AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. (Dr.) Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5, Mr.
B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 and Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for respondent no.7.
The petitioner, an applicant to the post of Assistant Professor with the first respondent-Institute, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ
of certiorari to quash the appointment order dated 21.11.2015 issued in favour of the sixth respondent appointing her as Assistant Professor (Family
Resource Management); for a declaration that the petitioner has been selected to the said post; and a mandamus directing the first respondent to issue
the letter of appointment to the petitioner in the post of Assistant Professor (Family Resource Management).
The petitioner alleges grave and serious irregularities in the selection process to the post of Assistant Professor (Family Resource Management). It
is her case that the records were manipulated to ensure that the sixth respondent was selected; and respondent nos.2 to 5 (members of the Selection
Committee) had induldged in grave and serious acts of manipulation of the records only to favour the sixth respondent.
In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the University, it is stated that the matter was investigated by a Committee, and its report was put up
before the Board of Management; the Board of Management again constituted a Sub-Committee; the recommendations of the Sub-Committee were
placed before the Board of Management for its final decision; and the Board of Management had considered the recommendations of the Sub-
Committee and had, in its meeting held on 28.11.2018, resolved to terminate the services of the sixth respondent.
Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the sixth respondent, would submit that, after the decision of the Board of
Management dated 28.11.2018, a show-cause notice was issued to the sixth respondent by the Chief Personnel Officer of the University on
01.01.2019; the sixth respondent had submitted her reply thereto on 12.01.2019; and the matter is still pending with the University.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, as a decision has already been taken by the Board of Management, the
question of now issuing a show-cause notice, and calling for a reply thereto from the sixth respondent, is only a ruse to avoid action being taken to
terminate her services, though she had secured appointment as an Assistant Professor (Family Resource Management) by manipulation of the
records.
It would be wholly inappropriate for us, at this stage when the sixth respondent has already submitted her reply to the show-cause notice issued
pursuant to the decision of the Board of Management in its meeting held on 28.11.2018, to express any opinion on merits, as the Board of
Management is now required to take a decision thereupon. As the sixth respondent is said to have submitted her reply to the show-cause notice on
12.01.2019, and as no decision has been taken pursuant thereto till date (though nearly one year has elapsed), we direct the first respondent to
consider the sixth respondent’s reply to the show-cause notice, and pass a reasoned order bearing in mind its earlier decision dated 28.11.2018,
and other records, if any. The Board of Management shall take a final decision with utmost expedition and, in any event, within a period of two months
from today.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the record, based on which such a decision was taken on 28.11.2018 by
the Board of Management, has not been made available to the petitioner. It is unnecessary for us to issue any directions in this regard, since Mr.
Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, has handed over copies of these documents both to Mr. Sandeep
Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the sixth respondent, across the
Bar during the course of hearing today. Needless to state that all the contentions urged in this Writ Petition are left open for the petitioner to agitate, if
need be, in subsequent legal proceedings.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, by 10.01.2020, on payment of the prescribed charges.