The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s verdict on the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to the State’s agricultural universities has done more than settle a legal dispute. But It has settled an unresolved constitutional and political contest over who should exercise influence over universities—the elected government, the Governor as Chancellor, or the regulatory framework designed to protect academic standards.

The judgment has cancelled the advertisements for the Vice-Chancellor posts of Dr Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry at Nauni and CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya at Palampur. It has also struck down the controversial amendments and held the 2026 Rules inconsistent with Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations, 2018.

The immediate consequence is clear: the selection process has to begin afresh. But the larger political battle may not end with the judgment.

A Change That Altered the Balance

The dispute arose from an attempt by the Himachal Pradesh Government to alter the traditional mechanism for appointing Vice-Chancellors.

Under the 1986 law, the Chancellor appointed the Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of a three-member Selection Committee consisting of a Chancellor’s nominee, the Director General of ICAR and the UGC Chairman or his nominee. The State Government had no direct role in selecting the candidate.

The amendment fundamentally changed that arrangement. It provided for appointment by the Chancellor on the “aid and advice” of the State Government, with the detailed procedure to be prescribed through rules.

The 2026 Rules then created a Search-cum-Selection Committee headed by the Chief Secretary. UGC representation was excluded, while the committee’s recommendations moved towards the State Government before reaching the Chancellor.

The High Court found this arrangement inconsistent with the applicable........

© Free Press Journal