Hindustan Times ·
Guest Column: UGC norms, autonomy & the 2026 bill: Himachal universities at crossroads
The objective should be reform without uncertainty, accountability without eroding academic autonomy and administrative efficiency without compromising academic standards
The Himachal Pradesh State Universities (Amendment) Bill, 2026, passed by the assembly on September 2, 2026, raises questions concerning the balance between government accountability, university autonomy and nationally prescribed academic standards. The issue is not simply “government versus university”; it is whether administrative reforms remain consistent with the framework governing higher education in India.
The 2018 UGC regulations derive their authority from Section 26(1)(e) and (g) of the UGC Act-1956, relating respectively to teaching staff qualifications and the maintenance of standards in university education. The regulations prescribe minimum academic standards and provide that direct recruitment of assistant professors, associate professors and professors shall be through a duly constituted selection committee. The prescribed university selection committee includes the vice-chancellor/ or his/her nominee as chairperson and subject experts along with other specified members. Thus, wherever these regulations apply, their prescribed academic standards and selection architecture cannot simply be treated as administrative guidelines.
This becomes particularly relevant if recruitment is entrusted to any public service commission (PSC). The critical question is who makes the academic selection. If the PSC itself replaces the UGC-prescribed university selection committee and its VC/subject-expert structure, a serious question of inconsistency with the 2018 UGC regulations arises. The principle is simple: procedural transparency cannot substitute for expertise; eligibility is not the same as academic suitability.
The issue assumes significance following the Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment of August 27, 2026, in Narender Kumar Sankhyan vs state of Himachal Pradesh, which held that the 2018 UGC regulations have statutory force and that inconsistent state provisions cannot override the applicable UGC framework. The verdict therefore deserves consideration while implementing any new recruitment architecture.
The bill also has implications for financial autonomy. By altering the vice-chancellor’s position relative to the finance committee and strengthening the role of the secretary (finance), it potentially changes the balance between university leadership and government financial oversight. The government oversight of funds is both legitimate and necessary; however, financial decisions concerning posts, recruitment, service conditions, pay and academic expansion ultimately influence the university’s academic priorities. Financial accountability should therefore strengthen institutional decision-making, rather than progressively replace it.
These implications may be felt differently across HPU Shimla, Himachal Pradesh technical university, horticulture/agriculture/forestry universities and other state universities depending upon the provisions applicable to each institution. The long-term question is whether the new framework will produce accountable academic autonomy—government ensuring accountability, UGC safeguarding standards, subject experts assessing academic merit and universities retaining meaningful authority over their academic affairs.
India now has more than 1,300 universities functioning within a national higher-education framework in which the UGC prescribes mandatory academic standards and procedures wherever its regulations apply.
The consequences of departing from norms are not merely theoretical. In 2025, the Supreme Court quashed the recruitment of 1,091 assistant professors and 67 librarians in Punjab, directing that fresh recruitment be undertaken in accordance with the 2018 UGC regulations. Recently, in May 2026, the Punjab & Haryana high court quashed the recruitment process for 613 assistant professors (English) conducted through the Haryana Public Service Commission.
The court held that the state’s modified selection criteria violated mandatory provisions of the UGC regulations and directed fresh selection in accordance with commission norms.
These examples offer a relevant caution for Himachal Pradesh, where the proposed recruitment architecture may involve state-level recruitment mechanisms for university personnel. The question is therefore not whether a PSC can conduct a recruitment process but whether the final mechanism preserves the mandatory academic standards and selection committee structure prescribed by the UGC. Why introduce a system whose compatibility with binding UGC norms may subsequently have to be tested in court?
The state government would therefore be well advised to proceed with foresight and institutional caution, carefully examining every proposed alteration against the 2018 UGC regulations and the evolving judicial position. The objective should be reform without uncertainty, accountability without eroding academic autonomy and administrative efficiency without compromising academic standards. A cautious approach today can prevent litigation tomorrow—and more importantly, ensure that higher-education reform strengthens rather than derails the academic future of Himachal Pradesh.
(The writer is former vice-chancellor of Sardar Patel University, Mandi. Views expressed are personal)