Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dharam Paul Sharma vs State Of Hp And Others on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:30202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6511 of 2025 with .
COPC No. 491 of 2025 Reserved on: August 28, 2025 Decided on: September 4, 2025 ______________________________________________________________
1. CWP No. 6511 of 2025 Dharam Paul Sharma ... Petitioner Versus State of HP and others . .......Respondents
2. COPC No. 491 of 2025 Dharam Paul Sharma ... Petitioner Versus C.P. Verma .......Respondent/contemnor Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
CWP No. 6511 of 2025For the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia and Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No.4.
COPC No. 491 of 2025For the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS-2- 2025:HHC:30202 For the respondent Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. .
Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J By way of present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:
"(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondent No.2 not to grant any extension to respondent No.4, whose initial appointment itself was unlawful and was in contravention of Section 24 of The Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986, in the interest of law and justice.
(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing respondent No.2 to appoint senior most faculty/teacher of the University to carry out the duties of the Vice Chancellor till the time a Vice Chancellor is appointed strictly in consonance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 to secure the ends of law and justice."
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition at hand are that His Excellency the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, who happens to be the Chancellor of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni (hereinafter, 'University') constituted a Selection Committee vide Notification dated 14.2.2022 (Annexure P-1). Secretary to His Excellency the Governor, who otherwise was nominee of the Chancellor in the Selection Committee, invited ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:30202 applications for the post of Vice Chancellor of the University (Annexure P-1).
.
AS many as fourteen candidates including respondent No.4 applied for the post in question. The Selection Committee, after having interviewed all the candidates recommended the name of respondent No.4 for appointment against the post of Vice Chancellor. In the afore background, respondent No.4-Rajeshwar Singh Chandel came to be appointed as Vice Chancellor on 6.5.2022, pursuant to which, he joined on 9.5.2022.
3. A few days before completion of tenure of respondent No.4 against the post of Vice-Chancellor, petitioner herein, who at present is working as Dean, College of Horticulture and Forestry, Neri, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh filed the present writ petition praying therein for the relief that since initial appointment of respondent No.4 was unlawful, being in contravention of S.24 of the Himachal Pradesh Universities of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 (hereinafter, 'Act'), direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to not grant extension to respondent No.4 till the time, a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed or a senior most faculty/teacher of University is appointed as Vice-Chancellor in terms of S.24(5) of the Act.
4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that since selection of respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor of University was made by a Selection Committee, which was not constituted strictly in terms of S.24 of the Act, he cannot be granted extension in terms of ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
-4- 2025:HHC:30202 S.24(3) of the Act, rather a senior most faculty member is required to be .
appointed as a Vice-Chancellor, till the time, new Vice-Chancellor is appointed.
5. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner while making this court peruse S. 24 of the Act, submitted that the Selection Committee comprises of following members:
(i) A nominee of the Chancellor
(ii) The Director General, Indian Council of Agriculture Research; and
(iii) The Chairman, University Grants Commission or his nominee.
6. However, in the case at hand, selection of respondent No.4 as Vice-
Chancellor of the University was made by a Committee comprising of (i) Sat Parkash Bansal, Chancellor's nominee (ii) Dr. R.C. Aggarwal, Deputy Director General, Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), New Delhi and (iii) Professor Sanjeev Jain, nominee of Chairman, UGC (Annexure P-2). Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel submitted that though nominees of Chancellor and Chairman, University Grants Commission could be members of Selection Committee but, in no eventuality, Director General ICAR, could have been replaced by his nominee or any other officer of ICAR. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ajaydeep Bindra v State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 4632 of 2024, decided on 26.3.2025 (Annexure P-3), wherein, in similar facts and circumstances, Division Bench of this Court categorically held that, "Thus, the nomination can only be made by the Chancellor and the Chairman, University Grants Commission, where the ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:30202 Director General, ICAR, is mandatorily required to be one of the members of .
the Selection Committee, to be constituted by the Chancellor."
7. It is important to take note of the fact that the case decided by Division Bench of this Court was of Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, which is also governed by the Act ibid.
S.24(1) of the Act specifically deals with the composition of Selection Committee. As per aforesaid provision, Selection Committee shall comprise of
(i) a nominee of the Chancellor (ii) Director General ICAR and (iii) Chairman, UGC or his nominee. Division Bench of this Court, having taken note of non-
compliance of aforesaid provision of law quashed and set aside the process initiated by the Selection Committee alongwith all consequential action taken by the Selection Committee.
8. Since, during proceedings of the case, tenure of private respondent came to an end, His Excellency the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in the capacity of Chancellor of the University, proceeded to grant extension to respondent No.4, by way of order dated 6.5.2025 (Annexure P-4) (annexed with CMP No. 11181 of 2025), petitioner herein filed an CMP No. 11181 of 2025, under Order VI, rule 17 CPC for amendment by adding prayer for quashing and setting aside order dated 6.5.2025. Application was allowed on 21.8.2025.
9. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant petition, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed separate replies, wherein facts, as have been taken note herein above, have not been disputed but an attempt has been made to justify the impugned ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:30202 action of the respondents on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence.
.
Besides above, issue with regard to maintainability of the petition has also been raised by the respondents. It is averred in the reply filed by respondent No.2 i.e. Secretary to Governor, Himachal Pradesh that the Director-General, ICAR had consented to be member of Selection Committee on 1.2.2022 (Annexure R-B), however, on the date of meeting i.e. 5.5.2022, he expressed his inability to attend the meeting being indisposed and nominated Dr. R.C. Aggarwal, DDG (Education) in his place. It is also averred that the petitioner does not have locus to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice-
Chancellor, because, he (petitioner) was not an applicant for the post.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
11. Grouse of the petitioner is that once initial appointment of the petitioner in the year 2022 against the post of Vice-Chancellor was done by a Committee which was not constituted in terms of S.24 (1) of the Act, same cannot be said to be valid. If it is so, there was no occasion for the Chancellor of University to grant him extension in terms of S.24(3). Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel submitted that once S.24 (1) does not authorize Director-General, ICAR to send his/her nominee, Chancellor ought not have permitted the Selection Committee comprising of nominee of Chancellor, nominee of UGC and nominee of Director-General, ICAR to conduct interview, rather, ought to have waited till the time, Director-General, ICAR would have become available, for conducting interview qua the post in question.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS-7- 2025:HHC:30202
12. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel further submitted that the .
Selection Committee which was constituted for selection of Vice-Chancellor, was not constituted strictly in terms of S.24 of the Act, since DG, ICAR was not present himself in the meeting and it was his nominee namely Dr. R.C. Agggarwal. He submitted that S.24 of the Act does not permit DG, ICAR to send his nominee. Mr. Bhushan, further argued that once very selection and appointment of respondent No.4 is illegal, he could not be granted extension in terms of S.24(3) of the Act, rather, the Chancellor ought to have appointed some senior Member of faculty to carry out duties of Vice-Chancellor till the time, a new Vice-Chancellor is appointed. Mr. Bhushan, further submitted that since the petitioner initially had prayed for issuing a direction to the Chancellor to not grant extension to respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 was about to complete his term within few days of filing of petition, petitioner purposely did not lay challenge to his appointment, as such, plea of delay and laches sought to be raised by the respondents deserves to be rejected. He further submitted that once it is quite apparent that initial selection of the petitioner is de hors the rules, but yet he not only occupied the post but also completed the tenure, therefore he being a 'usurper' is required to be restrained from holding the office of Vice-Chancellor and this Court may exercise power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside order dated 6.5.2025 passed by Chancellor, granting extension in favour of respondent No.4.
13. To the contrary, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia and Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocates, ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:30202 appearing for respondent No.4, vehemently argued that the present petition is .
not maintainable and reliefs as prayed for therein, cannot be allowed for the reason that the petition is barred by delay and laches. He submitted that respondent No.4 was appointed as Vice-Chancellor by the University in May, 2022. Interestingly, petitioner, who is working in the same University, failed to lay challenge to appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Vice-
Chancellor of respondent University, for more than three years. He further submitted that though, a duly constituted Selection Committee in terms of S.24(1) has recommended the name of respondent No.4 for the post of Vice-
Chancellor, but even if it is assumed that the Selection Committee was not constituted strictly in terms of S.24(1), no illegality could be said to have been committed by the Chancellor, while granting extension in favour of respondent No.4, who is also a senior faculty of University, in terms of S.24 (3). He submitted that since at the time of passing of order dated 6.5.2025, appointment of respondent No.4 against the post of Vice-Chancellor of University, was very much valid and he had retired as Vice-Chancellor of University, Chancellor, while exercising power under S.24(3) rightly permitted respondent No.4 to continue in the office of Vice-Chancellor with effect from 9.5.2025, or till further orders.
14. Mr. Sharma, submitted that had competent court of law set aside the selection of respondent no.4 against the post of Vice-Chancellor on the ground that the Selection Committee was not constituted in terms of S.24(1), petitioner would have been right in contending that respondent No.4 could not ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:30202 have been granted extension under S.24 (3) of the Act, but since till date, .
selection of the petitioner, who otherwise stands retired on 8.5.2025, has not been declared to be invalid, as a result whereof, respondent No. 4 continued to hold the post of Vice-Chancellor till his retirement on 8.5.2025, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Chancellor, while permitting him to continue in service till further orders. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, submitted that though provisions under S.24(5) are not attracted in the present case but even if it is presumed that respondent No.4 could not have been granted extension in terms of S.24 (3), he otherwise being senior most faculty was entitled to be given charge of the post of Vice-Chancellor till regular selection is made.
15. Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 also made similar submissions, as were made by Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No.4.
16. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1, vehemently argued that on account of his selection by an invalid Selection Committee, respondent No.4 could not continue to work as Vice-Chancellor, rather, Chancellor having taken note of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ajaydeep Bindra supra and passing of orders dated 22.4.2025 and 1.5.2025 in these proceedings, whereby this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, including respondent No.2 directed that during the pendency of the petition, ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:30202 selection/appointment on regular or officiating basis, if any, to the post of Vice-
.
Chancellor, shall be made strictly in terms of the Act, ought not have given extension in favour of respondent No.4. Mr. Rattan, learned Advocate General further submitted that on account of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Ajaydeep Bindra, respondent No.4 can be said to be a 'usurper' of the post. If it is so, there was no occasion, if any, for the Chancellor to grant him extension rather, in that situation, some other senior member of faculty ought to have been given charge of the post of Vice-Chancellor, till regular appointment to the post. While referring to judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo, (2014)1 SCC 161, Mr. Rattan, submitted that it is a fit case where this court can issue a writ of quo warranto, wherein doctrine of delay and laches is inapplicable. He submitted that since respondent No.4 holds a public office as a 'usurper' his continuance is to be prevented by this Court.
17. Before ascertaining correctness of rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to take note of the fact that the University was established as per State Enactment Act No.4 of 1987 called as Act of 1986.
Sections 23 and 24 of the Principal Act are reproduced herein below:
"23. Chancellor.-
(1) The Governor shall, by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University. (2) The Chancellor shall be the Head of the University and shall, when present, preside at any Convocation of the University.
(3) Every proposal to confer an honorary degree shall be subject to the confirmation by the Chancellor.
(4) The Chancellor shall exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as may be conferred or imposed on him by this Act or the statute.::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:30202
24. Vice-Chancellor.-
.
(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University, who shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendations of the Selection Committee consisting of-
(i) a nominee of the Chancellor;
(ii) the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research; and
(iii) the Chairman, Universities Grants Commission or his nominee. (2) The Chancellor shall nominate one of the members referred to in sub-section (1) as the Chairman of the Selection Committee.
(3) The Vice-Chancellor shall normally hold office for a term of 1 [three years] and be eligible for re-appointment for another 2 [three years] but not beyond the age of 65. The emoluments and other conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be such as may be prescribed and shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment:
Provided that the Chancellor may allow him to continue in office until his successor is appointed but this period shall not exceed one year.
3 [(3-a) The Chancellor, by general or special order, may place the Vice-
Chancellor under suspension,-
(a) where an enquiry under sub-section (6) of this section is contemplated or pending; or
(b) where in the opinion of the Chancellor, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the University; or
(c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial; or (d) where his continuance in office will prejudice the investigation, inquiry or trial (e.g. apprehended tampering with documents or to influence witnesses).
(3-b) The Vice-Chancellor under suspension shall be entitled to a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to leave salary which the Vice Chancellor would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay or on half pay and in addition, dearness allowance, if admissible on the basis of such leave salary:
Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds three months, the Chancellor shall be competent to vary the amount of subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of the first three months as follows:-::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 12 - 2025:HHC:30202
(i) the amount of subsistence allowance may be increased by a suitable amount, not exceeding fifty per cent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the .
period of first three months, if, in the opinion of the Chancellor, the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons, to be recorded in writing, not directly attributable to the Vice-Chancellor;
(ii) the amount of subsistence allowance, may be reduced by a suitable amount, not exceeding fifty percent of the subsistence allowance admissible during the period of first three months, if, in the opinion of the Chancellor, the period of suspension has been prolonged due to reasons, to be recorded in writing, directly attributable to the Vice Chancellor; and (iii) the rate of dearness allowance shall be based on the increased or, as the case may be, the decreased amount of subsistence allowance admissible under clause (i) and (ii). (3-c) No payment under sub-section (3-b) shall be made unless the Vice-
Chancellor furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation.] (4) The Vice-Chancellor may resign by giving a notice of one-month in writing under his signatures addressed to the Chancellor. The Chancellor may waive off the period of notice and accept the resignation forthwith in consultation with the State Government.
(5) During temporary absence of the Vice-Chancellor by reason of leave, illness or any other cause, the Chancellor may make such arrangements for carrying out the duties of the Vice-Chancellor, as he may deem fit, from amongst the senior faculty members of the University. Where the post of the Vice-Chancellor falls permanently vacant either by resignation or other-wise, the vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section and the Vice-
Chancellor so appointed shall hold office for a full term or till the attainment of the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
(6) If, in the opinion of the Chancellor a Vice-Chancellor wilfully omits or refuses to carry out the provisions of this Act or abuses the powers vested in him or if it appears to the Chancellor that the continuance of that Vice-Chancellor in office is detrimental to the interests of the University, the Chance1lor may, by order, remove the Vice-Chancellor, after giving him an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him: 1 [Provided that in the event of taking any action on a report of an enquiry under section 8 or section 8-A of this ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:30202 Act, as the case may be, nor further enquiry shall be necessary under this sub- section but the Vice Chancellor shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard .
after making him available a copy of enquiry report.]"
S.23 provides that the Governor shall, by virtue of his office, be the Chancellor of the University. S.24 (1) provides that Vice-Chancellor shall be a whole time officer of the University, who shall be appointed by the Chancellor on the recommendations of the Selection Committee consisting of-
(i) a nominee of the Chancellor;
(ii) the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research; and
(iii) the Chairman, Universities Grants Commission or his nominee.
18. As per S.24 (2), the Chancellor shall nominate one of the members referred to in sub-section (1) as the Chairman of the Selection Committee.
S.24(3) provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall normally hold office for a term of 1 [three years] and be eligible for re-appointment for another 2 [three years] but not beyond the age of 65 years. Proviso to aforesaid provision clearly reveals that the Chancellor may allow him to continue in office until his successor is appointed but this period shall not exceed one year.
19. If S.24 is read in its entirety, it reveals that normally tenure of Vice-
Chancellor shall be for a period of three years, but person holding such post shall thereafter be eligible for re-appointment for another three years but not beyond the age of 65. It also emerges from aforesaid provision that the Chancellor can permit a Vice-Chancellor to continue in office till his successor is appointed but this period shall not exceed one year, meaning thereby the ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:30202 Vice-Chancellor who is due to retire but is intending for further extension of .
three years, can be given extension, which shall not exceed one year.
20. Admittedly, having seen the constitution of Selection Committee, which was constituted for selection of Vice-Chancellor in the year 2022 vis-à-vis composition given in S.24(1), this Court is persuaded to agree with learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Selection Committee, which recommended the name of respondent No.4, was not valid on account of the fact that the DG, ICAR was not member in it, rather Shri R.C. Aggarwal was nominated by him to be member and in similar circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in Ajaydeep Bindra supra, held that nomination can only be made by Chancellor and Chairman, UGC, whereas, DG, ICAR is mandatorily required to be one of the members of the Selection Committee, to be constituted for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
21. Though, it came to be argued on behalf of the respondents that though the then DG, ICAR had consented to be member of Selection Committee but he was unable to come present on the date of interview being indisposed, but such fact would not make composition of the Committee valid, for the reason that in no circumstance, DG, ICAR could have sent his nominee, rather, in terms of S.24(1), he/she was necessarily required to be part of the Selection Committee.
22. Next question, which needs to be determined is, 'whether respondent No.4, whose selection does not appear to have been done by Selection ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:30202 Committee constituted in terms of S.24(1) could have been further granted .
extension by Chancellor, while exercising power under S.24(3) or not?'
23. Though this Court having taken note of provisions contained under S.24 (1) as well as judgment passed in Ajaydeep Bindra, supra is of definite view that initial selection of respondent No.4 against the post of Vice-Chancellor in the year 2022 was bad in law on account of the fact that the same was not made by a Selection Committee duly constituted in terms of S.24 (1) of the Act, but this Court cannot lose site of the fact that pursuant to recommendation made by a defective selection committee, Chancellor appointed respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor of respondent University, but selection of respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor, never came to be laid challenge in the competent court of law, rather, respondent No.4 continued to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor, till his retirement i.e. 8.5.2025.
24. It is not in dispute that even in the instant proceedings, no challenge ever came to be laid to the selection of respondent No.4 to the post of Vice-
Chancellor, rather, specific prayer at the first instance came to be made by the petitioner that respondent No.4 be not granted extension on account of initial selection, which was bad in law. Even by way of amendment, petitioner never prayed for setting aside initial selection of the petitioner to the post of Vice-
Chancellor rather, by way of amendment, petitioner only prayed that order dated 6.5.2025 (Annexure P-4), granting extension in favour of respondent No.4, be set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS- 16 - 2025:HHC:30202
25. As has been observed herein above, petition at hand, came to be filed .
a few days ahead of date of retirement of respondent No.4. It is averred in the petition that since respondent No.4 is due to retire in a few days, there was no requirement to lay challenge to his initial appointment but on account of the fact that his selection was bad in law, he could not be granted extension as Vice-Chancellor in terms of S.24 (3).
26. Having taken note of the fact that the Chancellor by way of order dated 6.5.2025, proceeded to grant extension to respondent No.4, whose tenure was to come to an end on 8.5.2025 coupled with the fact till that date, appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor was not held to be bad in law, this court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned senior counsel for respondent No.4 that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Chancellor, while exercising power under S.24(3) for extending tenure of respondent No.4, vide order dated 6.5.2025, while he was holding office of Vice-Chancellor.
27. Careful perusal of S.24 (3) especially proviso thereto clearly reveals that the Chancellor may allow a person holding post of Vice-Chancellor to continue in office till the time, his successor is appointed but this period shall not extend beyond one year. Since, at the time of passing of order dated 6.5.2025, respondent No.4 was in position and his tenure was to end on 8.5.2025, Chancellor exercising power under S.24 (3) rightly permitted respondent No.4 to continue in office with effect from 9.5.2025 or till further orders, which otherwise could not exceed one year.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS- 17 - 2025:HHC:30202
28. Had, prior to passing of order dated 6.5.2025, whereby extension came .
to be granted in favour of respondent No.4, he (respondent No.4) demitted the office, petitioner would have been right in contending that no extension, if any, can be granted to respondent No.4 in terms of S.24(3) rather, in that situation, Chancellor with a view to ensure that the office of Vice-Chancellor does not remain vacant, could have appointed some senior faculty as Vice-Chancellor till the time, new Vice-Chancellor is appointed in terms of the Act.
29. Though, Mr. Anoop Rattan, learned Advocate General, vehemently argued that since initial appointment of respondent No.4 was bad in law, he being a 'usurper' cannot be granted extension by the Chancellor rather, the Chancellor having taken note of judgment in Ajaydeep Bindra, supra, ought to have appointed some other senior faculty to look after the office of Vice-
Chancellor, in terms of S.24 (3), till the time, his successor is appointed.
However, this Court does not see any reason to agree with Mr. Rattan, learned Advocate General for the reason that initial selection of respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor never came to be challenged rather respondent No.4 on account of his selection against the post in question served full term in the office. Even in the instant proceedings, petitioner never prayed for setting aside appointment of respondent No.4 as Vice-Chancellor, rather, a direction was sought directing the Chancellor not to grant extension in favour of respondent No.4, beyond the date of retirement, albeit on the ground that his initial selection was bad.
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS- 18 - 2025:HHC:30202
30. Before, declaration, if any, could be made by this Court with regard to .
initial selection of respondent No.4 against the post of Vice-Chancellor, he had completed his normal tenure, as such, the plea that respondent No. 4 having not been selected by a legally constituted committee, is a usurper of the public post has lost its relevance. Petitioner fully knowing that within a few days after filing of the petition, respondent No.4 would complete his tenure, purposely did not pray for setting aside initial appointment rather he sought direction to the Chancellor to not grant him extension. No doubt, subsequently, by way of amendment, prayer came to be made by the petitioner to set aside order dated 6.5.2025, whereby extension came to be granted in favour of respondent No.4, but such fact would not make any difference as far as submission made by Mr. Rattan, learned Advocate General is concerned, that respondent No.4 being a 'usurper' cannot be permitted to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor, in law.
31. If judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha (supra) is read in its entirety, it clearly suggests that if an incumbent holds public office as a usurper, said continuance is to be prevented by the court, but as has been observed hereinabove, respondent No.4 had almost completed his normal tenure, by the time, writ petition was filed. Chancellor did not re-appoint him for three years in terms of S.24(2) but in terms of S.24 (3), he was only permitted to continue in the office until his successor was appointed. Had tenure of respondent No.4 not come to an end and Chancellor had re-appointed him for next three years in terms of S.24 (3), ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:30202 this court would have entertained the plea raised by the petitioner as well as .
respondent-State that respondent No.4 being a usurper could not have been granted extension. Perusal of order dated 6.5.2025 itself suggests that the chancellor having taken note of the fact that respondent No.4 is likely to demit the office, directed him to continue till further orders, which in no eventuality could exceed one year.
32. Having carefully perused order dated 6.5.2025, this court is fully convinced that respondent No.4 has not been re-appointed in terms of S.24 (3) rather, he has been permitted to continue to hold office till his successor is appointed. Power under S.24(3) could be said to have been exercised by Chancellor in view of impending retirement of respondent No.4, since at the time of passing of order dated 6.5.2025, respondent No.4 was very much in office, proviso to S.24 (3) empowers Chancellor to continue a person holding the office of Vice-Chancellor to continue in office until his successor is appointed, no illegality can be said to have been committed by Chancellor while passing order dated 6.5.2025.
33. There is another aspect of the matter, if a person is alleged to be a usurper, his appointment can be challenged by seeking writ of quo warranto, for which two factors are to be seen viz. one that a specific relief has been prayed for and second, person seeking writ of quo warranto should possess locus standi. In the case at hand, neither petitioner has shown that he has a locus standi to file and maintain the present writ petition nor he has specifically prayed for setting aside appointment of respondent No.4. Prayer clause of the ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 20 - 2025:HHC:30202 petition nowhere shows that the petitioner has sought any direction for .
appointing him to the office of Vice-Chancellor of University, which shows that he is not a beneficiary and no right of his can be said to have been infringed, thus, he lacks necessary locus.
34. Besides this, since ground has been taken by the petitioner for seeking direction to chancellor to not extend the term of respondent No.4, since his initial selection is bad, but what stopped the petitioner from challenging selection /appointment of the respondent No.4, is not clear.
35. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner are only to the extent that extension be not granted to respondent No.4 and a senior most faculty may be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. However, the Chancellor is well within his power to grant extension to an incumbent in terms of S.24(3) or make arrangement out of senior most faculty.
36. No doubt, doctrine of delay and laches is no bar while seeking writ of quo warranto, especially when person, against whom such writ is sought, is a usurper, in the case at hand, neither such writ has been sought nor the petitioner has necessary locus standi, as discussed herein above. Further the petitioner by not challenging selection of respondent No.4 in 2022, has acquiesced for such appointment and thus is estopped from filing the petition at hand.
37. There is another important aspect of the matter i.e. the relief of seeking direction to not extend the tenure of respondent No.4, especially on the ground of his initial selection to the post of Vice-Chancellor being bad in law, is ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS
- 21 - 2025:HHC:30202 a subsequent relief and before seeking such relief, petitioner ought to have .
sought relief of setting aside the appointment of respondent No.4. Since the petitioner has omitted to seek relief of ousting respondent No.4 from public office, this court does not have the authority to issue writ of quo warranto.
Further the petitioner has acquiesced for the continuation of respondent No.4 in the office of Vice-Chancellor, therefore, now at this stage, no relief as prayed for in the petition can be allowed.
38. In view of detailed discussion made supra, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. Interim directions if any, stand vacated.
COPC No. 491 of 202539. In view of the above finding, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent(s) are also disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 4, 2025 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2025 21:30:19 :::CIS