HP High Court clears officiating VC appointment, says Chancellor acted within law
Photo used for indicative purpose only
Shimla, Jan 2,
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the decision of the Governor-cum-Chancellor Shiv Pratap Shukla to appoint an officiating Vice-Chancellor of Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalaya, ruling that the appointment was made after due application of mind and strictly within the limits of statutory authority.
A single Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma dismissed a writ petition filed by senior professor Dr. Rakesh Kumar Kapila, who had challenged the appointment on the ground that he, being the senior-most faculty member, had an automatic right to be named officiating Vice-Chancellor.
At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986. The petitioner contended that the statutory phrase “from amongst the senior faculty members of the University” necessarily mandated appointment of the senior-most professor and that any deviation from seniority was arbitrary and contrary to settled service law principles.
Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the language of Section 24(5) is clear and unambiguous and does not compel the Chancellor to appoint only the senior-most faculty member. The provision, the Court observed, consciously empowers the Chancellor to select any one from among the pool of senior faculty members. The Bench underlined that wherever the legislature intended appointments to be strictly seniority-based, it had expressly used the term “senior-most” in other statutory provisions, which was conspicuously absent here. This omission, the Court said, reflects a deliberate legislative intent to confer discretion on the Chancellor.
The judgment further records that the Governor-cum-Chancellor had examined the service records and bio-data of all eligible senior faculty members before making the officiating appointment. The choice of a faculty member junior in seniority was found to be a reasoned and conscious decision based on suitability, and not one that was arbitrary, whimsical or tainted by mala fides. The Court emphasised that mere seniority does not create a vested or enforceable right to occupy an officiating constitutional post.
Addressing apprehensions that the temporary appointment could prejudice the petitioner’s prospects for regular appointment as Vice-Chancellor, the Court clarified that the regular post would be filled through an independent Selection Committee in accordance with law. That selection process, the Bench noted, would remain entirely uninfluenced by the interim arrangement made by the Chancellor.
With these findings, the High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that the Governor-cum-Chancellor had lawfully exercised statutory discretion after due consideration and that no legal infirmity could be found in the officiating appointment.
About the Author
The HimachalScape Bureau comprises seasoned journalists from Himachal Pradesh with over 25 years of experience in leading media conglomerates such as The Times of India and United News of India. Known for their in-depth regional insights, the team brings credible, research-driven, and balanced reportage on Himachal’s socio-political and developmental landscape.
