Punjab and Haryana High Court: The present petition was filed challenging the office order dated 01-03-2024, whereby, the petitioner who was working as Deputy Registrar at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University (‘Respondent 1’), was repatriated to Directorate of Secondary Education ( ‘respondent 3’) , Tribhuvan Dahiya*, J., sets aside the impugned office order dated 01-03-2024, directing the University to treat the petitioner as Deputy Registrar with effect from 02-03-2021, in line with the Excutive Council’s resolution dated 10-09-2022. The Court held that the action of repatriation taken by the Registrar with the approval of Vice Chancellor was illegal, arbitrary and in complete derogation of the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Haryana Act, 2012 (‘the University Act’). Thus, the Court imposed costs of the litigation which were quantified as ₹1,00,000 (one lakh) to be paid by these two officers in equal terms out of their own pocket.
Background:
The petitioner was serving as the Deputy Registrar at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat, on deputation from her parent department. She sought absorption in the university’s service, and her request was approved by the Executive Council (EC) on 10-09-2022, effective from 02-03-2021. Subsequently, the Directorate issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on 12-02-2024, supporting her absorption. However, an office order dated 01-03-2024 was issued by the Registrar, under the Vice-Chancellor’s approval, repatriating the petitioner to her parent department.
Analysis:
The Court found that the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar had blatantly violated the statutory provisions of the University Act. They were tasked with upholding the decisions of the Executive Council, but they failed to adhere to the established legal framework. Their actions not only undermined the authority of the Executive Council but also disregarded the protocols governing administrative operations within the university.
The Registrar overstepped his authority by issuing the repatriation order for the petitioner, an act that should have been within the exclusive purview of the Executive Council. By bypassing this procedural norm, the Registrar violated established protocols. The Court stressed that, following the Executive Council ‘s resolution to absorb the petitioner into service, the Registrar was not authorized to issue any order concerning her repatriation. This overreach disrupted the university’s administrative integrity and ignored the Executive Council ‘s legitimate resolution.
The University’s justification for its action by submitting that there was lack of quorum in Executive Council meetings was deemed insufficient and unpersuasive. The Court noted that a meeting could have been convened with one-third of the members present, even without the three nominated members. The failure to hold a meeting despite these raised serious concerns about the University’s commitment to proper governance and transparency in its decision-making processes.
The Vice-Chancellor’s use of emergency powers was unwarranted. The Court highlighted that the Executive Council had already decided to absorb the petitioner, making the invocation of emergency powers redundant. Additionally, there was no record in the office file to indicate that the decision was made in anticipation of the EC’s approval. This misuse of emergency powers not only undermined the EC’s authority but also set a troubling precedent for administrative actions within the university.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned office order dated 01-03-2024, directing the University to treat the petitioner as Deputy Registrar with effect from 02-03-2021, in line with the EC’s resolution dated 10-09-2022. The Court further directed the respondent to relieve the petitioner from her current posting to allow her to join the University immediately. The Court also awarded costs of ₹1,00,000 to the petitioner, to be paid equally by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar (₹50,000 each) from their own pockets within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
[Veena Singh v. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 7757, decided on: 11-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate; Anshul Labana, Advocate
For Respondent: Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate for R-1
Ravinder Singh Budhwar, Addl. AG, Haryana.