Principal’s Teaching Experience Counts for Vice-Chancellor Eligibility: Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Appointment

Uttarakhand High Court Rejects Challenge to Ayurved University Vice-Chancellor’s Appointment

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed challenging the appointment of respondent no. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. Dr. Navneet Parmar described himself as a social activist, while Deepmala stated that she was working as a reporter with a Hindi daily.

The petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto, contending that respondent no. 3 did not possess the minimum experience required under Regulation 7.3 of the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2018.

Respondent no. 3 had worked as Professor of Kaya Chikitsa from 17 February 2009 to 7 November 2013, for approximately four years and eight months. Thereafter, he worked as Principal of Government Ayurvedic colleges and also held additional administrative responsibilities.

The petitioners argued that the post of Principal was a non-teaching post. Therefore, the period served as Principal could not be counted toward the minimum ten years’ experience required for appointment as Vice-Chancellor.

The respondents maintained that the post of Principal was both an academic and administrative post. They asserted that respondent no. 3 continued teaching students, conducting examinations and guiding postgraduate and doctoral researchers while serving as Principal.

A duly constituted Search-cum-Selection Committee considered 29 applications, found 18 applicants prima facie eligible and interviewed 15 candidates. It ultimately recommended a panel of three candidates, from which respondent no. 3 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor.

Issues

1. Whether respondent no. 3 possessed the minimum academic experience required under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
2. Whether the period served as Principal of an Ayurvedic college could be counted as experience as a Professor or as experience in an academic administrative organisation.
3. Whether the appointment of respondent no. 3 as Vice-Chancellor was contrary to the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009.
4. Whether a writ of quo warranto could be issued where the appointment had been made on the recommendation of a duly constituted expert committee.
5. To what extent the High Court could reassess the eligibility and experience evaluated by an academic Search-cum-Selection Committee in the absence of allegations of mala fides.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners argued that Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations required a candidate for Vice-Chancellor to possess at least ten years’ experience as a Professor in a university or ten years’ experience in a reputed research or academic administrative organisation, together with demonstrated academic leadership.

According to them, respondent no. 3 had worked as a Professor for only approximately four years and eight months before becoming Principal.

They submitted that the post of Principal was a non-teaching administrative post. Consequently, the period from 8 November 2013 until the last date for applications could not be counted as professorial experience.

If the period served as Principal was excluded, respondent no. 3 did not possess the required ten years’ experience and was therefore ineligible for appointment.

The petitioners relied upon:

• Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran;
• Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat; and
• Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand.

They contended that appointment to the office of Vice-Chancellor must strictly conform to UGC qualifications and that an ineligible appointee could be removed through quo warranto.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State, the University and respondent no. 3 argued that the appointment had been made in accordance with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 and Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations.

They submitted that the post of Principal was not merely administrative. Respondent no. 3 continued to perform teaching and academic functions while serving as Principal, including:

• teaching BAMS and MD students;
• conducting classes and examinations;
• guiding MD and PhD scholars;
• supervising research work; and
• discharging academic leadership responsibilities.

Respondent no. 3 stated that he had continuously remained in the teaching cadre after his appointment as Professor in 2009. He had been promoted as Principal from the cadre of Professors and had more than ten years and seven months’ combined service as Professor and Principal by the last date of application.

It was also argued that the State Government had clarified that service as Principal fell within teaching service. The relevant service rules treated the post of Principal as part of the teaching cadre and permitted the head of the institution to teach.

The respondents further submitted that the Search-cum-Selection Committee consisted of distinguished experts, including a sitting High Court judge, senior educationists and former Vice-Chancellors. There was no allegation of mala fides against the Committee.

Therefore, the Court could not sit in appeal over the Committee’s expert assessment of the candidate’s qualifications, experience and suitability.

Analysis of the Law

Eligibility under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations

Regulation 7.3 requires a Vice-Chancellor to be a distinguished academician possessing either:

• at least ten years’ experience as a Professor in a university; or
• ten years’ experience in a reputed research or academic administrative organisation, with demonstrated academic leadership.

The Court examined whether respondent no. 3’s service as Principal could be treated as relevant teaching and academic experience.

The Court noted that respondent no. 3 had originally been appointed as Professor in 2009 and was subsequently promoted as Principal. He did not cease to belong to the teaching stream merely because he assumed administrative responsibilities.

The applicable Ayurvedic College Teachers’ Service Rules included the post of Principal within the teaching cadre. The State Government had also clarified that the post of Principal constituted teaching service.

The material produced by respondent no. 3 showed that he continued to conduct classes, examinations and research supervision during his tenure as Principal.

Accordingly, the Court held that his service as Principal could be counted toward the experience required for appointment as Vice-Chancellor.

Scope of Quo Warranto

A writ of quo warranto examines whether a public office is occupied in violation of a statutory provision.

The Court may interfere where:

• the appointee lacks a mandatory qualification;
• the appointment violates the governing statute or rules;
• the selection body was improperly constituted; or
• the process is vitiated by mala fides or patent illegality.

However, where a duly constituted expert body has evaluated academic experience and found a candidate eligible, the Court ordinarily does not reassess comparative merit or substitute its own academic opinion.

Judicial Deference to Expert Committees

The High Court emphasised that courts possess limited jurisdiction in academic appointments. The evaluation of teaching, research and academic administrative experience ordinarily lies within the expertise of the Search-cum-Selection Committee.

In the absence of mala fides, statutory violation or patent irregularity, the Court cannot function as an appellate authority over the Committee’s recommendation.

Precedent Analysis

Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran, (2022) 17 SCC 679

The petitioners relied upon this judgment to contend that appointments to the post of Vice-Chancellor must strictly satisfy UGC Regulations.

The High Court distinguished the precedent on facts. In that case, the qualifications and selection process did not satisfy the applicable legal requirements. In the present matter, however, a properly constituted Committee examined the candidates under Regulation 7.3 and recommended a panel after scrutinising their documents and experience.

Gambhirdhan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 5 SCC 179

This judgment recognised that UGC Regulations governing the appointment of Vice-Chancellors are mandatory where applicable and that appointments made contrary to those qualifications cannot be sustained.

The High Court accepted the principle but held that respondent no. 3 satisfied Regulation 7.3 once his teaching and academic responsibilities as Principal were properly counted.

Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

In that case, the incumbent had failed to establish that his experience as Head of Department, Dean or member of academic bodies was equivalent to the experience required under the UGC Regulations.

The Court distinguished that decision because respondent no. 3 had already been appointed as Professor in 2009 and thereafter served as Principal while continuing to teach and supervise research. He had produced specific material demonstrating that his tenure as Principal remained academic and teaching-oriented.

Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372

The Supreme Court held that courts should show deference to the recommendations of expert committees and should not sit in appeal over their academic assessment.

Interference is justified only on limited grounds such as mala fides, illegality, material irregularity or violation of statutory provisions.

University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491

The Constitution Bench held that courts should ordinarily leave academic assessments to experts, particularly where no mala fides are alleged against the selection body.

Other Academic Selection Precedents

The Court also referred to decisions including:

• M.C. Gupta v. Arun Kumar Gupta;
• J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University;
• Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth;
• Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal;
• Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan; and
• Chancellor v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar.

These authorities consistently hold that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of academic experts unless the selection suffers from illegality, mala fides or patent procedural irregularity.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court found that the Search-cum-Selection Committee had been constituted in accordance with Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009.

The Committee had considered the qualifications, experience and records of eligible applicants, interviewed candidates and prepared a panel of three names. Respondent no. 3 was appointed from that panel.

There was no allegation that the Committee was improperly constituted or that its members acted with mala fides.

The central question was whether respondent no. 3’s service as Principal could be counted toward the required academic experience.

The Court answered the question in the affirmative because:

• respondent no. 3 had been appointed as Professor before becoming Principal;
• the post of Principal formed part of the teaching cadre under the applicable rules;
• he continued teaching students and guiding research scholars;
• the State Government had recognised the post of Principal as a teaching post; and
• the Selection Committee had examined and accepted his experience.

The Court held that respondent no. 3 had more than the required ten years’ relevant academic experience.

It further observed that it could not reassess the expert Committee’s evaluation as though exercising appellate jurisdiction, particularly when no mala fides or material irregularity had been established.

Accordingly, the appointment was found to conform to both the University Act, 2009 and Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

Conclusion

The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the selection and appointment of respondent no. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University.

It held that experience gained while serving as Principal could be counted toward the required professorial or academic experience because the post was part of the teaching cadre and respondent no. 3 continued to perform teaching, research-supervision and academic leadership functions.

The Court also reaffirmed that judicial interference with the recommendation of an academic expert committee is limited, particularly where the committee is properly constituted and no mala fides or patent illegality are alleged.

Both writ petitions were dismissed without any order as to costs.

Case Details

Case: Dr. Navneet Parmar v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, with Deepmala v. State of Uttarakhand & Others
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
Case Number: Writ Petition (S/B) No. 582 of 2024 with Writ Petition (S/B) No. 602 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:UHC:4313-DB
Judge: Hon’ble Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Hon’ble Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Date: 30 May 2026
Result: Both writ petitions dismissed; appointment of respondent no. 3 as Vice-Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University upheld.

Read also: Trade Licence Not Required to Register Partnership Firm of Advocates: Calcutta High Court