Mehta, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals are directed against the judgments dated 4th August, 2022 and 21st February, 2023 passed by the learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022 and MCC Review Application No. 4 of 2022 in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022, respectively.

3. The learned Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court, vide judgment dated 4th August, 2022 dismissed the Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022 filed by the appellant herein under Article 226 of Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.16 16:28:33 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified the Constitution of India for assailing the order dated 19th May, 2022 passed by respondent No.2 terminating the services of the appellant on the post of Registrar of respondent No.1- G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology (hereinafter being referred as ‘Institute’).

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4th August, 2022, the appellant filed a review application being MCC Review Application No. 4 of 2022 in Writ Petition(S/B) No. 395 of 2022 which too was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court vide its judgment dated 21st February, 2023. These two judgments are assailed in the present set of appeals.

5. Learned Division Bench of High Court held that the appellant herein did not place on record the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors held on 16th June, 2018 which were referred to in the termination letter dated 19th May, 2022 and that this non disclosure tantamounted to suppression of material facts warranting dismissal of the writ petition solely on that ground.

6. Shri Gautam Narayan, learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the failure of the petitioner (appellant herein) to place on record the aforesaid minutes was neither intentional nor malafide. He referred to the minutes of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018 placed on record of the instant appeals as Annexure P-8 and urged that as a matter of fact, these minutes support the case of the appellant because the Board of Governors of the Institute approved the recommendations of the Selection Committee, and thereby, selected the appellant as the Registrar of the Institute.

7. He further drew the Court’s attention to the appointment letter (Annexure P-10) dated 2nd December, 2019 wherein, it is indicated that the appellant was being appointed on the post of the Registrar on probation for a period of one year. He urged that the appellant continued to satisfactorily serve as the Registrar of the Institute for a period of nearly two years and hence, his services were deemed to have been automatically regularized in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of the appointment letter, which are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -

“(a) You will be on probation for a period of one year; however it may be extended for another year in case performance is not found to be satisfactory. No further extension on probation will be given.

(b) During probation your service may be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month notice or pay in lieu thereof. Similarly, you may give one month notice period or pay salary equivalent to one month notice to be relieved from institute.”

8. Learned counsel urged that before taking the action of terminating the services of the appellant, neither any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity to show cause was given to the appellant and merely on the ipse dixit of respondent No.2, the services of the appellant were terminated. He urged that the impugned order, whereby the learned Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on a purely technical ground i.e. non-placing of relevant document on record, is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeals and set aside the impugned orders and direct reinstatement of the appellant on the post of Registrar.