Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal vs Hnb Garhwal University And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2965 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal vs Hnb Garhwal University And Others on 15 April, 2026

                                                   2026:UHC:2669-DB
                          Judgment Reserved on:11.03.2026
                         Judgment Delivered on :15.04.2026
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

                               AND

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY

             Writ Petition (PIL) No.209 of 2025


   Dr. Naveen Prakash Nautiyal                   -----Petitioner


                               Versus


   HNB Garhwal University and Others ----Respondents
   --------------------------------------------------------------
   Presence:-
   Mr. Anurag Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner through
   V.C.
   Dr. K.H. Gupta, learned counsel for H.N.B. Garhwal University/
   respondent no.1.
   Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India along
   with Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of
   India/ respondent no.2.
   Ms. Anjali Bhargwa, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
   Mr. Mohinder Rupral, learned counsel with Mr. K.S. Jagati,
   learned counsel for respondent no.4.
   --------------------------------------------------------------
   JUDGMENT :

(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay J.)

1. The present public interest litigation has been

filed with a prayer to issue a writ of Quo-warranto for

quashing the notification dated 18.06.2025 whereby

private respondent no.4 has been appointed as Vice-

Chancellor of the H.N.B. Garhwal Central University

(hereinafter referred to as "HNBG University").

2. The petitioner who had earlier worked as an

Assistant Professor (Guest Faculty) in the Department

2026:UHC:2669-DB of Sociology and Social Work at the HNBG University

resigned from the said post on 25.03.2021.

3. The petitioner, who claims to be an

academician turned social activist has challenged the

appointment of Prof. Shri Prakash Singh (respondent

no.4) to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the HNBG

University on the ground that the said appointment is

in violation of the provisions of the Central Universities

Act, 2009 and the University Grants Commission

(Minimum Qualification for Appointment of Teachers

and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges

and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards in

Higher Education Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter

referred to as "UGC Regulations 2018").

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support

of his contention has made the following submissions:

i) HNBG University was originally a State

University but w.e.f. 15.01.2009, the said

University became a Central University and

as per Central Universities Act, 2009, the

appointment of Vice-Chancellor has to be

made by the Visitor in such manner as

prescribed by the Statutes.

ii) As per Clause 7.3(i) of the UGC

Regulations 2018 notified on 18.07.2018, a

2026:UHC:2669-DB person possessing the highest level of

competence, integrity, morals and

institutional commitment is to be appointed

as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be

appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a

distinguished academician, with a minimum

of ten years' of experience as Professor in a

University or ten years' of experience in a

reputed research and / or academic

administrative organisation with proof of

having demonstrated academic leadership.

iii) An advertisement was issued by the

Ministry of Education (Department of Higher

Education), Government of India (respondent

no.2) for appointment to the post of Vice-

Chancellor in the HNBG University wherein

the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post

was akin to the eligibility criteria prescribed

under Section 7(3) (i) of the UGC Regulations

2018.

iv) On the last date of submission of the

applications form i.e. 26.06.2024, respondent

no.4 was not having the minimum 10 years

of experience as a Professor in a University.

2026:UHC:2669-DB

v) As per curriculum vitae (CV) of

respondent no.4, enclosed as Annexure No.5

to the writ petition and details of which have

been provided in paragraph no.12 of the writ

petition, respondent no.4 possessed the

following qualification:

S.No.          Tenure           Position Held

1.          24.07.2015     Professor, Department
            onwards        of Political Science,
                           University of Delhi
2.          29.05.2014     Chair Professor, Dr.
            to             Ambedkar Chair in
            23.07.2015     Social Justice, Indian
                           Institute   of    Public
                           Administration (IIPA),
                           New Delhi
3.          15.12.1995     Associate     Professor,
            to             Department            of
            28.05.2014     Political Science, Sri
                           Aurobindo       College
                           (University of Delhi)
4.          01.05.2002     Reader, Department of
            to             Political Science, Sri
            01.01.2006     Aurobindo       College
                           (University of Delhi)
5.          15.12.1995     Lecturer/Sr. Lecturer,
            to             Department            of
            30.04.2002     Political Science, Sri
                           Aurobindo       College
                           (University of Delhi)
6.          17.07.1992     Ad-hoc         Lecturer,
            to             Department            of
            13.12.1995     Political Science, Sri
                           Aurobindo       College
                           (University of Delhi)

vi) Respondent no.4 is having 8 years and

11 months experience as Professor in a

University and the position held by him

2026:UHC:2669-DB outside the University system as Chair

Professor, Dr. Ambedkar Chair in Social

Justice Department, Indian Institute of Public

Administration (IIPA), New Delhi cannot be

counted towards the experience as a

Professor in a University as IIPA is not a

university and does not fall within the

purview of the UGC Act or UGC Regulations

2018.

5. Thus, in sum and substance, the contention

of the petitioner is that, as respondent no.4 has the

experience of only 8 years 11 months as Professor in a

University on the last date of submission of application

form, as such appointment of respondent no.4 is

dehors the statutory rules and the same is liable to be

struck down by the Court by issuance of a writ of quo-

warranto.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Professor Narendra Singh Bhandari

Vs. Ravindra Jugran and Others (2022) 17 SCC 679

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the

judgment in Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi Vs. State of Gujarat

and Others (2022) 5 SCC 179.

2026:UHC:2669-DB

7. Learned counsel for the official respondents

no.1 to 3 and private respondent no.4 have filed their

counter affidavits and have refuted the contentions of

the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 made

the following submissions:

i) As per the provisions of the Central

Universities Act, 2009, statutes framed

thereunder and the UGC Regulations, 2018, a

search-cum-selection committee was

constituted for making recommendations for

appointment to the post of Vice-Chancellor.

Constitution of the Selection Committee was

as follows:

"(a) Dr. Shekhar C. Mande, Former Secretary, DSIR and Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi-

(Convenor)

(b) Prof. Anil Kumar Tripathi, Director, Indian Insitute of Science Education & Research (IISER) Mohali-(Member)

(c) Prof. Anand Bhalerao, Vice- Chancellor, CU Rajasthan-(Member)

(d) Prof. Shri Prakash Mani Tripathi, Vice-Chancellor, IGNTU Amarkantak (M.P.)-(Member)

(e) Prof. N.C. Gautam, Former Vice-

Chancellor, MGCGV, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.)-(Member)"

2026:UHC:2669-DB

ii) The Selection Committee held its meeting

on 05.11.2024 and after going through all the

applications submitted by the candidates,

shortlisted 32 candidates for interaction. The

interaction with the shortlisted candidates

was held on 16th and 17th December, 2024

and the committee recommended names of 5

candidates including the name of respondent

no.4.

iii) The panel of 5 names recommended by

the committee along with recommendation of

Hon'ble Minister of Education was placed

before the Hon'ble President of India in her

capacity as Visitor of the HNBG University

and respondent no.4 was appointed as Vice-

Chancellor of HNBG University on 18.06.2025

and he assumed office w.e.f. 21.06.2025.

iv) The Selection Committee comprising of

experts considered the qualification of

respondent no.4 as appropriate. The counsel

for respondent no.2 relies on the submission

made in paragraph no.15 and 16 of the

counter affidavit, which reads as under:

"15. That the contents of paragraph No. 8 to 10 of the Writ Petition are not correct hence denied. It is submitted

2026:UHC:2669-DB that the advertisement for the post included a condition that for the post of VC a person should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of 10 years' experience as Professor in a University or 10 years' experience in reputed research and/or academic administrative organization with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership The reading of this condition brings clearly out that the 10 years' experience is not exclusive for professorship only. The condition is inclusive of the research and administrative experience. The Vice Chancellor happens to be the chief executive authority of the University and in performance of his duty, he has to undertake administrative work while guiding and monitoring the academic work of the University. Therefore, the condition for appointment for the Vice Chancellor includes both the academic and administrative experience. In para 9 of the petition, the petitioner has mis- interpreted and mis-represented the condition by hiding the administrative experience while describing the requirement for the post of Vice Chancellor.

16. That the contents of paragraph No. 11 to 15 of the Writ Petition are not correct hence denied it is submitted that Prof Shri Prakash Singh was appointed as Chair Professor at Dr. Ambedkar Chair, in Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), New Delhi w.e.f 29.05.2014. His nature of duty at IIPA involved academic research, teaching and guiding research scholars and monitoring administrative work. At IIPA, he drew the pay of Rs 37,400- 67,000+AGP Rs 10,000 which is drawn by a professor A true copy of Service Details of Shri Prakash Singh is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.-CA-2 of this affidavit. Subsequently, Prof Shri Prakash Singh was appointed

2026:UHC:2669-DB as professor in University of Delhi w.e.f 24.07.2015 in the pay of Rs 37,400- 67,000+AGP Rs 10,000. The total experience of Prof Shri Prakash Singh as Professor at IIPA and University of Delhi as on 26.06.2024 (ie the last date for submission of application) exceeds 10 Years Apart from this academic experience, Prof Shri Prakash Singh has administrative experience of 03 Years 06 Months as Director, South Campus, University of Delhi during the overlapping period 17.12.2021 to 20.06.2025. The contention of the Petitioner as made in para-15 of the Writ Petition that IIPA is not a university and does not fall within the purview of the UGC regulation and by that implication the term as professor at IIPA may not be taken into consideration is baseless because there are many institutions within the purview of this Ministry itself which carry out academic and/or research activity and employ professors for that purpose but do not come under the purview of University Grants Commission. For example, institutions such as Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), National Institute of Technology (NIT), Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER), Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Indian Institute of Management (IIM); undertake academic and research activity and for that purpose recruit Professors but these institutes are not covered under the UGC regulations. Apart from these, several other Ministries have also established their domain specific institutes to undertake academic and research activities and for that purpose recruit Professors but these institutions do not come under the purview of UGC. For example, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare has established Agricultural Universities such as Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University at Jhansi, Madhya Pradesh

2026:UHC:2669-DB and Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University at Samastipur, Bihar. The Ministry of External Affairs has established Nalanda University in Bihar. Ministry of Civil Aviation has established Rajiv Gandhi National Civil Aviation University, Amethi Uttar Pradesh. Ministry Ports Shipping and Waterways has established Indian Maritime University headquartered at Chennai. All Law Institutions are governed by Bar Council of India. These institutions although do not come under the purview of UGC but they recruit Professors. It doesn't mean these professors are not eligible for appointment to the post of Vice Chancellor. Moreover, the advertisement for the post of Vice Chancellor in a Central University does not prescribe that professor should come from only UGC regulated institutions; nor does it proscribe a professor or researcher or a personnel of an academic administrative institution having demonstrated academic leadership from being eligible for applying for the post of VC in a Central University. IIPA, though established by DoPT, also carries out research and engages/employs professors as its faculty members. Therefore, the petitioner has again mis-interpreted the condition that professor should be in a UGC regulated institutions and that such an institution should be a university only; whereas the advertisement does not impose any such restrictions. It is also submitted that Prof Shri Prakash Singh has good academic and administrative experience for holding the post of Vice Chancellor as per the requirement published in the advertisement. The Selection Committee for appointment for the post of Vice Chancellor in HNBGU which was constituted as per the provision of the Central Universities Act, 2009 consisted of five distinguished academicians which included (i) Dr. Shekhar C. Mande,

2026:UHC:2669-DB Former Secretary, DSIR and Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), New Delhi- (Convener)

(ii) Prof. Anil Kumar Tripathi, Director, Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) Mohali- (Member) (iii) Prof. Anand Bhalerao, Vice-Chancellor, CU Rajasthan- (Member) (iv) Prof. Shri Prakash Mani Tripathi, Vice-Chancellor, IGNTU Amarkantak (M.P) -(Member) and (v) Prof. N.C. Gautam, Former Vice-

Chancellor, MGCGV, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P). The Committee has recommended the suitability of Prof Shri Prakash Singh by scrutinizing his application form and by holding personal interaction with him. On the recommendation of the Committee, Hon'ble Visitor of the University (the President of India) appointed Shri Prakash Singh Vice-Chancellor of the University."

9. Learned counsel for the HNBG University and

the UGC also adopted the same argument. Learned

counsel for respondent no.4, apart from adopting the

submissions made by respondent no.2, made the

following submissions:

i) The post of Vice-Chancellor is an important

post in the Central University and is subject

to rigorous scrutiny and selection process,

and as per Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulation

2018, the eligibility is reckoned on the

yardstick of both academic and administrative

leadership.

2026:UHC:2669-DB

ii) The search-cum-selection committee

comprised of persons of eminence in the

sphere of higher education /academics and

were not connected in any manner with

HNBG University or the constituent colleges,

which prepared a panel of the eligible

meritorious candidates and respondent no.4

was included in the panel of 5 meritorious

candidates owing to his qualification and

academic experience.

iii) IIPA is a reputed research and academic

organization and the eligibility criteria and

selection procedure for appointing Chair

Professor, Dr. Ambedkar Chair at IIPA is

same as appointment of a professor under

the UGC regulations.

iv) Respondent no.4 was promoted as Senior

Professor (Academic Level 15) w.e.f.

29.05.2024 by the University of Delhi under

the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)

prescribed by the UGC Regulations, 2018.

Under the CAS for promotion to the post of

Senior Professor, the eligibility prescribed is

10 years of service as a Professor. The

experience of the respondent no.4 as Chair

2026:UHC:2669-DB Professor at IIPA was taken into consideration

for granting promotion to the post of Senior

Professor.

v) The search-cum-selection committee

considered the entire qualification /

experience of respondent no.4 and there is

no allegation of malafide, corruption or bias

and the decision of the expert committee as

such is not liable to be interfered.

10. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 placed

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Basavaiah Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8

SCC 372.

11. We have heard learned counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

12. For issuance of a writ of quo-warranto, court

has to consider the following aspects:

i) As to whether, person against whom writ of

quo-warranto is sought is holding a public

office.

ii) As to whether the said person fulfills the

eligibility criteria prescribed to be appointed

to such an office.

iii) As to whether appointment is in

conformity with the statutory rules.

2026:UHC:2669-DB

13. In the present case, respondent no.4 is

holding post of Vice-Chancellor of the HNBG University,

as such, there is no dispute that the said respondent is

holding a public office.

14. The next question for consideration before

the Court is as to whether respondent no.4 fulfills the

eligibility criteria as prescribed by the UGC regulation

and as to whether the appointment was made in

accordance with the provisions of Central Universities

Act, 2009 and the statute framed therein.

15. The appointment to the post of Vice-

Chancellor of the HNBG University is governed by the

Central Universities Act, 2009 and Section 11(i) of the

said Act reads as under:-

"11. Vice-Chancellor.--(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed by the Visitor in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes"

16. The statute framed under Section 27 of the

Central Universities Act, 2009 lays down the procedure

for appointment of Vice-Chancellor, which is as follows:

"2. Vice-Chancellor--(1) The Vice- Chancellor shall be appointed by the Visitor from out of a panel commended by a Committee as constituted under clause (2):

Provided that if the Visitor does not approve any of the persons included in the panel, he may call for extended fresh panel.

2) The Committee referred to in clause (1) shall consist of five persons, out of whom three shall be nominated by the Executive

2026:UHC:2669-DB Council and two by the Visitor, and one of the nominees of the Visitor shall be the convener of the Committee:

Provided that none of the members of the Committee shall be an employee of the University or a College or an Institution maintained by the University or a member of any authority of the University."

17. Essential qualification and the mode of

selection to the post of Vice-Chancellor is provided

under Clause 7.3 of the UGC Regulations 2018, which

reads as under:

"7.3. VICE CHANCELLOR:

i. A person possessing the highest level of competence, integrity, morals and institutional commitment is to be appointed as Vice-Chancellor. The person to be appointed as a Vice-Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with a minimum of ten years of experience as Professor in a University or ten years of experience in a reputed research and / or academic administrative organisation with proof of having demonstrated academic leadership. ii. The selection for the post of Vice- Chancellor should be through proper identification by a Panel of 3-5 persons by a Search-cum-Selection-Committee, through a public notification or nomination or a talent search process or a combination thereof. The members of such Search-cum-Selection Committee shall be persons of eminence in the sphere of higher education and shall not be connected in any manner with the University concerned or its colleges. While preparing the panel, the Search cum- Selection Committee shall give proper weightage to the academic excellence, exposure to the higher education system in the country and abroad, and adequate experience in academic and administrative governance, to be given in writing along with the panel to be submitted to the

2026:UHC:2669-DB Visitor/Chancellor. One member of the Search cum-Selection Committee shall be nominated by the Chairman, University Grants Commission, for selection of Vice Chancellors of State, Private and Deemed to be Universities.

iii. The Visitor/Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor out of the Panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection Committee."

18. Thus, a person to be appointed as Vice-

Chancellor should be a distinguished academician, with

a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor in a

University or ten years of experience in a reputed

research and / or academic administrative organisation

with proof of having demonstrated academic

leadership. The question, therefore, is whether the

service rendered by respondent no.4 at IIPA of 1 year

55 days would qualify for the prescribed 10 years

experience.

19. A perusal of the record reveals that the

Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is a

premier Research and Training Institute under

Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Govt. of

India, catering to the needs of Central and State

Governments and other Govt. organizations. It was

established in 1954 as an Autonomous Society under

the Society Registration Act, 1860, to spread the study

and awareness of Public Administration and Governance

2026:UHC:2669-DB and to change the colonial mindset of the nascent

Indian Civil Services post-Independence. Hon'ble Vice

President of India is the ex-Officio President and

Hon'ble Minister of State in charge of DoPT is the ex-

Officio Chairman of IIPA Executive Council.

It provides mid-career Capacity Building

Programmes to Officers of Central and State

Governments as well as Corporate Sector and conducts

applied research and evaluation work for Central

Ministries and State Governments.

IIPA conducts Research Studies for various

Ministries/Departments as well as undertakes

Evaluation of several Schemes of Central and State

Governments. IIPA completed 24 research and

evaluation studies in 2024-25. Some of the notable

ones are Restructuring of DRDO, Evaluation of BADP,

Border Infrastructure Management (BIM) and other

Schemes of MHA, Evaluation of PM USHA, Evaluation of

PM UNNAT Scheme, NLM, various Social Impact

Assessment (SIA) studies, Evaluation of MeitY, Govt. of

India schemes, Ministry of Panchayati Raj schemes etc.

20. A MoU was signed between the Director, Dr.

B.R. Ambedkar Foundation (an autonomous body)

under the jurisdiction of Social Justice and

Empowerment, Government of India and IIPA for

2026:UHC:2669-DB setting up Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Chair under the IIPA. The

post of Professor to be filled up carried the pay-scale of

₹37,400-67000 + Grade pay of ₹10,000/- which is the

pay-scale of the post of Professor.

21. The procedure of appointment prescribes that

the appointment would be made on the basis of the

UGC guidelines issued for the said purpose. Respondent

no.4 was selected and appointed to the post of Chair

Professor on deputation basis and thereafter was

promoted as Senior Professor (Academic Level-15)

w.e.f. 29.05.2024 by the University of Delhi by counting

the aforesaid period spent by him as Professor at IIPA.

22. There is no dispute that in pursuance to an

advertisement for the post of Vice-Chancellor, a

selection committee, as provided under law, was

constituted which short-listed 32 candidates and

thereafter recommended the name of 5 meritorious

candidates after interaction with them.

23. The name of respondent no.4 was included in

the panel of 5 candidates and there is no allegation of

malafide or bias against the constitution of selection

committee and its recommendation. The qualification

and the experience of the respondent no.4 and other

candidates was considered by the expert search

committee which consisted of eminent academicians.

2026:UHC:2669-DB The committee after going through the experience of

respondent no.4 at IIPA, being satisfied that it was

experience gained in a reputed research and/ or

academic organization, included his name in the panel

of 5 meritorious candidates. The Court under judicial

review of the decision of the expert body cannot sit as

an appellate authority and question the

recommendation made by the expert committee.

24. As discussed above, in the present case in

pursuance to an advertisement issued and on the

recommendation of the duly constituted search-cum-

selection committee, appointment of respondent no.4

was made on the post of Vice-Chancellor. Clause 7.3 (i)

of the UGC Regulations also lays down the condition

that the said experience should be 10 years at a

university or a reputed research institute. As to

whether the decision of the duly constituted body can

be interfered by the Court in absence of any malafide

against the expert committee was considered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basavaiah Vs. Dr.

H.L. Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein the Hon'ble

Apex court, while considering the judgment of the

Constitutional Bench in the case of University of

Maysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 in

paragraph nos.20 to 38, has held as under:

2026:UHC:2669-DB "20. It is abundantly clear from the affidavit filed by the University that the Expert Committee had carefully examined and scrutinised the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants before selecting them for the posts of Readers in Sericulture. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench was not justified in sitting in appeal over the unanimous recommendations of the Expert Committee consisting of five experts.

The Expert Committee had in fact scrutinised the merits and demerits of each candidate including qualification and the equivalent published work and its recommendations were sent to the University for appointment which were accepted by the University.

21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointments were made. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture.

22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of Research Reader in English in Central College, Bangalore in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao [AIR 1965 SC 491] in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Board. The Court further observed that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.

23. We have been called upon to adjudicate a similar matter of the same University almost after half a century. In a judicial system

2026:UHC:2669-DB governed by precedents, the judgments delivered by the Constitution Bench and other Benches must be respected and relied on with meticulous care and sincerity. The ratio of the Constitution Bench has not been properly appreciated by the learned Judges in the impugned judgment.

24. In M.C. Gupta (Dr.) v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta [(1979) 2 SCC 339 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 168] , somewhat similar controversy arose for adjudication, in which the State Public Service Commission invited applications for two posts of Professors of Medicine in the State Medical Colleges. The two appellants as well as Respondents 1, 2 and 3 applied for the said post. Appellant 1 had teaching experience of about 6 years and 6 months as a Lecturer in Cardiology in the Department of Medicine and about 3 years and 2 months as Reader in Medicine in S.N. Medical College, Agra. Since there was no separate Department of Cardiology in that College, Cardiology formed part of General Medicine and as such he was required to teach General Medicine to undergraduate students and to some postgraduate students in addition to Cardiology. Similarly, Appellant 2 had one year's experience as post-doctoral teaching fellow in the Department of Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo, one year's teaching experience as Lecturer while posted as a Pool Officer and 15 months' teaching experience as post-doctoral research fellow in the Department of Medicine in G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur and about 4 years and 6 months' teaching experience as Assistant Professor of Medicine, State University of New York, Buffalo. Cardiology is a part of Medicine and the teaching experience acquired while holding the post of Lecturer in Cardiology was teaching experience in a subject which substantially formed part of General Medicine over and above the same. The Commission was amply justified in reaching to the conclusion that he had the requisite teaching experience. The High Court was, therefore, in error in quashing its selection of the appellant in this case.

25. The teaching experience of foreign teaching institutions can be taken into

2026:UHC:2669-DB consideration if it is from a recognised institution of repute. It cannot be said that State University of New York at Buffalo, where Appellant 2 served as an Assistant Professor would not be an institution of repute. The experts aiding and advising the Commission must be quite aware of institutions in which the teaching experience was acquired by him and this one is a reputed University. According to the experts of the Selection Board, both the appellants had requisite qualification and were eligible for appointment. If they were selected by the Commission and appointed by the Government, no fault can be found with the same. The High Court interfered and set aside the selections made by the Expert Committee. This Court while setting aside the judgment of the High Court reminded the High Court that it would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts. The Court observed as under: [M.C. Gupta (Dr.) case [(1979) 2 SCC 339 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 168] , SCC pp. 344-45, para 7] "7. ... When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching/research experience in technical subjects, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be."

26. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436] the Court observed that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians: (SCC p. 426, para 17) "17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to hammer home the point that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies."