WPSB/395/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2451 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
                               AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE



              WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 395 OF 2022

                             4th AUGUST, 2022

Between:

Sandeep Kumar                                 ......          Petitioner


and


G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering
& Technology, Ghurdauri and others             ......        Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Xitij Kaushik, learned counsel

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition to assail the order dated 19.05.2022, passed by

respondent No. 2, whereby his services on the post of

Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and

Technology have been terminated. The petitioner also

seeks a direction for quashing the decision of the Board

of Governors (BOG) dated 14.05.2022, in relation to

Agenda Item No. 31.3 and Agenda point No. 31.4.

Lastly, the petitioner seeks quashing of REPORT-I and

REPORT-II dated 13.01.2022, filed as Annexures 33 and

34 to the writ petition.

2) The primary contention of the petitioner is that

the termination of the petitioner's services from the post

of Registrar of the G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and

Technology is mala fide as Dr. Yashveer Singh,

Officiating Director of the said Institute, is acting mala

fide against him; that the impugned termination order

has been issued in complete breach of the principles of

natural justice and; that the respondents had earlier

instituted an enquiry by issuing a charge-sheet, inter

alia, on the ground that the appointment of the

petitioner to the post of Training and Placement Officer,

as also his appointment as a Registrar of the said

Institute were illegal and while that enquiry was still

pending, and had not attained finality, by bypassing the

enquiry, the respondents have terminated the

petitioner's services as the Registrar of the Institute

without putting the petitioner to notice, and without

granting him an opportunity to meet the allegations

against him.

3) The impugned order dated 19.05.2022 reads

as follows:

"Ref. No. 72/44/NT(R)PF/M.O./2006/2022 Date: 19.05.2022

To Sri Sandeep Kumar S/o Sri Subhash Chandra 99/1 Arya Nagar Near Great Value Hotel Rajpur Road Dehradun, Uttarakhand

Subject: Termination of your services from the post of Registrar, G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology, Pauri - Reg.

Dear Sir,

The Board of Governors (the appointing authority of Registrar) has taken a cognizance of your appointment to the post of Registrar in the institute and observed the following points:-

1. The post was advertised vide ref. No. 02/admn/2017 dated 03.02.2017. However, this advertisement was not approved by the Board of Governors (BOG).

2. The eligibility qualifications mentioned in the advertisement was 07 years of experience at the level of Deputy Registrar (Pay-band (PB)-3 in the Grade Pay (GP)-Rs. 5400) or equivalent.

3. You were having following experience at the time of your application for the post of Registrar:

CSIR, New Delhi PB-2 + GP Rs. 4200 from 11.04.1997 to 13.01.2006

GBPIET, Pauri (TPO) PB-3 + GP Rs.5400 from 13.01.2006 to 01.12.2019

AICTE, New Delhi PB-3 + GP Rs 6600 from 18.05.2010 to 23.05.2011

Delhi University PB-3 + GP Rs 7600 from 12.07.2013 to 04.11.2014

4. You were not eligible for the post of Registrar as;

(a) Service before 13.01.2006 is not countable towards eligibility for being in GP-Rs 4200 as against requirement of GP Rs 5400.

(b) Service in the post of Training and Placement Officer (TPO) cannot be counted as administrative experience as; it is an academic post as per the AICTE norms.

(c) Service in AICTE, New Delhi from 18.05.2010 to 23.05.2011 and in Delhi University, Delhi from

12.07.2013 to 04.11.2014 is countable towards experience. Therefore, a period of 02 years and 04 months is the total qualifying service experience to the post of Registrar.

5. The selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the BOG in its 26th meeting held on 16.06.2018 and an inquiry into the selection was instituted.

6. The inquiry committee was constituted by the Director of the institute, who was not authorised to do so without approval of the BOG.

7. You were appointed to the post of Registrar vide letter no.

1753/appointment/admin./2019 dated 02.12.2019 with the approval of the Chairman of BOG.

8. Your appointment was neither approved nor ratified by the BOG, till date.

In view of the above points, the BOG unanimously decided to terminate your appointment to the post of Registrar; as it was not approved by the BOG (the appointing authority) and you were not fulfilling the eligibility of 07 years of administrative experience in Deputy Director or equivalent (as you possess only 02 years & 04 months valid experience in the post with GP Rs.5400 or above). Therefore, the appointment letter no. 1753 / appointment / admin./ 2019 dated 02.12.2019 becomes null and void.

Further, the BOG decided that you will continue as Officiating Training and Placement Officer (TPO) in this institute as you were holding this temporary position on 01.12.2019 before your appointment to the post of Registrar in the institute. However, your continuation to the post of Officiating Training and Placement Officer is subject to the final decision of the BOG on the inquiry committee report constituted in this matter.

Therefore, you are required to resume your duties as Officiating Training and Placement Officer in this institute from 20.05.2022.

Director/ Member-Secretary of BOG"

4) When we heard leaned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, it appeared to us, prima facie, that the

petitioner had been wronged, inasmuch as, the

respondent Institute had issued the termination letter

dated 19.05.2022 without putting him to notice thereof.

Counsel for the respondent Institute is present, on

advance notice, and we called upon him to justify the

actions taken by the Institute at this, prima facie, stage

since the petitioner is also praying for an interim stay of

his termination. What the learned counsel for the

respondent has placed before us leads us to conclude

that the petitioner is not only not deserving any interim

relief, but the present petition itself is liable to be

dismissed on account of a deliberate and calculated

suppression of material facts and documents from the

Court. Even otherwise, we do not find any equity in

favour of the petitioner to compel us to ignore or

overlook his aforesaid omission, and to proceed to

entertain the petition.

5) Learned counsel for the respondent Institute

points out that the petitioner has deliberately not placed

on record the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board

of Governors (BOG) held on 16.06.2018, even though,

the same finds specific mention in para 5 of the

termination order. Learned counsel points out that the

petitioner had earlier preferred Writ Petition (S/B) No.

341 of 2022, titled Sandeep Kumar Vs G.B. Pant

Institute of Engineering and Technology. That petition

had earlier been preferred for the same relief, namely,

to assail the petitioner's termination vide termination

order dated 19.05.2022. In that petition, the

respondent Institute had filed a detailed counter-affidavit

running into 364 pages. Along with the counter-

affidavit, the respondent Institute had placed before the

Court the minutes of the 26th meeting of the BOG dated

16.06.2018. The petitioner withdrew the said writ

petition on 27.06.2022 with liberty to file a fresh

petition. The present petition has been filed in

continuation or in pursuance of the said order.

6) Learned counsel points out that the petitioner

was, therefore, possessed of the minutes of the 26th

meeting of the BOG dated 16.08.2018. The petitioner

has filed, along with the present petition, a copy of the

counter-affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition by the

respondent, i.e., Writ Petition No. 341 of 2022.

However, the petitioner has calculated and deliberately

withheld the said minutes of the BOG dated 16.06.2018.

He has tendered in Court a copy of the said minutes of

the meeting of the BOG dated 16.06.2018. Vide these

minutes, the BOG, inter alia, recorded the resolution that

the appointment exercise for the post of Registrar may

be kept under suspension. The case of the respondents

is that contrary to the said decision of the BOG, the

appointment of the petitioner was made to the post of

Registrar of the respondent Institute by the then

Director of the Institute Mr. M.P.S. Chauhan. Even

though the petitioner does not meet the eligibility

conditions for appointment as the Registrar of the

respondent Institute, which conditions had been

approved by the Government on 16.01.2011,

pertinently, the advertisement for appointment of the

Registrar against which the petitioner applied laid down

lower qualifications without the approval of the

Government of the lower qualifications.

7) In our view, it was absolutely essential for the

petitioner to place before this Court all the documents

referred to in the impugned termination letter dated

19.05.2022, and the omission on the part of the

petitioner to place the minutes of the 26th meeting of the

BOG dated 16.06.2018, is clearly deliberate.

8) While exercising our jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution, we act while keeping in view the

principles of equity in mind. A party who approaches the

Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court is bound

to come to the Court with clean hands while making a

full and complete disclosure of all the relevant material

facts and documents. The jurisdiction we exercise is

discretionary. The discretion is exercised keeping in

view not only the facts of the case, but also the conduct

of the parties concerned. Since the petitioner has made

a deliberate omission, inasmuch as, the petitioner did

not place before this Court the minutes of the 26th

meeting of the BOG dated 16.06.2018 which, if

produced, would have shown that the appointment of

the petitioner to the post of Registrar was made contrary

to the said minutes, we are not inclined to exercise our

writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

9) Accordingly, we dismiss this petition leaving

the parties to bear their own costs.

Stay Applications (IA No. 01 of 2022 and 02 of

2022) also stand disposed of.

________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

__________ R.C. Khulbe, J.

Dt: 04th AUGUST, 2022 Negi