Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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