Himachal High Court Strikes Down VC Appointment Rules for Agriculture Universities, Quashes Selection Advertisements
Shimla, August 27, 2026:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has struck down major provisions governing the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in the state’s agriculture and horticulture universities, holding that the amended state law and the 2026 Rules were in direct conflict with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2018.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma delivered the judgment on August 27 in CWP No. 4259 of 2026, filed by Narender Kumar Sankhyan, along with CWP No. 5087 of 2026 filed by Sanjeev Kumar Chauhan.
The petitions concerned the appointment process for Vice-Chancellors of Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, and Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan.
The petitioners had challenged amendments to Sections 23 and 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986, the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Rules, 2026, and advertisements issued on February 26, 2026, inviting applications for the two Vice-Chancellor posts.
At the centre of the dispute was the composition and functioning of the Search-cum-Selection Committee. Under the UGC Regulations, 2018, the selection of a Vice-Chancellor is to be made through a panel of three to five names prepared by a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
The regulations provide for a nominee of the UGC Chairman on the committee and require its members to be persons of eminence in higher education who are not connected with the university concerned.
The amended Himachal Pradesh framework took a different approach. The 2026 Rules provided for the Chief Secretary to the state government to head the Search-cum-Selection Committee, along with nominees of ICAR, the Chancellor and the state government. The Rules also provided that the committee would send a panel of three names to the State Government, which would select one name and recommend it to the Chancellor.
The petitioners argued that these provisions substantially altered the role of the Chancellor and excluded the mandatory UGC nominee. They also contended that the Chief Secretary was directly connected with the universities through the State Council for Education and Research and therefore could not be a member of the Search-cum-Selection Committee under the UGC framework.
The State Government opposed the petitions, arguing that the two universities were established under the state’s legislative powers relating to agriculture and universities. The Advocate General submitted that agricultural education falls under Entry 14 of the State List and that the universities were governed by the state Act. The State also relied upon the role of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and its Model Act for agricultural universities, arguing that an ICAR nominee was more appropriate for the specialised institutions.
The State further maintained that the UGC Regulations, 2018 had not been adopted for these agricultural universities and that the institutions were funded by the State Government and ICAR rather than the UGC. It argued that the regulations were therefore not binding on the universities.
The UGC, however, placed its own detailed position before the High Court. It maintained that the 2018 Regulations provide a mandatory framework for Vice-Chancellor appointments and that the Search-cum-Selection Committee must include a nominee of the UGC Chairman. The UGC also questioned the changes made by the State in the role of the Chancellor and the composition of the selection committee.
The judgment also considered the status and role of ICAR. The court recorded that ICAR is an autonomous organisation under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, and is the apex body for coordinating, guiding and managing research and education in agriculture and allied sciences.
The Bench examined several Supreme Court decisions dealing with the relationship between UGC regulations and state university laws, including the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Dr. S. Mohan v. Secretary to the Chancellor, Puducherry Technological University. The judgment records that the Supreme Court had reiterated the binding nature of Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 concerning Vice-Chancellor appointments.
The High Court found that the amended provisions placed the Vice-Chancellor appointment under the “aid and advice” of the State Government, instead of following the mechanism prescribed under the UGC Regulations. It also found that the State Rules excluded a UGC nominee from the Search-cum-Selection Committee while making the Chief Secretary its chairperson.
The court held that the procedure prescribed under Rule 4 was likewise inconsistent with the UGC framework because it vested the State Government with the power to select a candidate from the panel before recommending the name to the Chancellor.
The High Court consequently allowed both writ petitions. It struck down the portions of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry (Amendment) Act, 2023, referred to in the judgment as Act No. 46 of 2025, which amended Section 23(4) and substituted Section 24 to make the Vice-Chancellor’s appointment subject to the aid and advice of the State Government. The court declared those provisions beyond the legislative competence of the State and ultra vires the Constitution and the UGC Act, 1956.
The Bench also declared Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Rules, 2026 illegal, ultra vires and void ab initio, holding that they were repugnant to and in direct conflict with Regulation 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
The advertisements dated February 26, 2026, inviting applications for Vice-Chancellor posts at Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, and Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, have also been quashed and set aside.
The State Government and the Chancellor have been directed to initiate and complete a fresh selection process for both universities in accordance with the eligibility criteria, composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee and procedures mandated under Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018, including the nominee of the UGC Chairman and exclusion of persons connected with the concerned university. The court has also permitted the inclusion of an ICAR nominee in addition, if considered necessary or required.
Both writ petitions were allowed and disposed of by the Division Bench.
#HimachalPradesh #HighCourt #UGC #ViceChancellor
