Background: Dr. Veena Singh, initially appointed as a Principal at a Government Senior Secondary School under the Directorate of Secondary Education in 2008, applied for the post of Deputy Registrar at NLU Sonipat in 2020. Considering her qualifications and experience, her deputation request was accepted for a year, extendable up to three years. Later, she was absorbed as the Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post after approval from the University's Executive Council (EC).
Controversial Repatriation: In March 2024, the Registrar, with the VC’s approval, repatriated Singh to her parent department in Panchkula. Singh challenged this decision in the High Court, which observed that the EC's resolution to absorb her as a permanent employee was neither modified nor recalled. Therefore, the Registrar had no authority to treat her as on deputation or to repatriate her.
Court’s Observations: The Court noted that the Registrar’s note for repatriation was approved by the VC the same day, and the repatriation order was issued the following day. This quick succession of actions indicated a violation of statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that the EC is the chief executive authority under the University Act, and the VC and Registrar failed to ensure compliance with the EC’s decision.
Registrar’s Defense and Court’s Rejection: The Registrar claimed he acted under the VC’s directives. However, the Court did not delve into this claim’s veracity but noted the senior officers’ failure to uphold the EC’s resolution. It criticized the officers for usurping the EC’s powers and acting without jurisdiction.
False Justification for Emergency Decision: The Court dismissed the explanation that Singh’s repatriation was an emergency decision due to the lack of quorum for the EC meeting. It clarified that the NOC from Singh’s parent department, sought at the VC’s request, did not override her absorption as Deputy Registrar.
Illegal and Without Jurisdiction: Under the University Act, only the VC has emergency powers to take decisions on behalf of the EC, subject to later approval by the EC. The Court found no evidence that the VC exercised these powers. Thus, it declared the repatriation order illegal and without jurisdiction.
Conclusion and Penalty: The Court quashed the repatriation order and directed NLU Sonipat to reinstate Singh immediately. It imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the VC and Registrar, to be paid from their personal funds, for their illegal actions. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring adherence to statutory provisions and protecting the rights of employees.
Legal Representation: Senior Advocate RK Malik and Advocate Anshul Labana represented Dr. Veena Singh. Advocate Rajesh K Sheoran represented NLU Sonipat, and Additional Advocate General Ravinder Singh Budhwar represented the State.
Impact: This judgment sends a strong message about the adherence to legal and statutory frameworks within educational institutions. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding the rights of employees against arbitrary administrative actions. The directive for personal liability of the VC and Registrar is a significant move, underscoring accountability at the highest administrative levels.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.