The Himachal Pradesh High Court has invalidated key provisions governing the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to the State’s two agricultural universities. The Court held that the State could not redesign the selection process in a manner inconsistent with the UGC Regulations, 2018, and clarified that the Governor, when acting as Chancellor, performs an independent statutory function.
Case details
| Case | Narender Kumar Sankhyan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and connected matter |
|---|---|
| Case numbers | CWP Nos. 4259 and 5087 of 2026 |
| Neutral citation | 2026:HHC:36551 |
| Court and Bench | High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Vivek Singh Thakur and Ranjan Sharma, JJ. |
| Date | 27 August 2026 |
| Status | Final reportable judgment, Division Bench |
Background
The petitions concerned the selection of Vice-Chancellors for Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry and Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya. Amendments to the governing State legislation, followed by the 2026 Rules, placed the constitution of the Search-cum-Selection Committee and the ultimate choice from its panel under substantial State Government control.
The challenged process included the Chief Secretary in the Search Committee, omitted the nominee required under the UGC framework, and contemplated that the Chancellor would appoint the candidate selected by the Government on governmental advice.
Issues before the Court
- Whether the UGC Regulations, 2018 governed Vice-Chancellor appointments in the two agricultural universities.
- Whether the State legislation and Rules could prescribe a conflicting selection mechanism.
- Whether ICAR’s Model Act displaced the UGC framework.
- Whether the Governor, acting as Chancellor, was bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Whether the composition of the Search-cum-Selection Committee was legally valid.
The competing positions
The petitioners contended that the UGC Regulations were mandatory, that the Search Committee lacked the required independence and composition, and that the State could not reduce the Chancellor’s statutory role to implementation of the Government’s choice.
The State relied principally on its legislative competence concerning agriculture, agricultural education and State universities, and on the institutional role and Model Act associated with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
What the High Court held
- UGC standards prevail: The UGC Regulations, 2018 applied mandatorily to both universities. State competence over agriculture and universities could not override Parliament’s exclusive field concerning coordination and determination of standards in higher education under Entry 66 of List I.
- ICAR’s Model Act is not controlling law: ICAR is a registered society and not a statutory regulatory authority created by Parliament. Its Model Act could not displace the UGC Regulations.
- The Chancellor has an independent statutory role: In appointing a Vice-Chancellor, the Governor acts as Chancellor under the university legislation and not on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The Search Committee was defective: The Chief Secretary’s direct institutional connection made his inclusion impermissible, while the mandatory UGC nominee had been omitted.
The core constitutional and statutory analysis appears in paragraphs 120–148 of the judgment.
Operative directions
The Court struck down the offending portions of the 2023 Amendment Act, enacted as Act 46 of 2025, Rules 2 to 4 of the 2026 Rules, and the advertisements issued for both Vice-Chancellor posts. It directed a fresh selection under Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, while permitting an additional ICAR nominee if the authorities considered that useful.
Why this judgment matters
The decision is important well beyond the two appointments. It brings together legislative competence, the supremacy of national higher-education standards, university autonomy, institutional independence in search committees, and the distinction between the Governor’s constitutional office and the Governor’s separate statutory role as Chancellor.
Practical takeaway
In challenges to university appointments, plead and document the precise source of the selection criteria, the composition and independence of the Search Committee, the presence or absence of the mandatory UGC nominee, the authority choosing from the panel, and the legal capacity in which the Chancellor acts. The judgment also provides a framework for testing State rules against binding central standards.
Read the related roundup: Himachal Law Digest — 31 August 2026.
Prepared by the LawUmbrella Legal Research Desk. This case note is for legal information and research. Readers should consult the official judgment and obtain case-specific advice where required.
LawUmbrella 
One thought on “State Cannot Control Vice-Chancellor Selection Contrary to UGC Rules: HP High Court”
Comments are closed.