Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 24.03.2025 vs State Of H. P. & Ors on 26 March, 2025
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
2025:HHC:7795 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 4632 of 2024
Reserved on: 24.03.2025
Date of decision: 26.03.2025
Ajaydeep Bindra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H. P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.
A.G. for respondents No.1 and 4.
Mr. Ashwani Chawla, Advocate, for
respondent No. 2.
Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondent No. 3.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
This writ petition was initially filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondent No. 2 to immediately and forthwith grant the assent to the Bill as has been presented which stood passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State of H.P. by completely 2 2025:HHC:7795 following the dictum of Article 200 of the Constitution of India in the interest of law and justice.
(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the process as initiated vide Annexure P-2, dated 4th May, 2024 may kindly be quashed and set aside."
2. However, when the petition came up for consideration on 28.05.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement that he would not be pressing Prayer No. (i) made in this writ petition and would be confining himself with Prayer No. (ii) only.
3. The writ petition is filed on the premise that the petitioner is a Professor/Principal Scientist in the Department of Agronomy in Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishwavidalaya, Palampur, Kangra, (for short HPKV). The HPKV was established as per State Enactment i.e. Act No. 4 of 1987, known as 'The Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986' (for short the Act).
4. According to the petitioner, the second respondent i.e. the Chancellor of the University, has first constituted the Selection Committee to recommend a panel of names to the Chancellor for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the HPKV, contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and the Selection Committee thereafter has issued an advertisement 3 2025:HHC:7795 setting out certain conditions therein which are contrary to the provisions of the Act.
5. Respondent No. 2 has filed its reply wherein it is contended that the office of Vice-Chancellor had written D.O. letters to the Chairman, University Grants Commission (for short the UGC) and to the Director General, Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi (for short the ICAR) for obtaining consent in order to notify one of the members as Chairman of the Selection Committee. In response thereof, it is the Director General, ICAR himself, who after about six months, in January, 2024, recommended the name of his Deputy Director General, ICAR, New Delhi, for considering his name in the Selection Committee, It is further averred that since the matter for appointment of full time Vice-Chancellor to the University was already got delayed for more than six months, for want of necessary response from the Director General, ICAR, therefore, keeping in view the urgency and the fact that there is hardly any difference in terms of the expertise, pay scale and technical/educational qualification as that of Director General, ICAR, the recommendation of Deputy Director General, ICAR was considered and his name is reflected in the Notification dated 24.04.2024.
4
2025:HHC:7795
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
7. Section 24 of the Act reads as under:-
"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 [three years] and be eligible for re-appointment for another [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."
8. It is manifestly clear from the aforesaid provisions that the Vice-Chancellor is to be appointed by the Chancellor on 5 2025:HHC:7795 the recommendation of the Selection Committee, which is to comprise of;
(i) a nominee of the Chancellor;
(ii) the Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR); and
(iii) the Chairman, Universities Grants Commission or his nominee.
9. Thus, the nomination can only be made by the Chancellor and the Chairman, University Grants Commission, whereas the Director General, ICAR, is mandatorily required to be one of the members of the Selection Committee, to be constituted by the Chancellor.
10. Whereas, in the instant case, the Chancellor, vide Gazette Notification No. 42-2/78-GS, has constituted a Selection Committee for selecting a panel for appointment as Vice- Chancellor of HPKV, as under:-
No. 42-2/78-GS-The governor (Chancellor), Himachal Pradesh is pleased to constitute the Selection Committee for selection a panel for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur as under-
1. Prof.Kailash Chander Sharma, Chairman (Former Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, Haryana, Vice President, Haryana State Higher Education council, r/o 167, Shanti Nagar, Gopalpura bypass, Jaipur-302 018
2. Dr. R. C. Agrawal, DDG (Agri. Education), Member Indian Council of Agricultural Research, KAB-II, Pusa, New Delhi -110 012.6
2025:HHC:7795
3. Sh. Rajesh Sharma, IAS, Chancellor's Secretary to Governor, Nominee Himachal Pradesh.
11. The constitution of the Selection Committee is clearly in contravention and breach of the provisions as contained in Section 24 of the Act and the same, therefore, cannot be said to be a legal constituted Committee as it is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way.
12. We need not multiply judgments on this point and may conveniently refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zuari Cement Ltd. vs. Regional Director, ESIC, Hyderabad & Ors. AIR 20156 SC 2764, wherein after quoting some of the earlier precedents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"14. As per the scheme of the Act, appropriate government alone could grant or refuse exemption. When the statute prescribed the procedure for grant or refusal of exemption from the operation of the Act, it is to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. In State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Ambay Cements and Another, (2005) 1 SCC 368, it was held that "It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way". In Babu Verghese and Others vs. Bar Council of 7 2025:HHC:7795 Kerala and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 422, it was held as under:
"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor, (45 LJCH
373) which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, (AIR 1936 PC 253) who stated as under:
"[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P., (AIR 1954 SC 322 and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1961 SC 1527). These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (AIR 1964 SC 358) and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case (AIR 1936 PC 253) was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law."
13. Similar reiteration of law can be found in a recent judgment rendered by the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. vs. Girish Sriram Juneja, 2025 INSC 124, decided on 29.01.2025.
14. Once this Court concludes that the constitution/ composition of the Selection Committee is against the law i.e. Section 24 of the Act, any action taken by such committee in furtherance thereof, is obviously a nullity or nonest. 8
2025:HHC:7795
15. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and the process initiated by constituting a Select Committee vide Annexure P-2 is quashed alongwith all consequential action taken by the Selection Committee. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Sushil Kukreja)
26 th
March, 2025 Judge
(sanjeev)