and AYUSH Education, Government of

Uttarakhand) that according to the minimum qualification prescribed

for the post of Vice-Chancellor applications were invited and total 29

applications were received. After scrutiny of the applications, it was

found that 11 applicants do not possess the prescribed minimum

qualification. The applicants who were found prima facie ineligible

were informed by the AYUSH and AYUSH Education department,

Government of Uttarakhand by sending them separate letters on

18.07.2023.

Applications of total 18 applicants found prima facie

eligible. Out of 18 applicants, only 15 applicants appeared for the

interview before the search committee on date 22.07.2023.

14

2026:UHC:4313- DB

Committee interacted with all of them and also saw their certificates

and other documents. Committee noticed that certificates/documents

of some of the applicants were not available to prove their eligibility

for the post of Vice-chancellor.

In view of the non-availability of certificates/ documents

of some of the applicants, it was decided that the search committee

will meet again to finalise the panel of eligible candidates for the post

of Vice- Chancellor. Committee also directed the Secretary, AYUSH

and AYUSH Education, Government of Uttarakhand to ensure the

availability of documents and certificates of all applicants and

decision will be taken after due diligence and discussion.

(Prof. Dalip Chandra Nath)

Retired Vice-Chancellor, Assam

University-Member

(Prof. Naresh Chandra -Gautam)

Former Vice-Chancellor Mahatma

Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya

University, Agra, U.P - Member

(Dr. Pankaj kumar Panday)

Secretary, AYUSH and

AYUSH Education, Uttarakhand

Government, Member -Secretary

(Mr. Sanjeev Chopra),

IAS(Retd), Former Secretary,

Government of Uttarakhand and

former Director, Lal Bahadür

Shastri National Academy of

Administration, Mussoorie -

Member

(Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari) High Court of

Uttarakhand, Nainital-Chairperson”

In terms of the resolution passed in first meeting, the

Selection Committee aga in met at Nainital on 01.09.2023, in which

all Members were physically present except Mr. Sanjeev Chopra, IAS

(Retd.), who participated virtually.

After considering the performance of all the candidates and

also their profile, the Search Committee recommends the panel of

the candidates, în alphabetic order as follows:-

1. Prof. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Campus Director, Gurukul, Haridwar.

2 Vaid Prasanna Narsimmha Rao, SDMC, Hymedillagi, Hasan, He

3 Dr. Uttam K umar Sharma, Uttrakhand Ayurved Uni. Dehradun

15

2026:UHC:4313- DB

(Prof. Dalip Chandra Nath)

Retired Vice-Chancellor, Assam

University-Member

(Prof. Naresh Chandra -Gautam)

Former Vice-Chancellor Mahatma

Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya

University, Agra, U.P - Member

(Dr. Pankaj kumar Panday)

Secretary, AYUSH and

AYUSH Education, Uttarakhand

Government, Member -Secretary

(Mr. Sanjeev Chopra),

IAS(Retd), Former Secretary,

Government of Uttarakhand and

former Director, Lal Bahadür

Shastri National Academy of

Administration, Mussoorie -

Member

(Hon'ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari) High Court of Uttarakhand,

Nainital-Chairperson

14. The details of the meeting of the Committee ,

referred above, would reveal that amongst the 29

candidates, who applied for the post of Vice Chancellor,

only 18 applicants were found to be eligible , and out of

which, only 15 candidates appeared for the interview. After

interacting with the candidates and taking into

consideration their certificates and other documents and by

adjudging their suitability as per UGC Regulations, the

Committee prepared the panel of three meritorious

candidates.

15. Admittedly, the appointment of respondent no.3

was made by the State Government from the panel of

candidates recommended by the Committee. There is no

imputation on the Selection Committee. The Selection

Committee which consisted of a sitting Judge of this High

Court and other distinguished experts in their field

evaluated the qualification, experience, merits and

demerits of each candidate and prepared a panel of three

16

2026:UHC:4313- DB

meritorious candidates. This Court cannot sit in appeal over

the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

16. As to whether the decision of the duly constituted

body can be interfered by the Court in absence of any

malafide against the expert committee was considered by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Basavaiah Vs. Dr.

H.L. Ramesh” (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein the Hon’ble

Apex court, while considering the judgment of the

Constitutional Bench in the case of “University of

Maysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao” AIR 1965 SC 491 in

paragraph nos.20 to 38, has held as under:

“20. It is abundantly clear from the affid avit filed by the

University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined and

scrutinised the qualification, experience and published work of the

appellants before selecting them for the posts of Readers in

Sericulture. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench was not

justified in sitting in appeal over the unanimous recommendations

of the Expert Committee consisting of five experts. The Expert

Committee had in fact scrutinised the merits and demerits of each

candidate including qualification and the equivalent published

work and its recommendations were sent to the University for

appointment which were accepted by the University.

21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show

deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert

Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the

instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification,

experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter

recommendations for their appointments were made. The Divi sion

Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate

court on the recommendations made by the country's leading

experts in the field of Sericulture.

22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding

appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in

17

2026:UHC:4313- DB

English in Central College, Bangalore in University of

Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] in which the

Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the courts

should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the

experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala

fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board.

The Court further observed that it would normally be wise and

safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to

the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face

than the courts generally can be.

23. We have been called upon to adjudicate a similar matter

of the same University almost after half a century. In a judicial

system governed by precedents, the judgments delivered by the

Constitution Bench and other Benches must be respected and

relied on with meticulous care and sincerity. The ratio of the

Constitution Bench has not been properly appreciated by the

learned Judges in the impugned judgment.

24. In M.C. Gupta (Dr.) v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta [(1979) 2

SCC 339 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 168] , somewhat similar controversy

arose for adjudication, in which the State Public Service

Commission invited applications for two posts of Professors of

Medicine in the State Medical Colleges. The two appellants as well

as Respondents 1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post. Appellant 1

had teaching experience of about 6 years and 6 months as a

Lecturer in Cardiology in the Department of Medicine and about 3

years and 2 months as Reader in Medicine in S.N. Medical

College, Agra. Since there was no separate Department of

Cardiology in that College, Cardiology formed part of General

Medicine and as such he was required to teach General Medicine

to undergraduate students and to some postgraduate students in

addition to Cardiology. Similarly, Appellant 2 had one year's

experience as post- doctoral teaching fellow in the Department of

Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo, one year's

teaching experience as Lecturer while posted as a Pool Officer and

15 months' teaching experience as post- doctoral research fellow

in the Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College,

Kanpur and about 4 years and 6 months' teaching experience as

Assistant Professor of Medicine, State University of New York,

Buffalo. Cardiology is a part of Medicine and the teaching

experience acquired while holding the post of Lecturer in

Cardiology was teaching experience in a subject which

substantially formed part of General Medicine over and above the

18

2026:UHC:4313- DB

same. The Commission was amply justified in reaching to the

conclusion that he had the requisite teaching experience. The

High Court was, therefore, in error in quashing its selection of the

appellant in this case.

25. The teaching experience of foreign teaching institutions

can be taken into consideration if it is from a recognised

institution of repute. It cannot be said that State University of

New York at Buffalo, where Appellant 2 served as an Assistant

Professor would not be an institution of repute. The experts aiding

and advising the Commission must be quite aware of institutions

in which the teaching experience was acquired by him and this

one is a reputed University. According to the experts of the

Selection Board, both the appellants had requisite qualification

and were eligible for appointment. If they were selected by the

Commission and appointed by the Government, no fault can be

found with the same. The High Court interfered and set aside the

selections made by the Expert Committee. This Court while

setting aside the judgment of the High Court reminded the High

Court that it would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to

leave the decision of academic matters to experts. The Court

observed as under: [M.C. Gupta (Dr.) case [(1979) 2 SCC 339 :

1979 SCC (L&S) 168] , SCC pp. 344-45, para 7]

“7. … When selection is made by the Commission aided and

advised by experts having technical experience and high

academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing

teaching/research experience in technical subjects, the courts

should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by

experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against

them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to

leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are

more familiar with the problems they face than the courts

generally can be.”

26. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3

SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] the Court observed that the

court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians:

(SCC p. 426, para 17)

“17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer

home the point that the court should not substitute its

judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to

educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule

19

2026:UHC:4313- DB

of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of

academic bodies.”

27. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher

Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4

SCC 27] the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 56 -57, para 29)

“29. … As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court,

the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own

views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to

academic matters in preference to those formulated by

professional men possessing technical expertise and rich

experience of actual day -to-day working of educational

institutions and the departments controlling them.”

28. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal [(1990) 2 SCC

746 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 395 : (1990) 13 ATC 732] the Court relied

on the judgment in University of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 491] and

observed that in the matter of appointments in the academic field,

the court generally does not interfere. The Court further observed

that the High Court should show due regard to the opinion

expressed by the experts constituting the Selection Committee

and its recommendation on which the Chancellor had acted.

29. In Bhushan Uttam Khare v. B.J. Medical College [(1992) 2

SCC 220 : 1992 SCC (L&S ) 554 : (1992) 20 ATC 223] the Court

placed reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in University of

Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 491] and reiterated the same legal position

and observed as under: (Bhushan Uttam case [(1992) 2 SCC 220

: 1992 SCC (L&S) 554 : (1992) 20 ATC 223] , SCC p. 223, para

8)

“8. … the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders

in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction

of educational authorities should normally be left to their

decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it

thinks it must do so in the interest of justice.”

30. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan [(1990) 1

SCC 305 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1991) 16 ATC 528] the Court in

somewhat similar matter observed thus: (SCC pp. 30 9-10, para

12)

“12. … It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function

of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection

Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the

candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or

not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection

20

2026:UHC:4313- DB

Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court

has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection

Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds,

such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the

constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the

selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection, etc. It is

not disputed that in the present case the University had

constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant

statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected

the candidates after going through all the relevant material

before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in

setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative

merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High

Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.

31. In Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar [(1994) 1 SCC 169 :

1994 SCC (L&S) 296 : (1994) 26 ATC 570] the Court observed

thus: (SCC pp. 174-75, para 9)

“9. This Court has repeatedly held that the decisions of the

academic authorities should not ordinarily be interfered with

by the courts. Whether a candidate fulfils the requisite

qualifications or not is a matter which should be entirely left to

be decided by the academic bodies and the Selection

Committees concerned which invariably consist of experts on

the subjects relevant to the selection.”

32. In J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed

Malik [(2000) 3 SCC 59] the Court while stressing on the

importance of the functions of the expert body observed that the

expert body consisted of persons coming from different walks of

life who were engaged in or interested in the field of education

and had wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of

maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of such

an expert body should be given due weightage by courts.

33. In Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable

Trust [(2001) 5 SCC 486] the Court reminded the High Courts

that the Court's jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion

exercised by the expert body is extremely limited.

34. In Medical Council of India v. Sarang [(2001) 8 SCC 427]

the Court again reiterated the legal principle that the court should

not normally interfere or interpret the rules and should instead

leave the matter to the experts in the field.

21

2026:UHC:4313- DB

35. In B.C. Mylarappa v. Dr. R. Venkatasubbaiah [(2008) 14

SCC 306 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 148] the Court again reiterated

the legal principles and observed regarding importanc e of the

recommendations made by the expert committees.

36. In Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) v. Chaudhari Devi Lal

University [(2008) 9 SCC 284 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 887] the

Court reminded that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to

sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts.

37. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder

Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726] again the legal position has

been reiterated that it is a rule of prudence that courts should

hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.

38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate

and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the

courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides

have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection

Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe

for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and

experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an

endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The

courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations

in academic matters.”

17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed

reliance on the case of Professor N.S. Bhandari (supra)

wherein judgment passed in Gambirdhan case (supra) was

also considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court to contend that

the selection of respondent no.3 was illegal. The facts of

the said case are totally different from the present case. In

the case of Professor N.S. Bhandari (supra), neither any

advertisement was issued for filling up the post of Vice

Chancellor nor any Selection Committee was constituted

and in the backdrop of the said fact the Hon’ble Apex court

repelled the contention of the petitioner therein that he

22

2026:UHC:4313- DB

was the most meritorious candidate. Hon’ble Apex Court in

para 28 and 29 of the said judgment has observed as

follows :-

“28. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that

the appellant was the most meritorious person and looking to his

academic career and having been satisfied that he is the suitable and

meritorious person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor, thereafter he

was appointed as Vice -Chancellor by the State Government is

concerned, it may be true that the appellant might have a very

good/bright academic career. However, at the same time, it cannot

be said that he was the most meritorious person as his case was not

compared with other meritorious persons. Therefore, the State

Government had no opportunity to compare his case with other

eligible meritorious candidates.

29. As observed hereinabove, and as per the requirement of

Regulation 7.3.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 and even as per

Section 10 of the University Act, 2019, the selection for the post of

Vice-Chancellor should be through proper identification by a panel of

3-5 persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee and the members

of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be the persons of

eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be

connected in any manner with the University concerned or i ts

colleges. While preparing the panel, the Search Committee shall give

proper weightage to the academic excellence, etc. and thereafter the

Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice-Chancellor out of the panel

of the names recommended by the Search -cum-Selection

Committee. The reason behind this seems to be that the person who

is ultimately selected and appointed as Vice-Chancellor, his case is

compared with other eligible meritorious candidates who were part of

the panel recommended by the Search Committe e. In the present

case, such a procedure has not been followed at all. The merit of the

appellant has not at all been compared with other eligible meritorious

persons who may be more meritorious than the appellant.”

18. However, in the present case, not only the post

of Vice Chancellor was advertised, but a Committee was

also duly constituted as per Uttarakhand Ayurved

University Act, 2009. The Committee, taking into

consideration Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018,

23

2026:UHC:4313- DB

and after interaction with the eligible candidates and taking

into consideration their qualifications and experience,

prepared a panel of meritorious candidates.

19. The moot question for consideration is whether

the experience gained by respondent no.3 as Principal

would count to the experience as a Professor. In this

connection, it is pertinent to note that under Rule 5 of the

Uttarakhand (Ayush Ayurvedic College Teachers) Service

Rules, 2011 relating to teaching cadre, the post of Principal

is also covered. In paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit of

respondent no.3, it was his specific case that during his

tenure as Principal, he taught Kaya Chikitsa subject

(medicines) to the students. The Government of

Uttarakhand, vide letter dated 21.03.2023, had also

clarified that the post of Principal is also a teaching post

and in view of it, the same age of superannuation, i.e., 65

years as was stipulated for teachers, would also apply to

the Principal.

20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in

holding that the experience gained by respondent no.3 as

Principal would also count towards his experience as

Professor for reckoning his eligibility for the post of Vice

Chancellor.

24

2026:UHC:4313- DB

21. The judgment in the case of Dr. Vinod Kumar

Chauhan, on which reliance has been placed by learne d

counsel for the petitioners, is distinguishable on facts. In

the said case, the incumbent Vice Chancellor claimed

benefit of his experience between 20.04.1993 and

28.03.2017 as Head of Department of Gurukul Kangri

Ayurvedic College, Haridwar and between 28.03.2017 and

25.07.2019 as Member Board of Studies and Dean of

Faculty. The Court noted that the incumbent had failed to

demonstrate before the Court how the position held by him

could be treated to be equivalent position in a reputed

research and academic organization. The additional reasons

given by the Court for discarding the said experience was

that he was appointed as Professor only on 29.12.2014.

However, in the present case, respondent no.3 has clearly

demonstrated how the position held by him as Principal

would also count towards his experience as Professor.

Respondent no.3 was appointed as Professor on

17.02.2009 and the position of Principal was held by him

only since 08.11.2013 much after he was promoted as

Professor. As such, the judgment in the case of Dr. Vinod

Kumar Chauhan would not apply to the facts of the

instant case.

25

2026:UHC:4313- DB

22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the

considered view that the selection and appointment of

respondent no.3 as Vice Chancellor is in conformity with

Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 and the

Regulation 7.3 of UGC Regulations, 2018.

23. Accordingly, the writ petitions lack merit and the

same are hereby dismissed.

24. No order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

30.05.2026

Rajni

26