Punjab and Haryana High Court Finds Repatriation of Deputy Registrar Illegal and In Violation of University Act
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Vice Chancellor (VC) and Registrar of Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat, for unlawfully repatriating the varsity’s Deputy Registrar to the Directorate of Secondary Education [Dr. Veena Singh v. Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat and Ors].
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya deemed the decision illegal and in violation of the Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University, Haryana Act.
“The petitioner has been forced to file this petition due to illegal action taken by the Registrar with the Vice Chancellor’s approval in complete derogation of the University Act, which they are bound to protect and uphold. Accordingly, she is held entitled to costs of the litigation which are quantified as ₹1,00,000 (one lakh only),” the Court ordered.
The Court directed the VC and Registrar to pay the costs out of their own pockets, ₹50,000 each, within two weeks.
Dr. Veena Singh, appointed as a Principal of a Government Senior Secondary School in 2008, applied for the post of Deputy Registrar on deputation at the National Law University (NLU) in 2020. Her request was accepted due to her qualifications, work experience, and the official work’s urgency, leading to her absorption as Deputy Registrar after approval from the Executive Council (EC).
However, in March this year, the Registrar repatriated Singh to her parent department, the Directorate of School Education in Panchkula. She challenged this decision before the High Court.
The Court observed that once the EC decided to absorb Singh as the Deputy Registrar on a sanctioned post, she became a permanent employee of the varsity.
“The EC 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,” it added.
The Court found that the Registrar’s official note asking for Singh’s repatriation was approved by the VC the same day, and the repatriation order was issued the next day.
“The aforesaid facts establish that the affairs of the University have been run in violation of the statutory provisions. The EC is the Chief Executive Authority under the University Act. The Vice-Chancellor and other officers have been enjoined powers to ensure due observance of statutory provisions, as also decisions taken by the authorities. However, in passing the impugned order of repatriation, dated 01.03.2024, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar have arbitrarily treated the petitioner as a deputationist and ignored the decision taken by the highest executive authority approving her absorption in University service, vide Resolution dated 10.09.2022.”
The Court also noted that the Registrar claimed he acted on the VC’s directives but refused to delve into the statement’s veracity.
“Without going into the veracity of the statement made by the Registrar to the extent he attributes the recording of noting for petitioner’s repatriation to the dictates of the Vice-Chancellor, it is apparent from notings on the file that these senior-most officers, instead of exercising the administrative powers to ensure compliance of the decision taken by the EC, have acted in derogation thereof in repatriating the petitioner to the parent Department.”
The Court further criticized the “sham explanation” that the NOC issued by Singh’s parent department could not be placed before the EC due to lack of quorum and that the decision on Singh’s repatriation had to be taken in an emergency.
“The NOC was sent by the Directorate on the Vice-Chancellor’s request, vide letter dated 06.03.2023, based upon the EC approval to petitioner’s absorption as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from 02.03.2021, vide Resolution, dated 10.09.2022. The NOC, therefore, cannot have the effect of undoing the petitioner’s absorption in service, since it was sought only as a consequence thereof,” it said.
The Court ruled that the Registrar was not the competent authority to pass any order on Singh’s repatriation, as she had been absorbed in service pursuant to the EC Resolution.
“Under Section 18(6)(g) of the Act, only the Vice Chancellor has the emergency power to take a decision, which is meant to be taken by the EC, in anticipation of its approval; and such decision is to be placed before the authority in its next meeting. The impugned order was, however, passed by the Registrar by usurping the power vested in the EC, admittedly, with the approval of the Vice Chancellor,” the Court said.
The Court set aside the Registrar’s order and directed NLU Sonipat to allow Singh to join the service immediately upon being relieved from the Directorate of Secondary Education.
Senior Advocate RK Malik and Advocate Anshul Labana represented the petitioner Dr. Veena Singh. Advocate Rajesh K Sheoran represented Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University, and Additional Advocate General Ravinder Singh Budhwar represented the State.
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
