Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet

Shimla Apr 19

In a matter challenging the appointment of Dr.Sikander Kumar as Vice Chancellor of Himachal Pradesh University, the High Court of H.P. today issued notice to the Principal Secretary to Governor-cum-Chancellor, H.P. University, Dr.Sikander Kumar, present Vice Chancellor of H.P. University and Registrar of H.P. University.
A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice L.Narayana Swamy and Justice Anoop Chitkara passed these orders on a petition filed by one Dharam Pal Singh, who has alleged that the appointment of Dr.Sikander Kumar has not been made in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010. As per regulation it was required that a person to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor must have an experience of 10 years as Professor in University system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position.
He has further alleged that Dr. Sikander was promoted to the post of Professor on 19.03.2011, but  retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2009, with notional promotion. He has also alleged that the Search Committee constituted by the Chancellor of H.P. University invited applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor on 29.08.2017 and on 07.01.2018 again issued similar advertisement and thereafter, on 30.06.2018, the Governor’s Secretariat extended the date to apply for the post of Vice-Chancellor upto 20.07.2018.
He has alleged that  current VC applied for the said post on 16.07.2018 and was appointed  on 02.08.2018.  The petitioner has alleged that Sikander misled the Search Committee regarding possessing experience of 10 years, one month and seven days.  The petitioner has prayed to direct Sikander Kumar to establish his eligibility for becoming Vice-Chancellor of H.P. University as on the date of applying for the post of Vice-Chancellor i.e. on 16.07.2018.
He has also prayed that if Sikander is not found eligible as per Law and UGC Regulations, 2010, his appointment may kindly be quashed and set aside and the decisions taken by him as Vice-Chancellor of H.P. University may kindly be examined, in the larger public interest.

The Court in its earlier hearing had confined notice only to the State and had directed the State to file reply in this behalf. However, today the Court issued notices to the other respondents also and directed them to file their reply. The Court posted the matter for 20th May, 2021.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here