Principal's Role Counts as Teaching Experience for Vice Chancellor Post, Rules Uttarakhand High Court
A Division Bench dismissed quo warranto petitions challenging the Vice Chancellor's appointment at Uttarakhand Ayurved University, holding that service as Principal qualifies as teaching experience under UGC Regulations 2018.
The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in a 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 of Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, with the judgment authored by Justice Subhash Upadhyay, held that the experience gained by the respondent as Principal of government Ayurvedic colleges would count towards the minimum ten years of 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 court found the appointment to be in conformity with both the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 and the UGC Regulations, 2018, and declined to interfere with the recommendation of the duly constituted Selection Committee.
The Challenge to the Vice Chancellor's Appointment
Two separate writ petitions were filed in 2024 challenging the appointment of respondent no.3 as Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University. The petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No.582 of 2024, Dr. Navneet Parmar, described himself as a social activist. The petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No.602 of 2024, Deepmala, stated she worked as a reporter for a Hindi daily called Uttaranchal Crime News. Both petitions raised the same grievance and were decided by a common judgment.
The petitioners contended that respondent no.3 lacked the requisite qualification for the post. They pointed to his application, which showed he had worked as Professor, Kaya Chikitsa, 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 nine years and six months.
The petitioners argued that the post of Principal is a non-teaching post. On that basis, they submitted that the experience from 8 November 2013 to 10 May 2023 (the last date for applications) could not be counted towards the ten-year professorial experience required under Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018. 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 a coordinate bench decision in Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand, WPSB No.567 of 2021.
The Eligibility Requirement and the Selection Process
Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 requires that a person to be appointed as Vice Chancellor 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 demonstrated academic leadership.
The appointment process under Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009 requires the State Government to constitute a Search-cum-Selection Committee. That Committee must forward a panel of three to five candidates to the State Government, which then recommends names to the Chancellor for appointment.
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, eleven applicants were found prima facie ineligible and were informed accordingly on 18 July 2023. Eighteen applicants were found prima facie eligible, of whom fifteen appeared before the Search Committee on 22 July 2023.
The Committee, constituted on 4 July 2023 under Office Memorandum No.1034/XL-1/2020-149/2010 TC-II, comprised Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari of the High Court of Uttarakhand as Chairperson, Shri Sanjeev Chopra IAS (Retd.) as Member, Prof. Naresh Chandra Gautam (former Vice Chancellor) as Member, Shri Dalip Chandra Nath (retired Vice Chancellor) as Member, and the Secretary, AYUSH and AYUSH Education, Uttarakhand Government, as Member Secretary. The Committee met again on 1 September 2023 and, after considering the performance and profiles of all candidates, recommended a panel of three candidates in alphabetical order. Respondent no.3's name was among the three recommended. The State Government appointed him from that panel.
Respondent's Case: Teaching Continued Through the Principal's Tenure
The respondent's senior counsel, Shri Avtar Singh Rawat, submitted that the characterisation of the Principal's post as purely non-teaching was misconceived. A coordinate bench of the court had, on 5 January 2026, directed respondent no.3 to file an additional counter affidavit on this specific point. The additional counter affidavit was filed on 10 January 2026. The petitioners were given an opportunity to rebut it by order dated 9 March 2026 but chose not to file any reply, and that statement was recorded by the court.
The additional counter affidavit set out a detailed table of positions held by respondent no.3. He was appointed as Professor (teacher code AYKC 02680) at Government Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar on 17 February 2009. He served as Professor until 7 November 2013. He then served as Principal of Government Ayurvedic PG College, Rishikul, Haridwar from 8 November 2013 to 7 August 2015, followed by a brief stint as Principal/Campus Director at Gurukul Kangri from 8 August 2015 to 14 December 2015. He held the additional charge of Director, Ayurveda and Unani Services from 15 December 2015 to 11 July 2019, and then rejoined as Principal at Gurukul Kangri from 25 July 2019 until the last date of application on 10 May 2023. The total duration as Professor/Principal was stated to be ten years, seven months, and eleven days, with total service including the additional charge of Director reaching fourteen years, two months, and nine days.
The affidavit stated that respondent no.3 had continuously taught regular classes of BAMS (Kayachikitsa) and MD students in the capacity of a Professor during his tenure as Principal, and had guided MD (Ayurveda) and PhD scholars. Time-tables from Rishikul and Gurukul Kangri campuses and minutes of Research Degree Committee meetings were annexed in support.
Three additional legal bases were cited. First, under Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand Ayush (Ayurvedic College Teachers) Service Rules, 2011, the post of Principal falls within the teaching cadre, and Section 3 of those Rules identifies the Professor cadre as a source for recruiting Principals. Second, Rule 34(5) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Regulations permits the Head of the Institute to teach. Third, the Government of Uttarakhand, by letter No.314/XL-1/2023-04/2017 dated 21 March 2023, had clarified that service as Principal falls under teaching services and that the same age of superannuation of 65 years applicable to teachers would apply to Principals.
How the Bench Reasoned
The bench first addressed the scope of judicial review over expert committee recommendations. It drew on Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372, which itself surveyed a line of Constitution Bench and other Supreme Court decisions beginning with University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491. The consistent position across those decisions is that courts should be slow to interfere with the recommendations of expert committees, particularly where no malafide is alleged. The bench noted that the Selection Committee in this case included a sitting judge of the High Court and other distinguished experts, and that there was no imputation of malafide against it. The court held it could not sit in appeal over the Committee's recommendation.
On the central question of whether Principal's experience counts as Professor's experience, the bench found in favour of respondent no.3. It 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 of 21 March 2023 had expressly clarified that the post of Principal is a teaching post. Respondent no.3 had also specifically demonstrated, through time-tables and research supervision records, that he continued to teach and guide researchers while serving as Principal. The bench held: <“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.”
The bench then distinguished the precedents relied upon by the petitioners. In Professor N.S. Bhandari, the Supreme Court had set aside a Vice Chancellor's appointment because no advertisement had been issued and no Selection Committee had been constituted at all. The court found those facts entirely different from the present case, where both steps had been properly followed. As for Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan, the coordinate bench had disallowed experience claimed as Head of Department and Dean of Faculty because the incumbent had failed to demonstrate how those positions could be treated as equivalent positions in a reputed research or academic organisation, and because he had been appointed as Professor only on 29 December 2014. In the present case, respondent no.3 had been appointed as Professor on 17 February 2009, and had assumed the post of Principal only from 8 November 2013, after his promotion from the Professor cadre. He had also clearly demonstrated the teaching work performed during his tenure as Principal. The bench held that Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan was distinguishable on facts.
Outcome
The Division Bench held that the selection and appointment of respondent no.3 as Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Ayurved University is 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. The judgment was delivered on 30 May 2026, with the bench having reserved it on 18 May 2026.