HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Decided on 05.12.2025 ****

Monika ... Petitioner VS.

Central University of Haryana, Mahendergarh & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar, Mr. Mukul Malik, Advocates for petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Puneet Gupta and Anil Rana, Advocates for respondent No.1 to 3 Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Sr.Advocate with Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate for respondent No.5 ****

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

(1). The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P13) as well as the order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P15) vide which the services of the petitioner have been ordered to be terminated. A further direction is sought to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to her substantive position as Professor and Head, Deptt. Of Law, and as Dean, School of Law along with consequential benefits including arrears with interest.

(2). In pursuance to the Advertisement No. CUH/4/T/R/2019 dated 11.09.2019, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Professor on 23.12.2019 and as Head, Deptt. Of Law, CUH, Mahendergarh on 25.08.2021 for a period of 3 years. In the meantime, the petitioner was appointed as Dean, School of Law for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 18.03.2023 which was going to expire on 17.03.2026. The petitioner was even promoted to the post of Professor vide order dated 07.06.2024 (Annexure P2) w.e.f. 27.12.2022 (Annexure P4).

(3). A Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 29545 of 2023 (Pardeep Singh v. UOI) was filed challenging the selection of the petitioner as well as one DPS Punia (petitioner in connected writ petition). An interim order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P5) was passed staying their appointments and emoluments. In the meantime, the petitioner was removed the post of Dean as well as Head, Deptt. Of Law on vide order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexures P7 to P9). Later, 17.02.2025, the writ petition was disposed of in view of the stand taken by the University. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P11) as the respondents did not stood by the selection of the petitioner being not in accordance with law. Instead of reinstating the petitioner, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure P13) alleging ineligibility due to lack of teaching experience. The petitioner filed CWP-7352-2025 challenging the show cause notice which was subsequently withdrawn on 15.05.2025 since her services were terminated on

07.05.2025 (Annexure P16). Hence this writ petition.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire action of unsettling her appointment as Associate Professor is founded on conjecture rather than proof, since the Executive Council has not brought on record any material evidence to show that she exercised undue influence over the screening process or manipulated her selection in any manner. On the contrary, her service record and experience clearly establish that, on the date of selection, she possessed the requisite teaching experience and fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the applicable UGC Regulations, and this position stood reinforced when she was subsequently appointed as Dean and Head, Deptt of Law and later on promoted as Professor on 07.06.2024 without any reservation that such benefits were subject to the outcome of any pending litigation.

(5). Additionally, the proceedings are vitiated for want of competence and for breach of statutory safeguards, since under the applicable Ordinance the disciplinary authority in respect of a Professor is the Vice-Chancellor acting with the approval of the Executive Council, whereas in the present case the show-cause notice and consequential orders have emanated from the Registrar, without prior approval of the Ex