Bahra University

Shimla: Himachal High Court on Monday issued notice to the Principal Secretary to Governor-cum-Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University (HPU) and incumbent Vice-Chancellor (VC) HPU, Dr. Sikander Kumar and Registrar of HPU, in a matter challenging the appointment of Dr. Sikander Kumar as VC of HPU.

A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice L Narayana Swamy and Justice Anoop Chitkara passed these orders on a petition filed by one Dharam Pal Singh, who has alleged that the appointment of Dr. Sikander Kumar has not been made in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2010.

Also Read: Petition filed against the appointment of HP University Vice-Chancellor; Court seeks state Govt’s response

According to the regulations it is required that a person to be appointed as VC must have an experience of 10 years as Professor in University system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position. 

He has further alleged that Dr. Sikander was   promoted to the post of Professor on March 19, 2011, but retrospectively with effect from 1 January, 2009 with notional promotion.

He has also alleged that the Search Committee constituted by the Chancellor of HPU invited applications for the post of VC on August 29, 2017 and on January 7, 2018 again issued similar advertisement and thereafter, on 30. June, 2018, the Governor’s Secretariat extended the date to apply for the post of VC upto July 20, 2018.

He has alleged that Sikander applied for the said post on July 16, 2018 and was appointed as VC of HPU on August 2, 2018. 

The petitioner alleged that Sikander misled the Search Committee regarding possessing experience of 10 years, one month and seven days. 

The petitioner has prayed to direct Sikander Kumar to establish his eligibility as on the date he had applied for the post of VC. 

He urged that if Sikander is not found eligible as per Law and UGC Regulations, 2010, his appointment may kindly be quashed and set aside and the decisions taken by him as VC of HPU may kindly be examined, in the larger public interest. 

The Court in its earlier hearing had confined notice only to the state and had directed the state to file reply in this behalf.

However, on Monday the Court issued notices to the other respondents also and directed them to file their reply. 

The Court posted the matter for 20 May.

15 august 2021