Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/395/2022 on 21 February, 2023
Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
21.02.2023
MCC Review Application No. 4 of 2022
In
WPSB No. 395 of 2022
Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Mr. Sanjay Ghosh, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Rohan Mandal and Mr. Xitij Kaushik,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Joshi, proxy counsel for Mr. Subhash
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.
We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in the Review Application.
The submission of Mr. Ghosh is that firstly
there was a wrong recording in the judgment dated
04.08.2022, inasmuch as it was recorded that the
respondents had filed a detailed counter-affidavit
running into 364 pages in the writ petition earlier
preferred being WPSB No. 341 of 2022, whereas
the same had been filed in WPSB No. 450 of 2021.
In our view, the said inaccuracy recorded in
the impugned judgment, which, in fact, was even
corrected on 14.09.2022 makes no difference.
What is relevant is the fact that the respondents
had indeed filed a counter-affidavit running into
364 pages in writ proceedings inter se the parties
along with which the minutes of the 26th BOG dated
16.06.2018 were annexed, and these minutes
were, therefore, available with the petitioner, when
he preferred the present writ petition i.e. Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 395 of 2022.
Mr. Ghosh further submits that the petitioner
had filed the counter-affidavit, without the
annexures, i.e. the minutes of the 26th BOG held on
16.06.2018 as Annexure-23 along with the present
writ petition, and in Para "G" thereof, the averment
of the respondents in relation to the said minutes
dated 16.06.2018 was recorded. This, according to
the petitioner, tantamounts to sufficient disclosure
of the minutes of the 26th BOG held on 16.06.2018.
We do not find any merit in this submission.
We have taken note of the fact that the order
of termination dated 19.05.2022, in Para-5,
specifically refers to the minutes of the 26th BOG
held on 16.06.2018. Pertinently, there was no
whisper in the writ petition challenging the said
termination order in relation to the said minutes,
and the said minutes were not annexed, despite
they being in possession of the petitioner. It is on
that premise we have concluded that the petitioner
is guilty of deliberate and wilful suppression of
relevant and material facts and documents.
Mr. Ghosh has argued that a perusal of the
said minutes would show that the selection of the
petitioner as the Registrar by the Selection
Committee was, in fact, approved by the BOG in
the said meeting, and, therefore, there was no
occasion for the petitioner to suppress those
minutes. This submission of Mr. Ghosh stems from
a partial reading of the said minutes. The Board of
Governors granted approval to selection of 12
persons, including the petitioner. However, the
same minutes, soon thereafter, recorded that
complaints have been received in relation to the
candidature of the petitioner which should be
examined. The Board of Governors also resolved
that it should be also inquired as to how the
qualifications have been prescribed, and a detailed
report on that aspect should be called. It went on
to record that the process of appointment is
postponed till the aforesaid exercise is completed.
Therefore, the submission of Mr. Ghosh that
the Board of Governors had approved the selection
of the petitioner finally and unconditionally cannot
be accepted.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any
merit in this Review Application. The same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J) (Vipin Sanghi, CJ)
21.02.2023 21.02.2023
Rathour
