SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.
Dr. Veena Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Uaw University, Sonepat & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-5505 of 2024
Decided On : 11-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate for Respondent no. 1
Mr. Ravinder Singh Budhwar, Addl. AG, Haryana

The court held that the repatriation of the petitioner was illegal as it violated the Executive Council's resolution regarding her absorption as Deputy Registrar.

Headnote:(A) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Haryana Act, 2012 - Sections 12 and 18 - Writ of certiorari - Petition challenging repatriation of Deputy Registrar - Petitioner absorbed as Deputy Registrar on 02.03.2021, yet repatriated on 01.03.2024 - Court found repatriation illegal as it violated statutory provisions and ignored Executive Council's resolution. (Paras 7.1, 7.3, 8)

(B) Administrative Authority - The Executive Council is the Chief Executive Authority of the University, and the Registrar must comply with its decisions - The impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the University Act. (Paras 7.3, 7.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Registrar on deputation and later absorbed by the Executive Council. Despite this, she was repatriated to her parent department, prompting her to file a petition against the order.

Findings of Court:
The court held the repatriation order illegal, reaffirming the petitioner's absorption as Deputy Registrar and directing her reinstatement.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the repatriation order and the authority of the Registrar to issue such an order post-absorption.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Executive Council's resolution to absorb the petitioner was binding, and the Registrar's actions were arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

Result: Petition allowed; repatriation order set aside.

JUDGMENT

Tribhuvan Dahtya, J.

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the office order dated 01.03.2024, Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Registrar in the respondent University, stands repatriated to her parent Department-respondent no. 3/Directorate of Secondary Education.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are, the petitioner was initially appointed as Principal, Government Senior Secondary School under the Department of Secondary Education, by way of direct recruitment, and joined as such on 22.07.2008. While working there, she made an application, dated 11.09.2020, for appointment as Deputy Registrar on deputation in the respondent University. Considering her qualification, work experience, profile and exigency of official work, the request was accepted and she was offered the post on deputation basis initially for a period of one year, extendable up to three years, vide appointment letter dated 24.09.2020, Annexure P-1. Accepting the offer, she joined the University on the post.

2.1. Sometime later, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee to fix "the responsibility of administrative lapse and examine the irregularity, if any, in respect of engagement of Dr. Veena Singh, as Deputy Registrar on deputation and Dr. Satish Kumar, Assistant Registrar on deputation basis". After examining the record and presentations made by the officials concerned, the Committee, as recorded in its minutes dated 27.03.2022, Annexure P-2, concluded as under:

    Perusal of the record produced by the University testify the facts that the officers taken (on) deputation were shortlisted by the Competent Authority, NOC was obtained from the cadre controlling authority and both the officers were found eligible to be taken on deputation in view of the qualification and experience.

    In the given scenario the committee is of considered view that there has been neither any lapse nor any infirmity in taking two officers on deputation. As per provision of University Act, Executive Council is the competent authority for granting such approval which the University sought and granted by the Executive Council.

2.2. Thereupon, the matter to consider absorption of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar was placed before the Executive Council (for short, 'EC') in its meeting held on 10.09.2022. As per minutes of the meeting, Annexure P-3, the Council resolved to approve the petitioner's absorption as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from 02.03.2021. Having been so absorbed, the petitioner continued working as Deputy Registrar.

2.3. After due absorption by the competent authority, the Vice-Chancellor sought 'No Objection Certificate'(for short, 'NOC') from the Directorate by writing a letter to the Principal Secretary, dated 06.03.2023, Annexure P-4, which reads as under:

    In continuation of letter Estt/2022/244 dated 28.02.2023,1, feel it my pleasure to inform you that the case of absorption of services in respect of Dr. Veena, Principal, GSSS Bhapora, Bhiwani (Emp. ID 078173) has been considered and approved by the Executive Council of the University in its 7th meeting vide resolution No. 08 held on 10.09.2022. The services of concerned officer considered for absorption w.e.f. 02nd March, 2021 to the post of Deputy Registrar against sanctioned post.

    In view of the above, it will be appreciated if you could kindly issue No Objection Certificate for her absorption in this University to the post of Deputy Registrar.

In response, the Directorate conveyed to the University vide letter dated 12.02.2024, Annexure P-5, that it had no objection to the petitioner's absorption as Deputy Registrar.

2.4. Despite the approval of petitioner's absorption by the EC on 10.09.2022, and no objection to the same having been conveyed by the Directorate, the Registrar, vide impugned office order dated 01.03.2024, repatriated the petitioner and relieved her to join the parent Department; the order reads as under:

    Dr. Veen

                                                                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                                1
                                                                2
                                                                3
                                                                4
                                                                5
                                                                6
                                                                7
                                                                8
                                                                9
                                                                10
                                                                11
                                                                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                                supreme today icon
                                                                logo-black

                                                                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                                                Please visit our Training & Support
                                                                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                                                qr

                                                                Scan Me!

                                                                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                                whatsapp-icon Back to top