Uttarakhand HC Rejects Director’s Challenge To Fresh Selection, Says University Rules Set 3-Year Term

The petitioner was appointed on contract as Director of the Government Institute of Technology, Gopeshwar, for three years following a 2018 advertisement.

His term was extended by two years, and before completing that extended tenure he was re-appointed as Director by an order dated 25 October 2023

As his term was nearing its end, Uttarakhand Technical University advertised a fresh appointment on 10 July 2026

The petitioner challenged the advertisement, arguing that AICTE regulations required a Director’s term to be five years.

He also stated that he had represented to the competent authority for an extension of his term

The University regulation relied upon by the petitioner provided that the qualifications and experience for the post of Director would be as per AICTE regulations; it did not prescribe the Director’s tenure.

Clause 4.04(4) of the University’s first regulation provided for a Campus Director’s or Principal’s term of three years or until superannuation, whichever was earlier.

The general recruitment rules for Directors in the University’s campus institutions likewise specified appointment, with State Government approval, for a period of three years.

The Court identified no statutory provision or precedent establishing that the Director’s term had to be five years.

The Court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the AICTE-related provision was misplaced because it concerned qualifications and experience, not tenure.

The applicable University regulations expressly prescribed a three-year term, and the petitioner had applied under the 2018 advertisement, which stated that term, and accepted appointment on that basis without objection.

Accordingly, the Court found no basis to interfere with the 2026 advertisement.

The petitioner’s separate request for an extension was left for consideration by the competent authority.

It disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation for extension and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within three weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The petitioner was also granted liberty to file a fresh petition seeking permission to participate in the ongoing selection process.