MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Legal News