WPSB/386/2012 of DR. MEETA SHUKLA TEWARI Vs HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY and ORS on 31 December 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 386 of 2012 (S/B)

…..Petitioner.

Dr. Meeta Shukla Tewari

Versus

Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University and others.

.…..Respondents

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sonia Chawla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J.Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J.

Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)

The matter has been decided by the Vice Chancellor of H.N.B. Garhwal University. There is no dispute that the disputes, which were referred to his decision, could be referred and he had the authority under the law to decide the same. It appears that he has decided the same by the order dated 9[th] October, 2012. The order dated 9[th] October 2012, however, does not give any reason, why the petitioner should be treated as junior to respondent no. 4. It is contended that the matter was referred to some committee and that committee made some recommendation and that recommendation was accepted while passing the order. The fact remains that the decision rendered was to be rendered by the Vice Chancellor. If he had taken the assistance of anyone in the matter for arriving at the decision, be that of a committee or a group of people, the order passed should have demonstrated application of mind, as reflected by giving reasons for the purpose of declaring that the petitioner is junior to respondent no. 4. That having not been done, the impugned order dated 9[th] October 2012, is set aside; the matter is again remitted back to the Vice Chancellor, who, we think, now shall discharge his statutory obligation of passing an order in the manner the same is required to be passed, i.e. giving reasons in support thereof.

2. Let the above exercise be completed as quickly as possible, but not later than one month from the date of service of a copy of this order upon him.

3. The writ petition is disposed of.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.12.2012 31.12.2012 Rathour