In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of an officiating Vice-Chancellor at Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar (CSK) Himachal Pradesh Agriculture University in Palampur. The court provided a crucial interpretation of a key legal phrase, clarifying the extent of the Chancellor's powers.
Court's Interpretation of "Senior Faculty Members"
The core of the legal dispute revolved around the interpretation of the phrase "amongst the senior faculty members of the University" as mentioned in Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986. The petition was filed by Dr. Rakesh Kumar Kapila, a professor at the university, who argued that as the senior-most faculty member, he should have been given the temporary charge instead of Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda.
However, in a detailed order passed on January 2, 2026, Justice Sandeep Sharma ruled that the expression does not equate to "the senior-most faculty member." The court held that the phrasing grants the Chancellor the discretion to appoint any one from among the senior faculty members to the officiating post during a temporary vacancy.
Reasoning and Dismissal of the Petition
Justice Sharma observed that the legislative intent was clear. The court noted that had the statute intended to make the appointment of the senior-most faculty member mandatory, it would have explicitly used those specific words. The bench pointed out that such explicit language is used in other provisions of the Act, such as for appointments to the post of Dean of Colleges.
Consequently, the court found no legal infirmity or arbitrariness in the Chancellor's decision to appoint Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda as the officiating Vice-Chancellor. The petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
Future Consideration for Regular Appointment
While dismissing the plea against the officiating appointment, the High Court made an important clarification regarding the regular appointment process. It stated that the application filed by Dr. Kapila for appointment as Vice-Chancellor on a regular basis would be considered independently by a duly constituted selection committee.
The court directed that this consideration must be in strict accordance with the relevant statutes and ordinances of the University. Furthermore, it explicitly held that the selection committee should not be influenced by the Chancellor's earlier decision to appoint Dr. Panda on an officiating basis. This safeguards the petitioner's right to a fair evaluation for the permanent position.
This ruling reinforces the discretionary power vested in the Chancellor by the 1986 Act for temporary appointments, while simultaneously upholding the integrity of the separate, statute-based process for selecting a regular Vice-Chancellor.
