Aj ay Kishor Bahuguna v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot hers

Heard t he learned counsel for t he pet it ioner, and t he learned St anding Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 - Universit y.

2. The pet it ioner has sought for t he following reliefs : I ssue a Writ order or direct ion in t he nat ure of Quo “ ( i) Warrant o against Respondent No. 4, t o declare such cont inuat ion on t he post of Regist rar of G.B. Pant I nst it ut e of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri, Pauri Garhwal as illegal, on t he st rengt h of appoint m ent order dat ed 02- 12- 2019, ( Annexure no- 13) , and furt her t he Respondent no 4 be rem oved/ divest ed from t he post of Regist rar of G.B. Pant I nst it ut e of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri, Pauri Garhwal fort hwit h; I ssue a writ order or direct ion in t he nat ure of cert iorari ( ii) for quashing t he appoint m ent order dat ed 02- 12- 2019, wherein t he respondent no 4 is cont inuing on t he post of Regist rar, wit hout t here being requisit e qualificat ions t o hold 1 t he post of Regist rar pursuant t o advert isem ent dat ed 03- 01- 2017. I ssue a writ order or direct ion ( iii) t he nat ure of m andam us com m anding t he respondent no 1, t o fix t he responsibilit y of Official concerned and punish in accordance wit h law who perm it t ed t he wrong t o perpet uat e; ( iv) Pass any ot her order( s) as t his Hon'ble Court m ay deem fit and proper in t he circum st ances of t he case; ( v) Award cost s of t his pet it ion t o t he Pet it ioner.”

3. The lit igat ion, regarding t he validit y of t he appoint m ent of t he fourt h respondent , com m enced in t he year 2019, wit h his appoint m ent as t he Regist rar of t he t hird respondent - Universit y. An inquiry cam e t o be inst it ut ed, and post t he report of t he Com m it t ee, t he services of t he fourt h respondent cam e t o be t erm inat ed. I t result ed in a Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 395/ 2022 being inst it ut ed before t his Court , and a Coordinat e Bench of t his Court was pleased t o rej ect t he said Writ Pet it ion, and Review Applicat ion ( MCC No. 04/ 2022) filed in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 395/ 2022.

4. Aggrieved, t he fourt h respondent assailed t he order of t he Coordinat e Bench before t he Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP( C) No( s) . 8788- 8789 of 2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court , by j udgm ent dat ed 16.04.2024, was pleased t o grant t he following reliefs as set - out in paragraph no. 20 of t he j udgm ent : “ 20. As a consequence, we pass t he following direct ions: - 2 ( i) The im pugned j udgm ent s dat ed 4t h August , 2022 and 21st February, 2023 passed by t he High Court are quashed and set aside. ( ii) The order dat ed 19t h May, 2022 whereby, t he services of t he appellant on t he post of Regist rar of t he I nst it ut e were t erm inat ed is also declared t o be illegal and as a consequence, t he sam e is quashed and set aside. ( iii) That t he appellant shall fort hwit h be reinst at ed on t he post of Regist rar of G.B. Pant I nst it ut e of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri. He shall be ent it led t o all consequent ial benefit s. ( iv) The respondent - I nst it ut e t o conduct disciplinary proceedings against t he appellant as per law, if so desired.” left at libert y

5. I t is im perat ive, at t his j unct ure, t o not e t he observat ions of t he Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 & 18. The sam e reads as under : t he subm issions advanced by “ 9. Per cont ra, Shr i Am it Anand Tiwari, learned Senior counsel represent ing t he respondent s, vehem ent ly and fervent ly opposed t he appellant ’s counsel. He urged t hat t he very appoint m ent of t he appellant on t he post of Regist rar was illegal because he did not possess t he requisit e qualificat ions as t here was no t hus, urged requirem ent t o hold a regular enquiry before t erm inat ing t he services of t he appellant . His cont ent ion was t hat t he appellant concealed a vit al docum ent in t he writ pet it ion filed before t he High Court and t hus, he was not ent it led t o equit able relief in t he ext raordinary writ j urisdict ion. rules. He t hat t he

10. However, Shri Tiw ari was not t o disput e t he fact t hat before im posing t he m aj or penalt y of t erm inat ion of service upon t he appellant , no disciplinary enquiry was conduct ed by t he aut horit ies. in a posit ion

12. The im pugned j udgm ent rej ect ing t he writ pet it ion of t he appellant is prem ised purely on t he fact t hat t he appellant failed t o place on record t he m inut es of t he 26t h m eet ing of t he Board of Governors dat ed 16t h June, 2018, which are referred t o in t he t erm inat ion let t er dat ed 19t h May, 2022. The Division Bench of High Court held t hat t he appoint m ent of t he pet it ioner ( appellant herein) t o t he post of Regist rar was m ade cont rary t o t he rules. We are afraid t hat t hese observat ions of t he Division Bench are not fort ified from t he m inut es of t he m eet ing dat ed 16t h t hese m inut es would have shown t hat 3 June, 2018 which have been placed on record by t he appellant in t hese appeals. For t he sake of ready reference,

13. t he relevant excerpt s of t he m inut es of m eet ing dat ed 16t h June, 2018 ( Annexure P- 8) are reproduced hereinbelow: - “ 26.08: Approval of t he recom m endat ions/ m inut es t he of various Select ion Com m it t ee dat ed 01/ Adm n/ Advert isem ent 03.01.2017 on t he advert isem ent no. 01 / facult y / 2013 – 14 dat ed 08.06.2013 of t he t eaching st aff in reference t o 25t h m eet ing of t he Adm inist rat ive Council and t he Hon’ble High Court . No. t he nont eaching post s and regarding 2017 As per rule of t he College Byelaws, t he envelopes of t he recom m endat ions/ m inut es of t he Select ion Com m it t ee was t he Adm inist rat ive Council and t he recom m endat ions and t he m inut es of t he Select ion Com m it t ee were approved as per below: - opened

3. Viv ek S. No. 1. Nam e of t he Candidat e Dr Mahipal Singh Chauhan Dr Harv endra Singh Bhadoria Mr. Kum ar Tam t a Mr. Papendra Kum ar Dr. Tej yan Mr. Cham oli Mr. Ravikant Ravi Mr. Chandraveer Mr. Suresh Chandra Phulera 10. Mr. Divyesh Sharm a Sachin Sunil

6. t he Nam e Depart m ent Civil Engineering Professor General Nam e t he Post Cat egory Com put er Science Engineering Associat e Professor General - do- - do- Mechanical Engineering - do- - do- - do- Assist ant Professor - do- - do- - do- - do- - do- SC SC General General SC SC Biot echnology - do- General Civil Engineering - do- General

11. Mr. MCA - do- General Siddharat ha Chansela 1 2 . M r . A d m i n i st r a t i o n Re g i st r a r Ge n e r a l Sa n d e e p K u m a r * As a result of t he select ion of Shri Lalt a Prasad, Assist ant Professor ( Scheduled Cast e) in NI T Shri 4 Nagar, if he resigns/ gives VRS from t he post j oining t here, t he appoint m ent let t er m ay be issued t o Shri t his post . A num ber of Chandraveer against com plaint s have been t he candidat e select ed for t he post of Regist rar. Their inquiry m ust 7 be carried out . How t he norm s of select ion have been fixed, t he det ailed report be subm it t ed. The proceedings of t he appoint m ent be st ayed unt il t he next order.” regarding received t o scrut inize I n pursuance of t he so called com plaint ( s) , a t hree 15. m em ber com m it t ee was const it ut ed t he docum ent s and qualificat ions/ t est im onials of t he appellant vide order dat ed 26t h June, 2019 ( Annexure P- 36) . The com m it t ee subm it t ed it s report ( Annexure P- 37) on 11t h July , 2019 finding all t he docum ent s of t he appellant t o be genuine and in order. I t also opined t hat t he appellant fulfilled t he eligibilit y crit erion for being appoint ed on t he post of Regist rar.

16. A let t er dat ed 10t h Novem ber, 2019 ( Annexure P- 9) was issued by t he Mem ber Secret ary, Board of Governors of t he I nst it ut e addr essed t o t he m em bers of t he Board of Governors including t he Hon’ble Chief Minist er, Minist er of Technical Educat ion ( Chairm an of t he I nst it ut ion) and t he t he Addit ional Chief Secret ary ( Vice Chairm an of t he I nst it ut ion) seeking perusal and approval of recom m endat ions of t he Select ion Com m it t ee and t o direct t he Mem ber Secret ary, Board of Governors t o issue t he appoint m ent let t er in favour of appellant .

17. Act ing in furt herance of t he said let t er and t he approval grant ed by t he com pet ent aut horit ies, an appoint m ent let t er dat ed 2nd Decem ber, 2019 ( Annexure P- 10) was issued and t he appellant j oined services on t he post of Regist rar. As per t he ext ract ed port ion of t he appoint m ent let t er ( supra) , t he appellant was placed on probat ion for a period of one year which was ext endable for anot her year in case, t he perform ance during t he first year was found t o be unsat isfact ory. Clause ( b) furt her provided t hat during probat ion, services of t he incum bent m ay be t erm inat ed wit hout assigning any reason by giving one m ont h’s not ice or pay in lieu t hereof. There is no disput e on t he appellant had sat isfact orily worked on t he post of Regist rar in t he I nst it ut e for nearly t wo years and t hus, apparent ly he com plet ed t he probat ion period w it hout dem ur. t he aspect t hat

18. On a bare perusal of t he t erm inat ion let t er dat ed 19t h May, 2022, it becom es apparent t hat t he decision t o t erm inat e t he services of t he appellant from t he post of Regist rar was not preceded by an opport unit y t o show cause or any sort of disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry as referred t o in t he t erm inat ion let t er was in relat ion t o t he qualificat ions of t he appellant for being appoint ed on 5 t he post of Regist rar. The let t er furt her indicat es t hat t he select ion t o t he post of Regist rar was not approved by t he Board of Governors in it s 26t h m eet ing dat ed 16t h June, 2018. The said observat ion in t he let t er dat ed 19t h May, 2022 is t ot ally erroneous and cont radict ed by t he m inut es of t he m eet ing dat ed 16t h June, 2018.( reproduced supra)

6. A reading of t he above would dem onst rat e t hat t he Hon’ble Apex Court has already negat ed t he cont ent ion t hat t here was no confirm at ion of t he appoint m ent by t he Board of Governors. I t is t he case of t he pet it ioner t hat , pursuant t o t he rem and, t he Universit y again inst it ut ed an inquiry, whereby t he fourt h respondent was placed under suspension, and which order of suspension cam e t o be st ayed by a Coordinat e Bench of t his Court in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 35/ 2025.

7. On a query, learned counsel for t he respondent - Universit y would subm it t hat t he enquiry is pending, and a charge- sheet has already been issued.

8. Thus, it is apparent t hat t he law has been set in m ot ion, and t he Universit y/ em ployer appears t o have exercised t he libert y reserved by t he Hon’ble Apex Court . I n fact , t he pet it ioner would go one st ep furt her and subm it t hat again an order of dism issal has been passed. The veracit y of t his st at em ent is it self in quest ion.

9. Despit e t he law having been set in m ot ion, and despit e t his Court having int ervened and st ayed t he order 6 of suspension, we find one m ore Writ Pet it ion seeking for issuance of a writ of quo warrant o. Though t he fact s are disclosed, yet we find t hat t his is a clear case of t he abuse of t he process of t he Court .

10. The inst ant Writ Pet it ion, despit e t he direct ions of t he Hon’ble Apex Court , set t ing aside t he order of rem oval, and direct ing t he reinst at em ent of t he fourt h respondent , and grant ing libert y t o t he Universit y/ em ployer t o cont inue wit h t he enquiry, if any, t he present Writ Pet it ion is clearly an act of overreach. There being a clear direct ion from t he Hon’ble Apex Court , reserving libert y only t o t he Universit y/ em ployer t o carry forward t he process, t he inst ant Writ Pet it ion is clearly vit iat ed by m ala fides, and appears t o be an at t em pt t o creat e a supervening circum st ance, and nullify t he int erim relief grant ed by a Coordinat e Bench.

11. This Bench had clearly indicat ed t o t he pet it ioner’s counsel t hat t he pet it ion lacks bona fides, and it was also point ed out t o t he pet it ioner’s counsel t hat t his Court would not be sit t ing in appeal over t he j udgm ent of t he Hon’ble Apex Court . I n fact aft er a few m inut es of hearing it was also clearly indicat ed t o t he pet it ioner’s counsel t hat cost would be im posed, and t hat t he cost would be an exem plary cost , and in fact cert ain figures 7 were also m ent ioned t o t he pet it ioner’s counsel. Despit e t he sam e, t he pet it ioner’s counsel cont inued wit h represent at ion and dem anded t hat t he subm issions be considered.

12. Pet it ioner’s counsel would place reliance on Annexure No. 10 dat ed 26.06.2019, Annexure No. 11 dat ed

11.07.2019, Annexure No. 13 dat ed 02.12.2019, Annexure No. 14 dat ed 20.09.2021, Annexure No. 15 – t he inquiry report dat ed 18.11.2021 and Annexure No. 16 dat ed

11.12.2021. We have recorded t he dat es for a part icular purpose. All t hese dat es are prior t o t he dat e of t he j udgm ent of t he Hon’ble Apex Court i.e. 16.04.2024. The issues have been canvassed before t he Hon’ble Apex Court , which is dem onst rat ed by a reading of t he paragraphs culled out hereinabove. Despit e t he sam e being point ed out , t he counsel for t he pet it ioner insist ed t hat t he m at t er be heard and despit e t his Bench expressing t hat it is not inclined t o sit in appeal over t he j udgm ent of t he Hon’ble Apex Court , t he pet it ioner’s counsel cont inued wit h t he subm issions and, in t he course of t he subm issions, it was also subm it t ed t hat a Review Pet it ion of t he order dat ed

16.04.2024 of t he Hon’ble Apex Court has also been filed. 8 I f t hat be so, t hen t he inst ant Writ Pet it ion is a clear case of abuse of t he process of Court .

13. I n t hat view of t he m at t er, t he Writ Pet it ion is dism issed wit h exem plary cost , wit h cost quant ified at Rupees Five Lakhs. The cost shall be deposit ed int o t he account of t he Ut t arakhand St at e Legal Services Aut horit y wit hin six weeks, failing which t he Regist rar General shall init iat e appropriat e proceedings t o recover t he cost s. As a sequel t heret o, t he m iscellaneous pet it ions, if any pending, shall st and closed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 14 t h Oct ober, 2025 Rahul RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e 66e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A 192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C 28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI 9