Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Hemalatha K vs Union Of India And Others on 4 September, 2025
Reserved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI, J
04th SEPTEMBER, 2025
INTERIM RELIEF APPLICATION (IA NO. 01 OF 2025)
IN
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 302 OF 2025
Dr. Hemalatha K .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others. ...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned counsel
for the Union of India.
Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for
CBI.
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 3 to 7.
&
INTERIM RELIEF APPLICATION (IA NO. 05 OF 2025)
IN
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1167 OF 2025
Dinanath Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others. ...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned counsel
for the Union of India.
Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand.
Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, learned counsel
for UGC.
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
Ms. Sukhbani Singh, learned counsel
1
holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini,
learned counsel for respondent No. 6.
ORDER :
(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Saurav Adhikari, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of
India, Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel
for the CBI, Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the
sponsoring bodies, Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, learned counsel
for UGC and Ms. Sukhbani Singh, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for Sarvadeshi
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha on the Interlocutory Applications (IA
Nos. 1 of 2025 and 5 of 2025).
2. The petitions have been heard on various dates.
3. A Judge, 45 years ago, lamented in a Suit filed by
the University as below:-
"Upon the findings referred to above the plaintiffs
are not entitled to any relief in this suit.
Evidently this does not put to end the controversy
between the parties in its entirety. The differences
between them are deep rooted and they have their origin
in the dispute concerning the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha,
Punjab some of which are pending adjudication still in the
Punjab. The decision in the present could not extend
beyond the scope of the subject matter of the plaint. In
the process, however, the victim is the institution-the
Gurukul Kangri University founded with noble objects.
The administration thereof is paralysed; the studies and
the examinations are dislocated; the staff is disgruntled
having not been paid its emoluments for long and due to
uncertainty pervading as to the future while those
claiming to be the trustees are engaged in private
feuds for personal end at the cost of public money
(bold fonts by this Court). The entire environment is
polluted with a series of case-civil and criminal pending
around and the efficiency or integrity has touched the
lowest ebb. The end to this does not appear in sight
unless Government, seems, steps in with suitable
legislative measure under Article 31-A(1)(b) or Entry 25
of the Concurrent List of the Constitution or such other
measure as it deemed fit before things get into a point of
no return.
ORDER
The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants
2 set and the 4th sets. The other defendants shall bear
nd
their own costs."
4. The Judge was the Presiding Officer of the Court
of District Judge, Saharanpur and the proceeding was in
O.S. No. 29 of 1978, and the issue, illegal removal of the
then Vice Chancellor.
5. It is 45 years since the Judge lamented so and it
appears that his lament continues to echo even today. The
apprehension expressed by the Judge, about the
machination and manipulative attempts by 'factions',
continue to afflict the University. The lengthy hearing has
only disclosed more material to deepen the suspicion, that
all is not well, with the affairs of the Institution. Prima facie
it appears, now the power struggle amongst parties has
spilt on to the streets. The vested interests do not appear
to have abated their efforts to take control of the University
or Institution Deemed To Be University (IDTBU).
6. The facts in a nut-shell for consideration of the
Interlocutory Applications and the relevant provisions of law
are reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience.
7. The University was set up by a Society of the
same name, i.e., Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya,
Hardwar society, which came to be registered and the
certificate of registration came to be issued by the Registrar
of Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow vide Certificate dated
17.03.1961. A copy of the Registration Certificate
registering the Society and the Memorandum of
Association/Bye-laws are produced along with the
Compilation of Papers dated 11.07.2025 submitted by Mr.
Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 in
WPMS No. 302 of 2025. Along with the Certificate, another
communication dated 28th/30th September, 1961, New
Delhi, addressed by the Education Secretary, Government
of India and addressed to The Upacharya of Gurukula
Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Hardwar, is also produced, and the
letter reads as under:-
"Dear Shri Satyavrata,
I write to say that a reference was made to
the University Grants Commission asking for their advice
as to whether the Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya,
Hardwar, could be deemed to be a University under
Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
At their meeting held on the 6th September 1961, the
Commission considered this matter and have
recommended to this Ministry that the Gurukula Kangro
Vishwavidyalaya be deemed to be a University under
Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956;
that the recognition be given in the first instance for a
period of three years and for the present be limited to the
courses corresponding to B.A., B.Sc., and M.A. degrees.
The Commission have further desired that before the
notification deeming the Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya
as a University is issued, the matter relating to certain
reorganization of the administrative and academic set up
and also of the degree courses should be settled between
the Commission and the Institution. I, therefore, request
you to take up the matter with the University Grants
Commission direct and keep this Ministry informed of the
progress thereof from time to time.
(Underlining by this Court).
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Prem Kirpal)
Shri Satyavrata Sidhantalankar,
Upacharya,
Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya,
Hardwar."
8. A plain reading of the letter would indicate that the
University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as
Commission/UGC), the Competent Authority, had pointed out
the requirement to reorganize the administrative and
academic set up. Then, by Notification dated 19.06.1962, the
Union Government, on the advice and recommendation of the
UGC, declared the University as a 'Deemed to be University'
under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956. It is pertinent to note
that no material is placed to demonstrate as to what were the
objections, the UGC had with the administrative set-up
proposed by the Society MoA/bye-laws of the University?
9. It would be pertinent and convenient to cull-out the
prayers sought for in the various proceedings before this
Court:-
"(Prayers sought for in WPMS No. 1167 of 2025)
"I. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature Certiorarified
mandamus to declare the impugned letter of Ministry of
Education, Government of India dated 03.03.2025 (here to
annexed as Annexure No. 1) as illegal, arbitrary, irrational,
malafide and further to quash the same along with its effect
and operations or to mould the relief appropriately keeping in
view the facts highlighted in the body of the petition and
further to quash the order dated 22.05.2025 as contained to
Annexure No. 22 to this amendment application treated the
same arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law as well as passed
without any authority. In view of the facts highlighted in the
body of the petition.
II. Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to amend the Memorandum of
Association of the Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University)
Haridwar in accordance with the University Grants
Commission (Deemed to be Universities) Regulations 2023 or
to mould the relief appropriately keeping in view the facts
highlighted in the body of the petition.
III. Issue any writ, rule or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of the
petition and public at large.
(Prayers sough for in WPSB No. 302 of 2025)
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of
certiorari quashing the letter dated 22.5.2025 issued by the
sponsoring bodies of the University appointing Mr. Surendra
Kumar Arya as Chancellor of the University, contained as
Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of
certiorari quashing the letter dated 5.7.2025 written by Mr.
Surendra Kumar Arya purported Chancellor of the University,
(contained as Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition).
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of
certiorari quashing the appointment order dated 7.7.2025 of
Dr. Prabhat Kumar as Vice Chancellor (Additional Charge) of
the University issued by Mr. Surendra Kumar Arya the
purported Chancellor (contained as Annexure no. 15 to the
writ petition).
(iv) Issue a writ order or direction directing CBI to
investigate the manner in which the University which is
100% funded by the funds of the Central Government has
been taken over by respondent nos. 4 to 7 in an illegal
manner.
(v) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of
the case."
10. The cause, leading to the first writ petition (WPMS
No. 1167 of 2025), was the letter dated 03.03.2025
addressed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Education to
three individuals, namely, (i) Shri Sudarshan Sharma, (ii) Shri
Desh Bandhu and (iii) Shri Dharmapal Arya. The same came
to be challenged before the learned Single Judge and the
learned Single Judge, on 08.05.2025, passed an order. The
relevant portion of the order reads as under:-
"Respondents may file counter affidavit within four
weeks.
Two weeks, thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may
be filed.
List thereafter.
Heard on Interim Relief Application
Having considered, this Court is of the view that
interim relief application in this matter may only be decided
once parties are permitted to file objections.
(Judge)
08.05.2025"
11. By the above order, the learned Single Judge
postponed the consideration of the Application for interim
relief. Aggrieved thereby, Appeal No. 93 of 2025 came to be
preferred before a Bench, to which one of us was a party and
and order came to be passed and the order reads as under:-
"Heard Mr. M. C. Pant, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for
the State, Mr. Saurav Adhikari, learned Standing Counsel
for the Union of India, Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned
counsel for respondent no.2, Mr. Aditya Singh, learned
counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4, Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir,
learned counsel for respondent nos.7 to 9 and Mr.
Hitendra Nahata, learned counsel for the sponsoring
authority.
2. A dilemma has arisen in the administration of the
university, in view of demitting of office of both the
Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor. It is submitted that
more than 50% of the funding of the Deemed University
is by the Central Government.
3. When the case was mentioned in the morning, the
Central Government Standing Counsel was asked to seek
instructions. The learned Standing Counsel submits that
he has been instructed to submit that the UGC
Regulations would be followed by the Ministry in the
matter of appointing the Chancellor and the Vice-
Chancellor.
4. As the University cannot be left headless, we deem it
appropriate, as an interim measure, to continue the
incumbents of the Office of Chancellor and Vice
Chancellor, till the process of selection of new Chancellor
and Vice-Chancellor is completed.
5. We have also heard the learned counsel for the
sponsoring body, which are three in number, and perused
the letter dated 03.03.2025, which is addressed by an
Under Secretary, Government of India, Department of
Higher Education, Ministry of Education.
6. It is inconceivable that the University Statute and
Regulations can be repealed, revoked or cancelled by a
mere letter. It is neither a Circular nor a Notification.
Hence, the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Department
of Higher Education shall file an affidavit.
7. List this case on 16.05.2025.
8. Till such time, the operation of the letter dated
03.03.2025 stands stayed."
12. On the next date, one of the Members of the
Bench recused himself, i.e. on 16.05.2025, and the matter
was listed before another Bench. The Bench, after hearing
the counsels, vide its judgment, delivered on 21.05.2025,
proceeded to hold in Paragraph-9 as under:-
"9. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 9 that without
considering provisions of the UGC Act, 1956 especially the
interplay between Section 20 & 26 of the said Act, the
issues raised in the writ petition cannot be decided. The
scope and contours of power available to Central
Government under Section 20 of the Act will have to be
examined while deciding the writ petition."
13. The Bench was, thereafter, pleased to dispose of
the Special Appeal by granting liberty to the appellant to
make prayer before learned Writ Court for expeditious
disposal of the writ petition.
14. In the interregnum, another writ petition (Writ
Petition (PIL) No. 98 of 2025) was preferred, and the same
came to be dismissed as withdrawn by judgment dated
13.06.2025 with liberty to re-file with better particulars
and, thereafter, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 124 of 2025 was
preferred. The Bench was pleased to hear the PIL and
disposed off the same, by order dated 04.07.2025, with
liberty to the petitioner to move an intervention application
in the pending writ petition. Relevant Paragraphs-3 and 4
of the judgment reads as under:-
"(3) Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, have
drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by
coordinate Bench in Special Appeal No. 93 of 2025.
Perusal of the said order reveals that the order/letter
dated 3.3.2025, issued by Ministry of Education,
Department of Higher Education, Govt. of India, is subject
matter of challenge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1167 of
2025.
(4) We find substance in the submission made by learned
Counsel for the respondents that the order dated
3.3.2025, impugned in this writ petition, is challenged in
Writ Petition No. 1167 (M/S) of 2025 and learned Single
Judge is seized of the matter, therefore entertaining this
writ petition as PIL, may result in conflicting orders, which
would be wholly undesirable. We, therefore, dispose of
the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move
intervention application in the aforesaid writ petition
pending before learned Single Judge."
15. Thereafter, another writ petition (WPSB No. 302
of 2025) was preferred.
16. The first writ petition (WPMS No. 1167 of 2025)
was listed before the learned Single Judge and the learned
Single Judge, by order dated 05.06.2025, ordered as
under:-
"A week thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may
be filed.
List this matter for final hearing on 27.06.2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 may change the
status in the University by not receiving grant in aid from
the Union of India. Therefore, they may be restrained to
continue with the grants in aid status till the next date of
hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9
submits that the University is not going to reduce the
grant in aid that is being received from the Union of India.
The Court takes on record the statement given by
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9.
Till the next date of listing, the status qua grant in
aid that is being received from the Union of India shall not
be disturbed."
17. The matter was listed again on 09.07.2025 and
the following order was passed:-
"Today, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that interim relief application is still pending. The
respondents are making various changes in the
functioning of the University. Therefore, interim relief
application may be heard.
The Court proceeded to hear the interim relief
application.
Arguments heard, but not concluded.
List on 10.07.2025."
18. The matter was re-listed again on 10.07.2025
and the following order came to be passed:-
"Objection and counter affidavit are taken on
record. IA No. 7 of 2025 and IA No. 8 of 2025 stand
disposed of accordingly.
Arguments heard, but not concluded.
List this matter on 11.07.2025."
19. The matter was listed again on 11.07.2025 and
the following order came to be passed:
"By means of the amendment application, the
petitioner proposes to add respondent no. 10 and some
new paragraphs with reliefs as well.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
filing of the writ petition, the Chancellor has been
appointed by the respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9 and the
petitioner proposes to challenge this subsequent
development as well.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9
submits that the writ petition is not maintainable; the
petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition.
On behalf of other respondents, no objection has
been raised.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what
is being sought to be incorporated is the development
that took place in the matter post filing of the writ petition
and therefore the amendment needs to be incorporated.
Having considered, this Court is of the view that the
amendment application may be allowed.
The amendment application (IA No. 4 of 2025) is
allowed.
Let petitioner file amended memo of writ petition
within a week.
Issue notice to the newly impleaded respondent,
returnable in eight weeks. Steps to be taken within a
week.
List after eight weeks for final hearing.
Those respondents, who have not filed counter
affidavit, may file their counter affidavit within six weeks.
Two weeks thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any,
may be filed.
This matter has been taken up on multiple
occasions and has taken a lot of judicial hours, therefore,
no request for extension of time for exchange of
pleadings shall be considered.
At this stage, Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, who
appeared through video conferencing, submits that he
was earlier representing the respondent nos. 3 & 4, but
he has resigned now; therefore, his name may not be
reflected in the cause list for the respondent nos. 3 and
4."
20. The writ petitions (WPSB No. 302 of 2025 and
WPMS No.1167 of 2025), along with the disposed of WPPIL
No. 124 of 2025, were listed before the Court on
05.08.2025. After the matter was argued and the Court
had dictated substantial part of its order, the counsel for
the purported Sponsoring Bodies, i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to
7, pointed out that one of the Members of the Bench had
earlier recused himself. Hence, further dictation was
stopped and the matter was directed to be listed before a
Bench of different composition. The order dated 05.08.2025
reads as under:-
"This Bench has posed the following query to Mr. Saurav
Adhikari, the learned CGSC :
"Whether the Under Secretary is the Competent
Authority under Chapter IV Section 20 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956?"
2. In response, the learned CGSC submits that he has
filed his counter affidavit in the matter. It is apparent that
the learned CGSC, for reasons best known, is avoiding a
direct answer to the query. We have further queried the
learned CGSC, as to in which paragraph of the counter
affidavit, this query is addressed? To this, the learned
CGSC submits that the query is addressed in paragraph
nos. 9, 10& 11 of the counter affidavit. Paragraph nos. 9
to 11 reads as under:
"9. That, subsequently, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (Delhi,
Punjab & Haryana), has raised their concerns regarding
appointment of the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor by
the Government, through various representations.
10. That considering these representations received from
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (Punjab, Haryana and Delhi), this
Ministry asked Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (Punjab, Haryana &
Delhi) to submit its roadmap on how they plan to increase
their contribution in running the Institution, so that its
contribution in the total revenue exceeds 50% of annual
revenue of the Institute. Simultaneously, it was decided
with the approval of the Competent Authority to revisit
contours of the MoA. Accordingly, the Ministry, vide
letter dated 27.03.2024, withdrew its approval on
the registration of the MoA. (Bold font by this Court).
It was also clarified that further directions shall be
intimated subsequently.
11. That the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (Punjab, Haryana and
Delhi vide representation dated 18.01.2025 requested
this Ministry to allow institute to continue with the
existing MoA (as per the UGC Regulations 2019) for next
6 years so that the Govt contribution in expenditure of
the Institution may be lowered to 50%. They have also
submitted their willingness to increase their contribution
in running the Institution and their plan of maximizing
generation of internal resources. A copy of representation
dated 18.01.2025 is annexed as Annexure No.-1 to this
short counter affidavit."
3. A plain reading of the above paragraphs nowhere states
or reveals, as to which provision of the Act vest competency in
the Under Secretary to pass such an order or authorize such
take-over of a University. Thus, it is apparent that this
respondent is deliberately evading an answer to the query,
which, in our prima facie opinion, appears to go to the very root
of the matter, and at this stage, we have no other option, but
to infer that the Under Secretary has acted without authority.
In paragraph no. 10, it is deposed that "Simultaneously, it was
decided with the approval of the Competent Authority to revisit
contours of the MoA." Neither the decision of the Competent
Authority, nor the proceedings are before this Court.
4. The learned CGSC would submit that, in paragraph no.
13, the approval of the Competent Authority is quoted. We
have queried the learned CGSC, as to whether the so called
proceedings is placed before the Court, and it has been
repeatedly impressed that the actions do not appear to be
above-board, and do not appear to be in consonance with the
UGC Act.
5. We have perused the short counter affidavit, as described
by the learned CGSC, and we find that there is no reference to
even a single provision of law, which would reflect, as to who is
the Competent Authority, and the contours of the power
conferred on the Competent Authority.
6. This Court is faced with a very strange, and probably the
first of its kind situation, where three entities, having their
existence in Punjab, Haryana & Delhi, are said to have written a
letter, claiming themselves to be the Sponsoring Bodies, and
requesting that they be permitted to take over the
management of the Gurukula Kangri (Deemed to be
University), Haridwar, and in response to that, Letter No. F.No.
12-4/2024-U.3(A) dated 03.03.2025 has been issued by the
Under Secretary. The said letter dated 03.03.2025 reads as
under :
"F. No. 12-4/2024-U.3(A)
Government of India Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
(ICR Division)
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated: 3rd March, 2025.
To
1. Shri Sudarshan 2. Shri Desh Bandhu 3. Shri Dharmapal Arya,
Sharma, Arya Pratinidhi Madan, Arya Pratinidhi Delhi Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha, Gurudatt Sabha, Pd. Jagdev Singh Sabha, 15, Hanuman
Bhawan, Kishanpura Sidhanti Bhawan, Road, New Delhi-110001
Chowk, Jalandhar, Dayanand Math, Rohtak,
Punjab Haryana
Subject: Memorandum of Association (MoA) of
Gurukula Kangri Haridwar in accordance with the
UGC (Institutions deemed to be Universities)
Regulations,2023 - reg.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter dated
18.01.2025 on the subject cited above and to convey
approval of the Competent Authority permitting the
Institution to continue with its existing MoA, which is in
accordance with the UGC (IDTBU) Regulations 2019, till
the end of Financial Year 2027-28 subject to fulfillment of
the following terms and conditions, failing which, the
Institution shall be required to amend its MoA as per the
UGC (Institutions deemed to be Universities) Regulations,
2023 immediately after end of FY 2027-28:
i. Grants-in-Aid from the Ministry shall be released for
OH-36 (Salary) and OH-31(Pension only) for posts
already sanctioned by the UGC only. Institution shall
furnish person wise details of its employees and
pensioners against the sanctioned posts along with the
monthly salary and pension expenditure to this Ministry.
ii. The Institute shall demonstrate, through its duly
audited books of account that it is able to generate more
than 50% of its revenue on their own, i.e., total receipts
as well as total expenses of the Institute is more than
twice the government grants given to them. This should
be achieved on or before the end of financial year 2027-
28.
iii. The Institution shall submit a report comprising details
of assets of the Institution acquired wholly or
substantially out of the previous Government Grants to
Ministry of Education by 17.03.2025. Assets of the
Institution acquired wholly or substantially out of
Government Grants, except those declared as obsolete
and unserviceable or condemned in accordance with the
procedure laid down in the GFR, 2017, shall not be
disposed of without prior approval of the Central
Government.
iv. The ownership of buildings constructed with Grants-in-
aid shall vest with Government. The institution will be
allowed to occupy the building as lessee. The suitable
record of details of location, cost and terms and
conditions of lease shall be furnished to Ministry of
Education.
v. The sponsoring body shall create and maintain corpus
funds for the Institute from their own source of funding in
accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4.02 of UGC
(IDTBU) Regulations 2019.
vi. The Institution shall revise Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to be signed amongst Ministry of
Education, UGC and the institution with the new pattern
of assistance.
vii. No extension of such relaxation shall be provided after
the end of FY 2027-28.
viii. The sponsoring body shall give a legal undertaking for
compliance of the above terms and conditions.
Yours faithfully,
(JyotiRanjan)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
Tele: 23381578
Email: [email protected]"
7. The conditions imposed are an eye-opener and speak for
themselves. It prima facie demonstrates that one, No-Corpus
is established; two, the IDTBU is run by Grants from the union
Government; three, no revised MoU as in condition vi is
produced; second last sentence from the bottom draws our
attention. It reads that "No extension of such relaxation shall be
provided after the end of FY 2027-28." What is the relaxation
that is referred to is not forthcoming? Whether power of
relaxation is vested either in the Government or the UGC is not
placed before the Court. It is even more interesting to note the
letter produced as Annexure No. 2 dated 11.03.2025 of one of
the alleged sponsors. The letter opens with the following
sentence : "Whereas, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Punjab (Regd.)
Jalandhar is the ownerof all the properties both immovables &
movables of Gurukul Kangri Vishavidyalya Haridwar, Gurukul
Vidyalya Dehradun Uttrakhand India, Gurukul Kangri Pharmacy,
Gurukul Vidyalya, Haridwar Uttrakhand, India and in order to
safeguard the rights and interests of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha
Punjab (Regd.) Jalandhar, it is unanimously resolved that in
order to file civil/ criminal cases/ civil writ petitions/
civil/criminal revisions/ civil/criminal appeals etc. and to defend
the same in the civil/ criminal Courts/ High Courts and Supreme
Court of India, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Punjab (Regd.) Jalandhar
hereby authorize Sh. Dina Nath Sharma."
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Sponsoring
Bodies submits that, on an earlier occasion, in Special Appeal
No. 93/2023, one of us (Alok Mahra, J.) had recused himself.
9. In that view, list all these cases before a Bench, of which
one of us (Alok Mahra, J.) is not a member after obtaining
orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
10. On the next date, the learned counsel for the Sponsoring
Bodies (03 in number) shall place the details of the banking
transactions undertaken by them post 03.03.2025 till date. If
any movable and immovable assets of the University have been
alienated/dealt with, details of the same shall be placed before
the Court."
21. Thereafter, the matter has been heard on several
dates and the writ petitions were also withdrawn to the
Division Bench.
22. It is also pertinent to extract the Note-Sheet of
the Department of Higher Education. A truncated copy,
thereof, has been produced by the CGSC. Relevant portion
of Note-21, relating to the University, reads as under:-
"The Arya Pratinidhi Sabha has requested that the
Gurukula Kangri Deemed to be University may be allowed
to continue with their MOA as per UGC (IDTBU)
Regulations 2019 for 6 more years. By this time, they
shall do the needful to reduce contribution of the
Government to less than 50% of their annual receipt and
annual expenses.
2. ....
3. We may solicit kind approval of Hon'ble Minister of
Education for one of the options below:
(a) permit Gurukula Kangri to continue with their
existing MOA as per UGC (IDTBU) Regulations 2019 up to
2027-28, i.e., 3 more years, failing which they shall be
immediately amending their MOA as per UGC (IDTBU)
Regulations, 2023;
or
(b) permit Gurukula Kangri to continue with their existing
MOA as per UGC (IDTBU) Regulations 2019 up to 2030-
31, i.e., 6 more years, failing which they shall be
immediately amending their MOA as per UGC (IDTBU)
Regulations, 2023;
or
(c) instruct Gurukula Kangri to amend their MOA as per
UGC (IDTBU) Regulations, 2023 and appoint Chancellor
and Vice Chancellor as per UGC (IDTBU) Regulations
2023. It may kindly be noted that the present term of the
Chancellor of Gurukula Kangri (Dr. Satyapal Singh) will be
over on 15th February 2025."
The note make's an interesting reading and are
prepared by the Joint Secretary.
23. The Note is consciously prepared by the Joint
Secretary, but without reference to any of the relevant
provisions of UGC (IDTBU) Regulations and even without a
suggestion that the Regulations of 2019 had already stood
superseded by the 2023 Regulations. It is interesting to
note that, the note nowhere notes as to how the Ministry
concluded that the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (APS for short)
is/are the Sponsoring Bodies?
24. The Note-28 records that the Hon'ble EM, vide
Note-23 has permitted the University to continue with their
existing MOA as per UGC (IDTBU) Regulations 2019 up to
2027-28. What is interesting to note here is the
subsequent development. Notes 23 and 28 are dated
03.02.2025. In Note-33, there is the very same Joint
Secretary and he records that letter were issued extending
the term of the in-charge Vice Chancellor and Chancellor
and the Notifications came to be issued, and Note-33 is
dated 24.02.2025.
25. If Notes-23 and 28 are taken as correct, then the
management was out of the hands of the Government, but
the Government, even after the alleged approval, continued
to exert control over administration. Note-33 refers to the
UGC (IDTBU) Regulations, 2023. Thereafter, in Note-37
dated 25.02.2025, it is recorded that it is erroneously
recorded in Note-33 that the relevant Regulations is 2023,
which ought to be recorded as the 2019 Regulations. In
the compilation of the documents furnished, Note-23 is
blank and merely the numerical 3224354.pdf is printed
therein. In the same compilation, we find that the copy of
the Note-sheet dated 28.01.2025 is generated at 05:16
pm., whereby in Note (c), it is recorded that the University
may be instructed to amend their MOA as per UGC (IDTBU)
Regulations, 2023 and appoint Chancellor and Vice
Chancellor as per UGC (IDTBU) Regulations 2023 and it is
signed by the same Joint Secretary. Another Note-22
dated 31.01.2025 is signed by the Secretary. No notings
are found except it reads 'Note#22 3224354.pdf'. Page-9
of the compilation would refer to two Notifications
(presumably notifications extending the tenure of the
Chancellor & Vice-Chancellor) and the Note is dated
24.02.2025 and is signed by the Joint Secretary. In
another Note-39 dated 27.02.2025, it is reiterated that the
Minister actually permitted the University to amend its MOA
according to the 2019 Regulations, but we do not find any
note of the Hon'ble Minister explicitly ordering so.
26. The Ld Counsel for R-7 has placed on record the
modified (as modified upto 13-4-84) Memorandum of
Association (MoA for Short) of the Gurukula Kangri
Vishwavidyalaya Society, i.e., the society that established
the University. It is imperative to reproduce certain parts
of the Memorandum of Association of the Society. The
preamble records as under : -
"As amended by the Senate on 13.04.1984 as approved
by the Government of India vide Letter No. F.11-18/84-U.
3 dated 1-9-1984"
(a) Under the heading 'Constitution', Rule (1) reads as
under:-
"1. The name of the Society shall be the Gurukula
Kangri Vishwavidyalaya and its powers shall vest in the
Senate of the Vishwavidayalaya."
(b) Under the Chapter 'Management', Rule (7) provides
for selection of Chancellor. Clause 'a' states that the
Chancellor would be selected by a Committee consisting of
Presidents of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Punjab, Haryana
and Delhi and approved by the Senate. Clause 'c' pertains
to role of the Chancellor and it reads that he will preside
over the meetings of the Senate and the annual
convocation. Bye-law/Rule (8) provides for the
appointment of Vice Chancellor.
27. It would be pertinent to note the provisions
regarding appointment of Chancellor and Vice Chancellor
under the UGC (IDTBU) Regulations. The respondents have
placed 2016 Regulations, 2019 Regulations and 2023
Regulations.
(A) The Regulations of 2016:
(i) Regulation 2.15 defines 'Sponsoring Body' to mean a
body being a charitable or a not-for-profit Society /Trust /
Company under Section 8 of Companies Act 2013 making
an application for declaring an institution under its
administrative, academic and financial control as a deemed
to be university. (under-lining by this Court).
(ii) Regulation 5 stipulates the governance system for an
IDTBU. Regulation 5.0 stipulates that the IDTBU shall
adhere to the criteria stipulated under the Regulations.
(iii) It is of interest to note the Proviso to Regulation 5.1
which reads as under:-
"Provided that the members / trustees promoters of a Managing
Society / Trust / Company of a deemed to be a university, not
being a Government Controlled deemed to be university, shall
not be directly or indirectly connected with the members /
trustees /promoters of the sponsoring Society / Trust /
Company." (under-lining by this Court).
(iv) Regulation 5.2 reads as under:-
"5.2 Among the authorities of the deemed to be universities,
there shall be a Chancellor who shall be appointed by the
sponsoring Society / Trust / Company and shall be a
distinguished public figure."
(v) Regulations 5.4 & 5.5 read as under:-
"5.4 The highest governing body of the deemed to be
university shall be a Board of management to be headed by the
Vice Chancellor. This body shall consist of a minimum of ten
members and a maximum of fifteen members. (under-lining
by this Court).
5.5 The Board of management of the institution shall be
independent of the sponsoring Society / Trust / Company and
managing Society / Trust / Company with full autonomy to
perform its academic and administrative responsibilities. The
number of representative(s)/ nominee(s) of the Sponsoring
Society / Trust / Company on the Board of management shall
be limited to a maximum of four." (under-lining by this
Court).
(vi) Regulation 5.6 stipulates that Board of management
shall consist of eminent persons. Regulation 5.7 stipulates
the composition of the Board of Management and the Vice
Chancellor is to be the Chairperson.
(vii) Regulation 5.10 reads as under:-
"5.10 Notwithstanding anything contained in these
Regulations, the governance system and management structure
of a Government Controlled institution Deemed to be University
may be in accordance with the decision of the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case may be."
(viii)The powers of the Board of Management are detailed
under Annexure-1 to the Regulations. Clause 6.1 of
Annexure-2 to the Regulations provides for appointment of
the Chancellor by the Sponsoring Body, but in the same
breath, states that he shall not be the Chief Executive
Officer.
(ix) Clause 6.2 details the procedure for appointment of
Vice Chancellor and is as under:-
"Vice-Chancellor:
(i) The Vice Chancellor shall be a whole time salaried officer
of Institution Deemed to be University and shall be appointed
by the Visitor / Chancellor from a panel of three names
suggested by a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
Person of the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and
institutional commitment shall be appointed as Vice-Chancellor.
The Vice-Chancellor to be appointed shall be a distinguished
academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as
Professor in a University system or ten years of experience in
an equivalent position in a reputed research and / or academic
administrative organization.
The procedure / composition of Search-cum-Selection-
Committee (SCSC) for selection of Vice-Chancellor shall be as
under:
I. In case, where Management Control of an Institution
Deemed to be University is with the Central Government or the
State Government, the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed in
accordance with the procedure laid down by the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case may be.
(underlining by this Court).
II. In case, where the funding to the Institution Deemed to
be University by the Government or by its Agencies is more
than or equal to 50% of its expenditure based on average of
previous three year account) the composition of Search-cum-
Selection-Committee shall be as under:
(underlining by this Court).
a) A nominee of chancellor
b) A nominee of Central government; who shall be an
eminent academic nominated by the Government in
consultation with UGC
c) A nominee of Board of Management
III. In case, where funding is less than 50% of its
expenditure, the composition of Search-cum-Selection
Committee shall be as under:
a) A nominee of the Visitor / Chancellor, who shall be the
Chairperson of the Committee
b) A nominee of the Chairman, University Grants
Commission
c) A nominee of the Syndicate / Executive Council / Board of
Management of the Insituti9ton Deemed to be University
(ii) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of 5 years.
He shall be eligible for a second term, provided that in no case
shall he hold office beyond the age of 70 years.
Provided that notwithstanding the expiry of the period of 5
years, he/she may continue in office for not more than six
months or till his / her successor is appointed and the latter
assumes office, whichever, is earlier.
(iii) In case of the office of the Vice-Chancellor becoming
vacant due to death, resignation or otherwise and in case of his
/ her absence due to illness or any other cause, the Pro Vice-
Chancellor, and in his / her absence, the Senior most Professor
shall perform the duties of the Vice-Chancellor until a new Vice-
Chancellor is appointed, or the existing Vice-Chancellor
resumes duties, as the case may be.
(underlining by this Court).
(iv) The Vice-Chancellor shall not be a member of the
sponsoring or managing Society / Trust / Company and / or a
close relative of the President or members of the sponsoring or
managing society / trust / company."
(x) Clause 6.4 deals with the removal of Vice Chancellor
and reads as under:-
"If the vice-Chancellor of the Institution Deemed to be
University does not have the qualification as required under
these Regulations and also UGC Regulations on Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and Other Academic
Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the
Maintenance of Standards in higher Education, 2010 as
amended from time to time or not appointment as per the
procedure stipulated in these Regulations or has committed any
financial / administrative impropriety, the Vice-Chancellor can
be removed on the recommendations of an Enquiry Committee
constituted by the Chairman UGC, after due process. The
Commission based on the report of enquiry committee will give
direction to the Visitor / Chancellor to remove the Vice-
Chancellor. However, in case of Government controlled
Institutions, the Commission will send its advice regarding
removal of Vice-Chancellor to respective Ministries in
Government of India / State Government / UT Government."
(underlining by this Court).
(B) It is imperative to note certain provisions of UGC
(IDTBU) Regulations of 2019. The preamble reads as
under:-
"PREAMBLE
To regulate, in an orderly manner, the process of
declaration of institutions of academic excellence as
Deemed to be Universities; and, further to maintain
quality of higher education imparted by Institutions
Deemed to be Universities consistent with the ideals of
the concept of a University; the University Grants
Commission, in exercise of powers conferred under
clauses [f] & [g] of sub-section [1] of Section 26 of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956, hereby, makes
the following Regulations namely;-"
(Underlining by this Court).
(i) Regulation 1.0 commences with the caption 'Short
Title, Application and Commencement'.
(ii) Regulation 1.4 states that the Regulations of 2019
shall replace the UGC (IDTBU) Regulations of 2016.
Regulation 2 deals with definitions.
(iii) Regulation 2.04 defines 'category' to mean category
of IDTBU under the UGC for the purpose of the Grant of
Graded Autonomy Regulations, 2018.
(iv) Regulation 2.12 defines 'IDTBU' to mean an institution
of higher education so declared on the advice of the
Commission, by the Government under Section 3.
(v) Regulation 2.18 defines 'sponsoring body' to mean a
body being a charitable or a not-for-profit Society or Trust
or Company "making an application for declaring an
institution under its administrative, academic and financial
control". (Underlining by this Court).
28. It is also imperative to refer to certain provisions
of the Regulations of 2023. The preamble of the
Regulations of 2023, make an interesting reading. By the
preamble itself, the UGC has sought to affirm actions and
omissions under the 2019 Regulations, that is, done before
the supersession of the 2019 Regulations and done with the
previous approval of the Central Government. The
preamble acts as a saving clause of what is done or is
omitted.
(i) Regulation 1(2) makes the Regulations applicable to
institutions for higher education already declared under
Section 3 of the Act.
(ii) Regulation 1(3) stipulates that the Regulations shall
come into force from the date of their publication in the
Official Gazette. Proviso to Regulation 1(3) provides that
the institutions deemed to be Universities declared prior to
the date of commencement of the regulations shall amend
the Memorandum of Association or rules of the institution
deemed to be University to "comply with these regulations"
within a period of one year from the date of
commencement of these regulations and the compliance
report shall be submitted to the Commission within said
time frame, failing which necessary action may be initiated
as per the provisions of these regulations. (Under-lining
by this Court).
(iii) Regulation 2 pertains to definitions, and the definition
of 'sponsoring body' is pari materia with the 2019
Regulations.
(iv) Regulation 5 relates to 'Corpus Fund' and the change
is that the institutions not funded by the Government shall
maintain a corpus fund of Rs.25 crore. If the
representation is appreciated in the background of this
stipulation, then this Court is left wondering as to how the
Department of Education, more particularly the Joint
Secretary, could have put-up a note in the manner in which
he has done.
(v) Regulation 11 deals with 'Governance'. Regulation
11(3) mandates that the highest governing body shall be
the Executive Council to be headed by the Vice-Chancellor.
Under the 2019 Regulations, the highest governing body
was known as Board of Management and under the 2023
Regulations, it is captioned as "Executive Council", but
under both the Regulations, the head of the highest
governing body is the Vice Chancellor, who is the petitioner
before this Court.
(vi) Regulation 11(4) mandates that the Executive Council
shall be the principal executive body of the IDTBU.
(vii) Regulation 11(5) deals with the composition of the
Executive Council and under Regulation 11(5)(h), the
Regulations permit only four nominees of the Sponsoring
body.
(viii)Regulation 23 deals with officers of the IDTBU.
Regulation 23(A) provides for the Chancellor.
(ix) Regulation 23(A)(1) states that the Chancellor shall be
appointed following the procedure prescribed for
appointment. Proviso to Regulation 23(A)(1) states that
where the Universities are managed or controlled or are
receiving funds more than or equal to 50 per cent of their
annual receipt, the Chancellor shall be appointed by the
respective Government and only in respect of institutions
not receiving 50 per cent or more than 50 percent of their
annual receipt, the Sponsoring body is entitled to appoint
the Chancellor. (underlining by this Court).
29. On a reading of the 2016, 2019 and 2023
Regulations, it is apparent that the 'sponsoring body' is
defined as the society / trust / company which makes /
made the application for declaring an institution as an
IDTBU / Deemed University. As noted supra the Application
was never made by any of the Sabhas (APS), but the
application to declare the institution as an IDTBU was made
by the Society called Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya.
Regulation 4.02 (2019) relates to 'Corpus fund' and the
IDTBU is required to have a corpus fund of Rs. 10 crore for
existing institution and Rs. 25 crore for a de-novo
institution, and the said corpus funds are required to be
maintained permanently in the name of the proposed
Institution. The Regulation 4.03 (2019) deals with
'Governance Structure'. It mandates that the 'Governance
Structure' of the proposed IDTBU shall be as per Clause
10.0 of the Regulations. Regulation 10 comes with the
caption of 'System of Institutional Governance'. In
accordance with Regulation 10.1, the Society, i.e. Gurukula
Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Hardwar was registered on
17.03.1961. Regulation 10.03 stipulates that the highest
governing body of the IDTBU shall be the Board of
Management to be headed by the Vice-Chancellor and shall
consist of not less than 10 and not more than 15 members.
Regulation 10.04 is particularly important. It stipulates
that the Board of Management of the institution shall be
independent of the sponsoring body with full autonomy to
discharge its academic and administrative responsibilities.
Regulation 10.05 deals with the composition of the Board of
Management. A plain reading of Regulation 10.04 belies all
contentions of respondent No. 7 to 9 (in WPMS No.1167 of
2025) that the management has the right to appoint
Chancellor and Vice Chancellor lies with them. That apart,
the Composition, particularly Regulation 10.05 (vii)
stipulates that the nominees of the sponsoring body shall
not exceed four in number. Regulation 10.07.2 stipulates
that the Board of Management shall be the final decision
making body of the Institute. If that be so, then it is
incomprehensible as to how the alleged sponsoring body
could even address a letter to the Minister. The Regulation
10.12 deals with the officers of the IDTBU. The Regulation
10.12.1 deals with the appointment of the Chancellor and
the Pro-Chancellor. The Regulation 10.12.1(ii) enables
sponsoring body to appoint the Chancellor, who shall hold
the office for a period of 5 years and for one more term. At
the cost of being repetitive, the APS was not the society
that applied for declaring the University to be a IDTBU.
Regulation 10.12.2 deals with the appointment of Vice
Chancellor. Clause-A of Regulation 10.12.2 stipulates that
the Vice Chancellor shall be a whole time salaried officer
and shall be appointed by the Chancellor from a panel of
three names suggested by a Search-cum-Selection
Committee. Clause-C(i) of Regulation 10.12.2 deals with
constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee, when the
management is with the Central or State Government. It
states that the Vice Chancellor shall be appointed as per
the procedure laid down by the Central Government or the
State Government. Clause-C(ii) of Regulation 10.12.2
deals with a situation where the aid or assistance by way of
grant etc. by the Central Government, or by its agencies, is
equal to or more than 50 per cent of the expenditure.
Then, the composition of Search-cum-Selection-Committee
would consist of a nominee of the Chancellor, a nominee of
the Central Government and an Academician. Clause-C(iii)
deals with a situation where the financial assistance of the
Government is less than 50%. Clause-E of Regulation
10.12.2 deals with 'Removal of Vice-Chancellor'. Clause-E(i)
deals with Vice Chancellor not possessing the necessary
qualifications or has indulged in financial or administrative
impropriety and in such a situation the Chairman of the
Commission, i.e, the UGC, shall constitute a Committee to
enquire into the matter. Clause-E(ii) of Regulation 10.12.2
mandates that where the Enquiry Committee confirms the
procedural violations or impropriety, the Commission shall,
then, direct the Chancellor to remove the Vice Chancellor
after following the due process. The proviso stipulates that
where the IDTBUs are managed or controlled by the
Government, the Commission is required to convey its
advice regarding removal of Vice Chancellor to the relevant
Ministry of the Government. Thus, the removal of the Vice-
Chancellor is required to be preceded by an enquiry
directed by the UGC and send its recommendation to the
Government. Prima facie, the University is under the
control of the Government, which is explicit on a reading of
the Note-Sheet itself and the clincher is the letter dated
09/02/2024, addressed to the APS, produced by the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 9 (in Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 1167 of 2025).
30. In the instant case, it is specifically contended by
petitioner Dr. Hemalatha K, that the University is 100
percent funded by the Central Government. If that be so,
there is, at least till date, no proceedings produced on
behalf of respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 (in Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 1167 of 2025) to demonstrate that the said individual-
Surendra Kumar Arya has been appointed as the
Chancellor by the Central Government. Regulation 23(B)
deals with the appointment of Vice-Chancellor and
Regulation 23(B)(1) also mandates that the Vice Chancellor
shall be a whole-time salaried officer and shall be appointed
by the Chancellor from a panel of three names suggested
by a Search-cum-Selection-Committee. The composition of
Search-cum-Selection-Committee is provided under
Regulation 23(B)(3). Regulation 23(B)(5) stipulates that in
case of Government controlled or managed or receiving
funds more than or equal to fifty per cent of their annual
receipt, the respective Government may direct the Vice-
Chancellor, after his or her term has expired, to continue in
office for such period, not exceeding a total period of one
year. (under-lining by this Court).
31. It is pertinent to note, Regulation 23(B)(6) of the
2023 Regulations. It reads as under:-
"(6) If the office of the Vice-Chancellor becomes vacant
due to death, resignation or otherwise, or if he or she is
unable to perform his or her duties due to ill health or any
other cause, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor assumes office or
the existing Vice-Chancellor resumes the duties of his or
her office, as the case may be."
32. The second Proviso to Regulation 23(B)(6) of the
2023 Regulations pertains to an institution, which is
managed and controlled by the Government or receiving
funds more than or equal to 50 per cent of annual receipt.
It mandates that if the Pro-Vice-Chancellor is unavailable,
the Government shall appoint the senior most Professor or
any other academician to perform the duties of the Vice-
Chancellor.
33. In the instant case, there is no dispute that
petitioner-Hemalatha K was appointed as a Vice Chancellor
to fill the void. The notification, in this regard, is evident
by the Note-Sheet produced by learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 7 to 9 (in WPMS No. 1167 of 2025).
34. If that be so, whether the removal by the
Chancellor, unilaterally, without any direction or
consultation, and contrary to the Government Notifications,
as evidenced by the Note-Sheet, is right is the moot
question?
35. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 3 to 7 (in WPSB No. 302 of 2025) and
respondents Nos. 7 to 9 (in WPMS No. 1167 of 2025) has
filed one more compilation dated 05.08.2025, wherein he
has placed on record the order passed by the then
Chancellor dated 05.05.2025 extending the term of
petitioner-Hemalatha K as Vice Chancellor of Gurukul
Kangri University by a further period of three months, or till
the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor or till further
orders, whichever is earlier. He has produced news
articles, which are self-explanatory and one of the articles
would read that the present "self-anointed" Chancellor
entering the campus along with his supporters leading to a
ruckus and resulting in the police entering the University
campus. The High Points of News Articles, supplied by
respondent Nos. 7 to 9 read as under:-
"1. Fighting in Gurukul Kangri, General Secretary
saved his life by entering Bathroom (reported in Amar
Ujala newspaper).
2. Uproar in Gurukul University, Registrar relieved
(reported in Hindustan).
3. Fight broke out between Arya Sabha supporters
and employees (reported in Haridwar Jagran)."
36. Another letter is dated 05.07.2025, i.e. a couple
of days after the Chancellor attempt's to enter the campus
and take over the campus along with his supporters is
produced. The Chancellor, one Sri Surendra Kumar Arya,
describing himself a as Chairman of JBM Group, has issued
the letter on the Letter Head of the Chancellor and
proceeded to revoke the letter dated 01.05.2025 and
thereby attempting to curtail the order extending the period
of petitioner-Dr. Hemalatha K. as Vice Chancellor by three
months. The order of the Chancellor extending her office of
Vice-Chancellorship is dated 05.05.2025 and the letter of
the said Surendra Kumar Arya-Chancellor of the Gurukul
Kangri (Deemed to be University), Haridwar is dated
05.07.2025.
37. It is pertinent to note that the period of the
Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor was extended by
Government Notifications. A copy of an FIR and complaint
is also produced along with the compilation.
38. Another compilation dated 19.08.2025 is
produced. A letter addressed to the Secretary, UGC by the
Director-ICR, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of Higher Education, Government of India
dated 14.09.2015 is produced. It speaks about approval of
'Governance System and Management Structure'. The
letter is self-explanatory and in fact, prima facie, appears
to run contrary to the claim now being made by respondent
Nos. 7 to 9 (in Writ Petition (MS) Nos.1167 of 2025). The
letter speaks about two stage clearance with regard to
'Governance System and Management Structure' to be
included in the Memorandum of Association. In Paragraph-
1, it states that if it is funded by the State / Central
Government, then first stage clearance would be by the
Central and the State Government. Second stage is that
the said 'Governance System and Management Structure' is
to be included in the Memorandum of Association of the
Deemed to be University and the same would, thereafter,
be sent to the UGC and the UGC shall satisfy itself that the
'Governance System and Management Structure', as
incorporated in the Memorandum of Association of the
IDTBU, is in accordance with the Regulations of the UGC
and, thereafter, final approval would have to be accorded
by the UGC. (under-lining by this Court). Another letter
dated 11th July, 2016, addressed by the Under Secretary of
the UGC to the Registrar, Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya,
is produced. The said letter refers to the University first
taking approval of the Sponsoring Society/Trust and then
sending it to the UGC for approval.
39. The letters crystallize one aspect. The
'Governance System and Management Structure' whatever
it be, that is incorporated in the Memorandum of
Association of the Society, has to be in consonance and in
compliance with the UGC Regulations and become effective
after approval of the UGC. Another affidavit is also
enclosed with the said compilation.
40. Interestingly, in the compilation dated
18.07.2025, a proceeding before the Court Commissioners
presided by Justice Vijender Jain, Justice R.S. Sodhi and
Justice P.C. Jain is also produced, and the Court
Commissioners have used the words "Faction No. 1" and
"Faction No. 2" to describe the parties.
41. A detailed perusal of the 2016, 2019 and the
2023 Regulations does not disclose the legislation of an
exemption/relaxation clause or in other words a provision
which enables the UGC muchless the Government, to
exempt the application of any of the provisions to any
university. In other words there is no provision, which
enables either the Government or the Commission to
exempt any IDTBU from the ambit and scope of the
application of the applicable Regulations.
42. Letter dated 03.03.2025 is produced as
Annexure-6, along with WPSB No. 302 of 2025. The letter
is signed by the Under Secretary. The very opening
condition (Para-i) would demonstrate that salary and
pension under Head OH--36 and OH-31 would be released
by the Ministry. Secondly, the institution is called upon to
demonstrate through its duly audited books of account that
it is able to generate more than 50% of its revenue on its
own. In Para-iv it is stated that the ownership of buildings
shall vest with the Government. Para-v states that the
sponsoring body shall create and maintain corpus funds for
the Institute from their own source of funding in
accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4.02 of UGC
(IDTBU) Regulations 2019. The catch lies here as the very
preamble of the 2023 Regulations states only such that has
been done is saved. Prima facie, it does not enable the
Government, nor is any such power vested in the
Government to resurrect the Regulations that have been
superseded.
43. A feeble argument was made by placing reliance
on Section 20 of the UGC Act. Section 20 reads as under:-
"20. (1) In the discharge of its functions under this Act,
the Commission shall be guided by such directions on
questions of policy relating to national purpose as may be
given to it by the Central Government.
(2) If any dispute arises between the Central
Government and the Commission as to whether a
question is or is not a question of policy relating to
national purposes, the decision of the Central Government
shall be final."
44. A bare reading of the Section would, prima facie,
demonstrate that the Commission may be guided by such
directions on questions of policy relating to national
purposes only. Neither the respondents, nor the Union
Government have stated what is the national purpose that
is served. The notes do not detail as to what is the national
purpose that is sought to be achieved, nor has the
Department of Higher Education placed reliance on Section
20, nor is it contended that the proceedings of approval are
under Section 20 of the UGC Act.
45. Be that as it may, as noted supra, the
Department in the Communication of 2016 & the
communication dated 09/02/2024, has clearly stated that
the Governance Structure and MOA has to be finally
approved by the UGC. We do not find any approval of the
UGC permitting 'Governance System and Management
Structure' contrary to the UGC Regulations. That apart,
there is no challenge to the UGC Regulations, which
mandate that the 'Governance System and Management
Structure' shall be in accordance with the Regulations only.
There is no material on record to even prima facie
demonstrate, the valid appointment of the Chancellor, nor
compliance with the procedure stipulated for removal of
Chancellor. The same not being compiled with and the
impugned order terminating or curtailing the tenure of the
Vice-Chancellor, as done by the Government Notification,
prima facie, appears to be outside the contours of legality.
46. The letter dated 09/02/2024 reads as under:
"F.No.12-4/2024-U.3(A)
Government of India
Ministry of Education
Department of Higher Education
(ICR Division)
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
Dated: 9th February, 2024
To
1. Shri Sudarshan 2. Shri Radhakrishna Arya, 3. Shri Dharmapa
Sharma, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Arya,
Arya Pratinidhi Pd. Jagdev Singh Sidhanti Delhi Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha, Bhawan, Dayanand Math, Sabha,
Gurudatt Bhawan, Rohtak, Haryana 15, Hanuman Road,
Kishanpura Chowk, New Delhi- 110001
Jalandhar, Punjab
Subject: Issues of Gurukula Kangri (deemed to be University), Haridwar,
relating to implementation of UGC (Institutions deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2023-reg.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your representation dated 15.01.2024 in which the
following points have been raised before the Ministry:
i. At present, UGC (Institutions deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2019
are applicable in the Gurukula Kangri, Haridwar and the UGC Regulations,
2023 have not been adopted so far. As such, the advertisement issued for the
appointment of VC in Gurukula Kangri is in violation of the UGC (Institutions
deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2019.
ii. The meeting of Board of Management held on 23.06.2023, in which draft
MoA of Gurukula Kangri, Haridwar was passed in alignment of the UGC
Regulations, 2023, was illegal.
iii. The draft MoA/ rules of Gurukula Kangri align as per the UGC Regulations,
2023 does not have approval of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (Punjab, Haryana &
Delhi).
2. It is informed that the above issues have been examined in the Ministry. The
following may kindly be noted:
i. The UGC (Institutions deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023 was
notified on 2nd June 2023. Thus, at present, all Institutions deemed to be
Universities including Gurukula Kangri, Haridwar is regulated and governed as
per the UGC (Institutions deemed to be Universities) Regulations, 2023. This,
inter alia, means that the provisions of these Regulations are binding on
Gurukula Kangri, Haridwar with effect from the date of notification of the
Regulations.
ii. As per Regulation 23B (a) of the UGC (IDTB) Regulations, 2023,
"the Vice-Chancellor in Institution deemed to be University managed
or controlled or receiving funds more than or equal to fifty percent of
their annual receipt from the Central or State Government or its
agencies shall be appointed by Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be."
iii. In the case of Gurukula Kangri, Haridwar, grants from Central Government
(Ministry of Education) is contributing more than 70% of total revenue of
Gurukula Kangri, Haridwar, which can be verified from the annual accounts of
FY 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. As such, the appointment of Chancellor &
Vice- Chancellor shall lie with the Ministry of Education. Accordingly, the
advertisement for the post of VC was issued.
iv. Considering the provisions of registered MoA & Rules of Institution
regarding amendment of MoA & Rules, the Central Government approved the
draft MoA & Rules for Gurukula Kangri, Haridwar in accordance with UGC
Regulations, 2023.
3. Moreover, Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (Punjab, Haryana & Delhi) may like to submit
its roadmap on how they plan to increase their contribution in running the
Institution, so that its contribution in the total revenue exceeds 50% of annual
revenue of the Institute.
Yours faithfully,
(Ambrish Kumar Sharma)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel: 2338 3538"
47. From the above discussions the following prima
facie conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The APS (Arya Pratinidhi Sabha's of Punjab,
Haryana & Delhi) have not placed any material to
demonstrate that they have made or at least joined
in making the application under Section 3 of the
Act, 1956 praying for declaring the University as a
deemed University. Consequently, the Sabhas are
not the "Sponsoring Body" in terms of the 2016,
2019 or the 2023 UGC (Institutions Deemed To Be
Universities) Regulations;
(2) The Society registered on 17/03/1961, i.e.,
"Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalaya" is the
"sponsoring body" and is evidenced by the letter
dated 28-30/09/1961, addressed by the Secretary,
Dept of Education, Government of India to the
Society.
(3) It is the admitted fact that the APS's are seeking to
act under the MoA of the Gurukula Kangri
Vishwavidyalaya. The MoA/ Bye-laws of the Society
do not vest in the Sabha's/ APS any administrative
control over the Society.
(4) The MoA/ Bye-law of the Society (as modified upto
13-4-84) only enables the President of the APS,
Punjab to be the Chancellor and no material is
placed to demonstrate that the present Chancellor
is the elected President of the APS, Punjab. But this
position is not permitted by the UGC (ITDBU)
Regulations, 2016 or 2019 or 2023.
(5) The Chancellor, is admittedly not appointed by the
"Sponsoring Body", that is, "Gurukula Kangri
Vishwavidyalaya Society".
(6) In terms of the letter dated 09/02/2024 the
undisputed position is that the funding from the
Union Government to the University is more than
70%. If that be so, then neither the 'Society" nor
the APS have a right to appoint the Chancellor.
(7) The order dated 05.06.2025 in WP 1167 of 2025
clearly demonstrates that the University is
completely funded by the Central Government.
(8) Admittedly the present Chancellor is not appointed
by the competent authority and his actions are
without competency.
(9) Neither the respondents 7-9 in the first writ petition
[Writ Petition (M/S) No.1167 of 2025], nor the
respondents 4-7 in the second writ petition [Writ
Petition (S/B) No.302 of 2025] have demonstrated
a funding, of an amount equal to if not more than
50 % of the receipts as mandated under the UGC
regulations of 2016 or 2019 or 2023.
(10) The proceedings dated 03.03.2025, as admitted by
the learned counsel for the Union Government and
UGC, are not proceedings drawn in exercise of the
power vested under Section 20 of the University
Grants Commission Act, 1956.
48. In that view, the actions of respondents 7-9 in
WPMS No.1167 of 2025 and respondent 7 in WPSB 302 of
2025 are without jurisdiction. Pending disposal of the writ
petitions;
(i) There shall be a stay of the operation of the letter
dated 03.03.2025.
(ii) There shall be a stay of the operation of letter/
notification dated 22.05.2025.
(iii) There shall be a stay of the operation of the order
dated 05.07.2025.
(iv) There shall be a stay of the operation of the order
dated 07.07.2025.
(v) The petitioner shall be permitted to discharge
duties of the office of the Vice- Chancellor of Gurukula
Kangri Vishwavidyalaya in terms of the order of the
Government of India bearing F. No.8-5/2023-
(U).3(A), dated 02.08.2024.
(vi) The petitioner is permitted to discharge duties of
the office of the Vice- Chancellor of Gurukula Kangri
Vishwavidyalaya (IDTBU) till appointment of a full-
time Vice-Chancellor in terms of the advertisement
dated 19.12.2023, issued in compliance of the letter F.
No.8-5/2023- (U).3(A), dated 24.11.2023.
(vii) The Registrar Judicial to forward a copy of this
order to the Secretary, Ministry of Education,
Department of Higher Education (ICR Division),
Government of India, New Delhi.
(viii) The Registrar Judicial shall list all petitions/
appeals/ proceedings related to the Gurukula Kangri
Vishwavidyalaya and pending before this Court, before
the Bench of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
_______________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 04th September, 2025
Rathour
