Experience Gained as Principal in Teaching Cadre Counts Toward Professor Experience Requirement for Vice-Chancellor Appointment

Two petitioners—a social activist and a reporter—filed writ petitions seeking a writ of quo warranto against Respondent No. 3, challenging his appointment as the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Uttarakhand Ayurved University.

The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 3 lacked the mandatory 10 years of experience as a Professor required under UGC Regulations, arguing that his tenure as "Principal" (approx. 9 years and 6 months) was an administrative, non-teaching post and could not be clubbed with his 4 years and 8 months of service specifically designated as "Professor".

Respondent No. 3 filed an additional counter-affidavit asserting that as a Principal, he continued to teach, guide researchers, and remained part of the teaching cadre.

Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, which mandates that a Vice-Chancellor must be a distinguished academician with a minimum of ten years of experience as a Professor in a University or ten years of experience in a reputed research/academic administrative organization.

Section 11 of the Uttarakhand Ayurved University Act, 2009, governing the selection process.

Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (2010) and University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (1965), which established that courts should defer to the wisdom of expert academic bodies and should not sit in appeal over their recommendations unless there is patent illegality or mala fides.

The Court examined the teaching cadre definitions under Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand (Ayush Ayurvedic College Teachers) Service Rules, 2011, noting that the post of Principal is included within the teaching services.

It accepted Respondent No. 3’s un-rebutted evidence that while serving as Principal, he conducted regular classes for B.A.M.S. and MD students and supervised Ph.D. scholars.

The Court distinguished the precedent in Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand, noting that in that case, the candidate failed to prove the equivalence of his administrative roles, whereas Respondent No. 3 was already a Professor before becoming a Principal and continued teaching.

The Court observed that the Selection Committee, which included a sitting High Court Judge and prominent educationists, had evaluated the candidate's certificates and eligibility in two separate meetings before recommending him.

The Court answered both issues in the negative regarding the petitioners' challenge, holding that the appointment was in strict conformity with the University Act and UGC Regulations and dismissed the writ petitions for lack of merit.