Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes repatriation order, awards Rs 1 lakh costs to Dy Registrar
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, July 12
Just over four months after Dr BR Ambedkar National Law University’s Deputy Registrar Dr Veena Singh was repatriated to her parent department, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the order after ruling that she was forced to file the petition following “illegal action” by the Registrar with the Vice-Chancellor’s approval.
Petitioner treated as deputationist
The university affairs were run in violation of the statutory provisions. The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar in passing the impugned order of repatriation, arbitrarily treated the petitioner as a deputationist and ignored the decision taken by the highest executive authority. — HC
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya also held her entitled to litigation costs quantified as Rs 1 lakh. The costs were directed to be paid by the two officers in equal terms out of their pocket within two weeks of receiving the order’s certified copy. The assertion came as the Bench ruled that repatriation order was in complete derogation of the university Act “which they are bound to protect and uphold”.
Justice Dahiya observed the petitioner was appointed Deputy Registrar on deputation by the university vide letter dated September 24, 2020. No infirmity was found in her appointment made by the competent authority after obtaining no-objection certificate from the cadre controlling authority.
Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed she was eligible for the post and had the requisite experience. She was, as such, absorbed in the university as the Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from March 2, 2021, vide executive council resolution dated September 10, 2022. Her parent department – the Directorate of Secondary Education – conveyed its no objection to the petitioner’s absorption vide letter dated February 12, in response to a letter subsequently written by the Vice-Chancellor.
“Even in the face of these facts, the Registrar passed the impugned order of repatriation dated March 1, by treating the petitioner on deputation up to that date. Once the decision was taken by the executive council, the chief executive authority of the university, to absorb the petitioner as Deputy Registrar, she stood so absorbed and became a permanent employee with effect from March 2, 2021. The executive council resolution to that effect was never modified or recalled at any stage. Accordingly, there was no occasion for the Registrar to treat the petitioner on deputation, and repatriate her to the parent department,” Justice Dahiya said.
Referring to the facts of the matter, Justice Dahiya added the university affairs were run in violation of the statutory provisions. The executive council was the chief executive authority under the university Act. The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar in passing the impugned order of repatriation, arbitrarily treated the petitioner as a deputationist and ignored the decision taken by the highest executive authority approving her absorption in university service.
