JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Through this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the correctness of constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee formed under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act').

2. Keeping in mind the nature of the controversy involved, it would not be appropriate to set out the detailed facts. However, in order to complete the narration of facts, some skeleton facts are being noticed. The petitioner has been working as an Assistant Professor of English in the respondent-University since the year 2007. The respondent-University is a State University established and incorporated under the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab Act, 2006.

3. After the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka and others VS. State of Rajasthan and others, (1997) 6 SCC 241, the Parliament enacted 'the Act'. The complaint of the petitioner is that one of her senior colleagues had scribbled derogatory and lewd remarks on the wall of her office.

4. Section 4 of the Act mandates every employer employing 10 workers or