2026:HHC:6357 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18814 of 2025 Decided on: 06.03.2026 Surender Lal Negi … Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Visvavidyalaya Palampur … Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) The petitioner herein, in the year 2020 was appointed against the post of Secretary to the Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Visvavidyalaya, Palampur. In terms of an Office Order dated 20.11.2025, which is appended as Annexure A-1, with CMP No.29092 of 2025, the Vice Chancellor has ordered the reversion of the petitioner to a substantive post of Deputy Registrar with immediate effect. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Today, learned Counsel for the respondent-University has drawn the attention of the Court to the Statutes of the respondent-University and by referring to Statute 5.84, he submitted that in terms thereof, the selection for the post of Secretary is to be made by the Vice Chancellor from amongst Assistant Registrars/ 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6357 Deputy Registrars/Assistant Professors/ Associate Professors of the respondent-University on such terms, as the Vice Chancellor may decide and the incumbent shall be reverted to his original post, if the exigencies of the University service so require. Learned Counsel submitted that these Statutes make it amply clear that selection for the post of Secretary is the prerogative of the Vice Chancellor and it is not any kind of promotion etc. and, therefore, as the order under challenge is not a punitive order and no vested right is conferred upon the petitioner to continue as Secretary to the Vice Chancellor, this petition dismissed. 3. Confronted with the fact that in terms of the Statutes, there is no right vested in an incumbent who stands appointed as a Secretary to the Vice Chancellor by the Vice Chancellor, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the filing of this petition, the respondent-University has issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and intended to take disciplinary action against him. This Court suggested to the parties that the petitioner withdraw this petition and let the respondent-University withdraw the Show Cause Notice. Instructions were sought by learned Counsel for the parties and learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions to withdraw this petition, whereas, learned Counsel for the respondent-University submits that he has instructions that Show Cause Notice shall be withdrawn. 3 2026:HHC:6357 4. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. The respondent-University is directed to formally withdraw the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 06, 2026 (Rishi)