I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI G. NARENDAR

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

14^TH OCTOBER, 2025

WRI T PETI TI ON ( S/ B) No. 439 OF 2025

Ajay Kishor Bahuguna.

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others.

…Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned

counsel.

Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned

Additional Advocate General for the

State of Uttarakhand.

Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned

3. counsel.

JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the

learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 -

University.

2. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :

“(i) Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of Quo Warranto against Respondent No. 4, to declare such continuation on the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri, Pauri Garhwal as illegal, on the strength of appointment order dated 02-12- 2019, (Annexure no-13), and further the Respondent no 4 be removed/divested from the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri, Pauri

Garhwal forthwith;

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the appointment order dated 02-12-2019, wherein the respondent no 4 is continuing on the post of Registrar, without there being requisite qualifications to hold

the post of Registrar pursuant to advertisement dated 03-01-

2017.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no 1, to fix the responsibility of Official concerned and punish in accordance with law who permitted the wrong to perpetuate;

(iv) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

(v) Award costs of this petition to the Petitioner.”

3. The litigation, regarding the validity of the appointment of the fourth respondent, commenced in the year 2019, with his appointment as the Registrar of the third respondent-University. An inquiry came to be instituted, and post the report of the Committee, the services of the fourth respondent came to be terminated. It resulted in a Writ Petition (S/B) No. 395/2022 being instituted before this Court, and a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to reject the said Writ Petition, and Review Application (MCC No. 04/2022)

filed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 395/2022.

4. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent assailed the order of the Coordinate Bench before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No(s). 8788-8789 of 2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by judgment dated 16.04.2024, was pleased to grant the following reliefs as set-out in paragraph no. 20 of the judgment :

“20. As a consequence, we pass the following directions: -

(i) The impugned judgments dated 4th August, 2022 and 21st February, 2023 passed by the High Court are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The order dated 19th May, 2022 whereby, the services of the appellant on the post of Registrar of the Institute were terminated is also declared to be illegal and as a consequence, the same is quashed and set aside.

(iii) That the appellant shall forthwith be reinstated on the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

(iv) The respondent-Institute is left at liberty to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as per law, if so desired.”

5. It is imperative, at this juncture, to note the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 & 18. The same reads as under :

“9. Per contra, Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior counsel representing the respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the very appointment of the appellant on the post of Registrar was illegal because he did not possess the requisite qualifications as per t