Delhi High Court
Ajitkumar Thakur vs Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences And ... on 31 May, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.05.2024
+ W.P.(C) 8215/2024
AJITKUMAR THAKUR ..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES AND
RESEARCH UNIVERSITY DPSRU AND ORS
.... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Yashvardhan, Ms. Smita Kant, Ms.
Kritika Nagpal and Mr. Gyanendra
Shukla, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Shashank
Singh, Advocates for R-3 and 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8215/2024 & CM APPL. 33675/2024 (Stay)
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:-
"(a) to issue I an appropriate writ in the nature of
certiorari by quashing and setting aside the impugned
show cause notice dated 06.05.2024 passed by the
Respondent No.1 and declare the appointment of the
petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in
consonance with the relevant rules / provisions /
applicable norms as notified by the competent authority;
(b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or
direction directing the respondents to afford an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner;
(c) grant pr6tection after the order is passed by the
respondents for a period of 30 days from the said date,
allowing the Petitioner to take appropriate steps for
redressal of his grievance as given in similar case
bearing W.P. (C) No. 6946/2024 (Annexure P-14).
(d) issue any other writ/ direction that this Hon'ple Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts of this case."
4. The controversy in the present writ petition is similar to the one
which had been raised before this Court in the case of Dr. Minakshi
Garg vs. Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University &
Ors [W.P.(C) No. 6853/2024], as also Dr. Harvinder Popli vs. Delhi
Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University & Ors [W.P.(C) No.
6946/2024]. Both of which were disposed of on 14.05.2024 and
15.05.2024 respectively.
5. Without going into the merits as were noted in the previous
judgements, suffice it to state that in the present case, the petitioner has
already tendered her detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated
06.05.2024. The relevant paragraphs in terms of judgment of this Court
in Dr. Harvinder Popli (supra) as noted above and applicable to the
petitioner are as under:
"10...In view of the fact that the petitioner was in service of
the respondent for a period of eight years, it would be just
and appropriate to grant protection post the order to be
passed by the Competent Authority for a period of 10 days
from the said date for the petitioner to take appropriate
steps for redressal of her grievance.
11. It is informed that the time to file the reply to the show
cause notice is expiring on 16.05.2024. The petitioner is
therefore granted ten days time to file her substantive reply.
The Competent Authority is directed to consider the reply
holistically taking into consideration that the petitioner
was in fact employed by the University previously as also
the fact that after having verified each and every
document and testimonies the petitioner was confirmed in
the year 201. The Competent Authority shall afford an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The date,
time and venue will be intimated well in advance."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Since the issues raised in the present writ petition are similar to
the ones which have been raised earlier in the judgements noted above,
apart from the directions being made applicable to the present
petitioners too, the petitioner would also be granted the same protection
of 10 days post the order to be passed by the Competent Authority to
enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of her
grievances.
7. With the above observation the petition is disposed of with no
order as to costs. Pending application also stands disposed of.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
MAY 31, 2024/Aj
