Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Kapila vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 6 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
LPA No. 137 of 2026
Reserved on: 24.03.2026
Decided on : 06.04.2026
Uploaded on: 06.04.2026
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Kapila ....Appellant.
of
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors. ....Respondents.
Coram
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia,
Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. P.P. Singh, Additional Advocate
General for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 to 4.
Bipin C. Negi, Judge
The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 24.12.2025, passed in CWP No. 15815 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:25 :::CIS 2( 2026:HHC:10209 ) of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present .
appellant has been dismissed.
2. In the writ petition preferred by the appellant, a challenge has been laid to the office order dated 29.09.2025, Annexure P-4 therein (Page-77 of the paper book in appeal). Vide the said office order, the present respondent No. 4 had been given of the additional charge of the post of Vice-Chancellor in the respondent No.2-University. The aforesaid additional charge had rt been given to respondent No. 4 in terms of Section 24 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
3. Admittedly, in the case at hand, from a perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 i.e. University before the writ Court specifically para-5 thereof on merit, it is evident that the present appellant/writ petitioner is the senior most Professor in the respondent No.2/University. In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention primarily before the writ Court and in appeal is that additional charge of the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent No.2/University should have been given to the petitioner as he was the senior most Professor.
4. Hence as correctly observed in the impugned judgement by the learned Single Judge the entire controversy ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:25 :::CIS 3 ( 2026:HHC:10209 ) revolved around Section 24(5) of the Act. The same reads as .
follows:-
"24. Vice-Chancellor.-
(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 of 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 rt 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."
5. Section 24(5) of the Act deals with a situation when there is a temporary absence of the Vice- Chancellor by reason of leave, illness or any other cause. The said section provides that in the aforesaid given circumstance the Chancellor may make such arrangements for carrying out the duties of the Vice-
Chancellor as he may deem fit from amongst "Senior Faculty Members of the University."
6. From a reading of the Section, it is evident that the aforesaid provision does not provide for appointment from "Senior Most" faculty member of the University. In this respect, no fault ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:25 :::CIS 4 ( 2026:HHC:10209 ) can be found with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge .
while dismissing the writ petition.
7. Besides the aforesaid, respondent No. 4 in the reply filed to the writ petition, specifically in para-6 of the preliminary submissions, has categorically stated that in terms of statute 3.2 (3) in the event of a temporary vacancy in the post of Dean of of Colleges "The Senior Most Professor" in the concerned College shall act as a Dean of the College, unless otherwise decided by rt the Vice-Chancellor.
8. The usage of the expression "Senior Most Professor" in statute 3.2(3) of the respondent No. 2-University is conspicuous by absence when it comes to Section 24(5) of the Act wherein the expression used is "Senior Faculty Member of the University". This conspicuous distinction has also been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition.
9. A perusal of the reply filed by respondent No.3 specifically para-2 of the preliminary objections categorically reflects that before issuance of the impugned office order, Annexure P-4, Chancellor in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Section 5 of Section 24 of the Act had examined the seniority list. Based on the same, the senior most three Professors were ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:25 :::CIS 5 ( 2026:HHC:10209 ) considered for being given additional charge of the Vice-
.
Chancellor. A comparative examination of their bio-datas was done and it is only thereafter that the additional charge was given to respondent No. 4. No rejoinder to this aspect has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.
10. Discretion in the case at hand has been exercised of after the due application of mind. In this respect, the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that while making an rt appointment as a Vice-Chancellor on regular basis, the Selection Committee constituted in terms of relevant statute/ordinance of the University would take a decision without being influenced by the decision taken by the Worthy Chancellor while appointing respondent No. 4 as a Vice-Chancellor on an officiating basis.
11. Attention of this Court was invited to an application filed before the writ Court seeking directions to allow the appellant/Writ petitioner to perform duties of the post of Dean, post graduate studies. It is contended that no order in the same was passed by the learned Single Judge. Suffice it to say that the challenge to an appointment to the post of Dean, post graduate studies is a separate cause of action and, therefore, correctly was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:25 :::CIS 6 ( 2026:HHC:10209 ) petition which only dealt with the issue of appointment as a Vice-
.
Chancellor on an officiating basis.
12. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, rejected. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
of
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin C.Negi)
Chief Justice
rt Judge
6th April, 2026
(vs/sushma)
::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:25 :::CIS