UGC’s mandatory Vice-Chancellor selection norms bind State agricultural universities; Himachal Pradesh amendments struck down

The State of Himachal Pradesh enacted the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986, governing the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur and Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan.

The State subsequently amended Sections 23 and 24 of the Act through the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry (Amendment) Act, 2023, described in the judgment as Act No. 46 of 2025, and framed the Universities Rules, 2026.

The petitioners, who claimed to possess the qualifications and experience prescribed under the UGC Regulations, 2018, challenged the amended statutory provisions, the 2026 Rules and advertisements dated 26 February 2026 inviting applications for Vice-Chancellors of the two Universities.

They contended that the impugned framework conflicted with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, particularly regarding the composition and role of the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the Chancellor’s appointment from the recommended panel.

Whether the UGC Regulations, 2018, particularly Regulation 7.3 governing the eligibility, composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee and appointment of Vice-Chancellors, were mandatorily applicable to the two State agricultural and horticultural Universities notwithstanding alleged non-adoption by the State?

Whether the State’s legislative competence under Entries 14 and 32 of List II authorised it to prescribe a Vice-Chancellor selection process inconsistent with the standards prescribed under Entry 66 of List I and the UGC Act, 1956?

Whether the ICAR and its Model Act constituted a specialised regulatory framework capable of displacing or excluding the application of the UGC Regulations, 2018?

Whether the amendments to Sections 23 and 24 of the 1986 Act, Rules 2–4 of the Universities Rules, 2026, and the consequential advertisements dated 26 February 2026 were constitutionally and legally sustainable?

The Court applied Article 246 of the Constitution, under which Parliament’s power over List I subjects prevails over State legislative power under List II, and Entry 66 of List I, which gives Parliament exclusive authority over the coordination and determination of standards in higher education.

It held that Entry 25 of List III, concerning education and universities, is expressly subject to Entries 63–66 of List I, and that State legislation cannot dilute standards prescribed under Entry 66.

The Court relied on Sections 12, 12-B, 14 and 26(1)(e), (g) of the UGC Act, 1956, and held that the UGC Regulations, 2018, framed under that Act and applicable under Clause 1.2 to every University established under a State Act, have statutory force and are mandatory.

Regulation 7.3 requires a distinguished academician with the prescribed experience, selection through a panel of 3–5 persons, a Search-cum-Selection Committee including a nominee of the Chairman of the UGC, exclusion of persons connected with the concerned University, and appointment by the Chancellor from the recommended panel.

The Court relied principally on Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar, Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S., Dr. S. Mohan v. Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University, Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., and Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar.

The Court found that Clause 1.2 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, expressly applied the Regulations to every University established under a State Act and contained no option of adoption or non-adoption.

The agricultural and horticultural character of the Universities did not create an exemption because ICAR was only a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and was not an authority established by an Act of Parliament under Article 246; nor had ICAR issued binding statutory norms displacing the UGC framework.

The Court held that Entries 14 and 32 of List II enabled the State to establish and regulate agricultural universities, courses and institutional matters, but did not authorise it to legislate contrary to higher-education standards exclusively governed by Entry 66 of List I.

The impugned framework materially departed from Regulation 7.3: the Chief Secretary, who was connected with the Universities through the State Council for Education and Research, was made Chairperson; no UGC Chairman nominee was included; the Committee submitted its panel to the State Government rather than the Chancellor; the State Government selected the candidate; and the Chancellor was reduced to acting on the Government’s aid and advice.

These departures affected the basic composition, independence and decision-making structure mandated by the UGC Regulations and therefore were not permissible variations.

The Court clarified that an ICAR nominee could be added to the Committee, but only in addition to, and without displacing, the mandatory UGC nominee and the basic structure prescribed by Regulation 7.3.

The Court struck down, as ultra vires the Constitution and the UGC Act, 1956, the amendments to Section 23(4) inserting the requirement that the Chancellor act “on the aid and advice of the Government” and the substitution of Section 24 subordinating the Vice-Chancellor’s appointment to the State Government’s advice.

Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the Universities Rules, 2026 were declared illegal, ultra vires and void ab initio for conflicting with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

The advertisements dated 26 February 2026 for appointment of Vice-Chancellors of both Universities were quashed.

The State and the Chancellor were directed to commence and complete a fresh selection process strictly in accordance with Regulation 7.3, including the UGC Chairman’s nominee, exclusion of persons connected with the concerned University, and the Chancellor’s appointment from the panel; an ICAR nominee could be included additionally if considered necessary.