Karnataka High Court Revises Land Compensation for Hassan-Bengaluru Railway Line: Market Value Fixed at ₹200/sq. ft.; Additional Compensation for Trees Granted Right to Lead Defence Evidence Cannot Be Weaponized to Delay Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court Slams Abuse of Adjournments Juvenile Status Protects Against Service Termination for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case: Delhi High Court Jharkhand High Court Quashes Removal of BCCL Employee Over Impersonation Charges: Orders 50% Back Wages and Consequential Benefits NDPS | False Allegations Can Ruin Lives, and Punishment Must Be Proportionate: Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail Allahabad High Court Upholds ₹15 Lakh Permanent Alimony; Rejects Husband's Appeal for Reduction and Wife's Claim for Enhancement Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC cannot be a tool for fishing expeditions: Calcutta High Court Landlord Aged 65 Or Above Has A Statutory Right To Immediate Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court enforces Section 10C of Rent Control Act Economic Offences Require Stricter Scrutiny: Chhattisgarh High Court Denied Bail in Mahadev Online Book Case Second Application for Commission Barred by Res Judicata: Bombay High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Manual Laborers Like Masons Deserve Realistic Compensation for Disability Hindering Work: Supreme Court Paternity Cannot Be Challenged If Legitimacy is Presumed Under Section 112 of Evidence Act; DNA Test Cannot Be Ordered Without Prima Facie Case: Supreme Court FIR Not Quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules Criminal Investigation Necessary in Real Estate Fraud Allegations Orissa High Court Quashes ST Certificate Cancellation; Orders Reconsideration Under 2023 Rules Sale Deed Invalid After Revocation of Power of Attorney: Madras High Court Supreme Court Declares WhatsApp Service of Notices Invalid Under Notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS

Repatriation of Deputy Registrar Arbitrary and Without Jurisdiction: Punjab and Haryana High Court directing immediate reinstatement of Dr. Veena Singh

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the repatriation order of Dr. Veena Singh, who was serving as Deputy Registrar at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat. The court ordered her immediate reinstatement, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the repatriation and the failure to adhere to statutory provisions.

Dr. Veena Singh was appointed as Principal at Government Senior Secondary School under the Department of Secondary Education through direct recruitment on July 22, 2008. On September 24, 2020, she was deputed as Deputy Registrar to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University. Her appointment was initially for one year, extendable up to three years. Following satisfactory service and a recommendation from the Executive Council, she was absorbed as a permanent employee on March 2, 2021. Despite this, an order dated March 1, 2024, repatriated her back to her parent department, which she challenged in court.

The High Court noted that the initial deputation and subsequent absorption of Dr. Veena Singh were conducted following due process. "No infirmity was found in her appointment by the competent authority after obtaining NOC from the cadre controlling authority," the judgment states. The Executive Council's resolution dated September 10, 2022, which permanently absorbed Dr. Singh, was never modified or recalled.

The court observed that the repatriation order was passed arbitrarily, treating Dr. Singh as still on deputation despite her absorption as a permanent employee. "The decision taken by the highest executive authority, approving her absorption in University service, was overruled and violated by the Registrar, under orders of the Vice-Chancellor," the judgment noted.

The court emphasized that the Executive Council (EC) is the chief executive authority of the university and has all necessary powers to administer the institution. The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar are bound to comply with the EC's decisions. The impugned order was passed without the necessary approval from the EC and was therefore deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. The court highlighted that even in the absence of three nominated members, a meeting could have been held as the quorum required is one-third of the EC members.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya remarked, "The impugned order of repatriation, dated 01.03.2024, has arbitrarily treated the petitioner as a deputationist, ignoring the decision taken by the highest executive authority approving her absorption in University service."

The High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and respecting the decisions of the Executive Council in university administration. The ruling mandates the immediate reinstatement of Dr. Veena Singh as Deputy Registrar and directs the university to allow her to resume duties without delay. The court also awarded litigation costs of ₹1,00,000, to be paid by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar from their own pockets, reflecting the gravity of the procedural lapses.

Date of Decision: July 11, 2024

Dr. Veena Singh vs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similar News