Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Quo Warranto Petitions Against Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University

The Division Bench held that experience as Principal counts towards professorial experience under UGC Regulations 2018, and declined to sit in appeal over the Selection Committee's recommendation.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in a common judgment delivered on 30 May 2026, dismissed two writ petitions seeking a writ of quo warranto against the Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. The Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, held that the Vice Chancellor's experience as Principal of government Ayurvedic colleges counted towards the ten-year professorial experience required under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations on 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. The bench also declined to interfere with the recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee in the absence of any allegation of malafide.

The Challenge Before the Court

Two writ petitions were filed — Writ Petition (S/B) No. 582 of 2024 by Dr. Navneet Parmar, who described himself as a social activist, and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 602 of 2024 by Deepmala, who described herself as a reporter with a Hindi daily called Uttaranchal Crime News. Both petitioners sought a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 3, the appointed Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University.

The petitioners' case rested on a single factual contention: that respondent no. 3 had worked as Professor, Kaya Chikitsa, only from 17 February 2009 to 7 November 2013 — a period of four years and eight months. From 8 November 2013 onwards, he had served as Principal of Government Ayurvedic PG College, Rishikul, Haridwar, and later as Principal/Campus Director of Government Ayurved College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar, for a combined period of approximately nine years and six months up to the last date of application, 10 May 2023.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that the post of Principal is a non-teaching post. On that basis, they contended that the Principal's experience could not be counted towards the minimum ten years of professorial experience mandated by Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, and that the appointment was therefore illegal. They relied on Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari v. Ravindra Jugran and Others, (2022) 17 SCC 679, Gambirdhan K. Gadhvi v. The State of Gujarat and Others, (2022) 5 SCC 179, and the coordinate bench decision in Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand, WPSB No. 567 of 2021.

The Selection Process and Respondent No. 3's Profile

An advertisement was issued on 19 April 2023 inviting applications for the post of Vice Chancellor, with 10 May 2023 as the last date. Twenty-nine applications were received. After scrutiny, 11 applicants were found ineligible and informed separately on 18 July 2023. Eighteen applicants were found prima facie eligible, of whom 15 appeared before the Search Committee on 22 July 2023.

The Selection Committee was constituted on 4 July 2023 under sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009. Its composition included a sitting Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand as Chairperson, a retired IAS officer who had served as Director of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, a former Vice Chancellor of Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya University, a retired Vice Chancellor of Assam University, and the Secretary, AYUSH and AYUSH Education, Government of Uttarakhand, as Member Secretary.

The Committee met again on 1 September 2023 and, after evaluating all candidates, recommended a panel of three candidates in alphabetical order to the State Government. Respondent no. 3 was among the three recommended. The State Government appointed him from that panel.

Respondent no. 3's position, as set out in an additional counter affidavit filed on 10 January 2026 pursuant to a court direction of 5 January 2026, was that he had been continuously a Professor of Kayachikitsa from 2009 onwards. He had been appointed as Professor at Government Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar on 17 February 2009. His promotion to Principal came through a selection conducted by the Public Service Commission, since under Section 3 of the Uttarakhand Ayush (Ayurvedic) College Teacher Service Regulations, 2011, the cadre of Professor is a source for recruiting Principals. During his tenure as Principal, he continued to teach regular classes of BAMS (Kayachikitsa) and MD students and guided PhD and MD/MS scholars allotted to him by the Research Degree Committee.

He also pointed to Rule 34(5) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Regulations, which permits the Head of the Institute to teach, and to a Government of Uttarakhand letter dated 21 March 2023 clarifying that service as Principal falls under teaching services — a clarification that also extended the same superannuation age of 65 years applicable to teachers to Principals.

The petitioners were given an opportunity to rebut the additional counter affidavit but chose not to file any reply. Their statement to that effect was recorded by the court on 9 March 2026.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Subhash Upadhyay, writing for the Division Bench, identified the central question as whether experience gained as Principal could count towards experience as Professor for the purpose of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

The bench noted that under Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand (Ayush Ayurvedic College Teachers) Service Rules, 2011, the post of Principal is covered within the teaching cadre. The Government of Uttarakhand's letter dated 21 March 2023 had expressly clarified that the post of Principal is a teaching post. Respondent no. 3 had specifically averred in his counter affidavit that he taught Kaya Chikitsa to students during his tenure as Principal. The bench found this sufficient to hold that the experience as Principal counted towards professorial experience for the purpose of eligibility.

On the question of judicial deference to expert bodies, the bench drew on a long line of Supreme Court authority, tracing the principle from the Constitution Bench decision in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, through to Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372. The consistent position across those decisions is that courts should be slow to interfere with the recommendations of expert Selection Committees, particularly where no malafide is alleged. The bench quoted the principle that “courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.”

The bench also addressed the petitioners' reliance on Professor N.S. Bhandari. It found the facts of that case entirely different: in Bhandari, no advertisement had been issued and no Selection Committee had been constituted. The Supreme Court had set aside the appointment precisely because the prescribed procedure under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 had not been followed at all. In the present case, the post was advertised, a properly constituted Committee evaluated 15 candidates, and a panel of three was recommended. The ratio of Bhandari therefore had no application.

The bench distinguished Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan on its facts. In that case, the incumbent Vice Chancellor had claimed benefit of experience as Head of Department and as Member, Board of Studies and Dean of Faculty, but had failed to demonstrate how those positions could be treated as equivalent to a professorial role in a reputed academic organisation. Respondent no. 3's situation was different: he had been appointed as Professor on 17 February 2009, and his promotion to Principal came only on 8 November 2013, well after he had already established his professorial standing. He had also clearly demonstrated continued teaching activity during his tenure as Principal.

Outcome

The Division Bench held that the selection and appointment of respondent no. 3 as Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University was in conformity with the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 and Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. Both writ petitions were dismissed as lacking merit. No order as to costs was made.