Uttarakhand High Court
Kumaun University vs Nandan Singh Dev And Another on 20 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 323 OF 2023
20TH SEPTEMBER, 2023
Kumaun University, Nainital
and others ...... Appellants
Versus
Nandan Singh Dev and another ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for
respondent No. 1
: Mr. Yashpal Singh, proxy counsel
on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Garg,
learned counsel for respondent No.
2- UPNL
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2023
Issue notice.
2) Learned counsels appear and accept notice on
behalf of the respondents.
3) By this application, the appellants seek
condonation of 46 day's delay in filing the special appeal.
2
4) Since the delay is not much, the same is not
fairly opposed by the respondents. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated in the delay condonation application, the
same is allowed. Delay in filing the special appeal is
condoned.
Special Appeal No. 323 of 2023
5) The challenge in the present appeal is to the
interim order dated 17.03.2023, which has been corrected
on 13.06.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 351 of 2023. By the impugned
order dated 17.03.2023, it has been directed that the writ
petitioner / respondent No. 1 shall be permitted to work, if
any other employee is being permitted to work, engaged
through U.P.N.L.
6) The case of the respondent No. 1 / writ
petitioner was that he was employed as a contractual
worker on 22.12.2001. His contractual employment
continued. During the said contractual employment, the
petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section
420, 468, 471, 120B IPC, which was registered as Criminal
Case No. 1482 of 2013, titled "State Vs Nandan Singh
Dev". Respondent No. 1 was convicted by the trial court
for the offences under Section 420 and 120B IPC on
22.07.2019. However, his criminal appeal No. 93 of 2019,
3
was allowed by the learned Additional District and Civil
Judge, Nainital. After his acquittal, respondent No. 1
approached the appellants to be restored in his contractual
employment. Since no action was taken on the said
request, he preferred Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1044 of 2022
before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of with a
direction to the appellants to examine the claim of the
respondent / writ petitioner, and pass an appropriate order
within six weeks, vide order dated 14.06.2022.
7) The respondents (appellants herein) then
passed the order dated 02.11.2022, which reads as
follows:
"dqekÅW fo'ofo|ky;] uSuhrky ¼mRrjk[k.M½
KUMAUN UNIVERSITY, NAINITAL (UTTARAKHAND)
i=kad%& lk0@ihbZvkj@2022@816 fnukad % 02-11-2022
dk;kZy; Kki
Jh uUnu flag nso iq= Jh uSu flag] irk& lat; uxj] ua0&02] fcUnq[kRrk] ykydqvkW ds }kjk
fnukad% 22-06-2022 dks fo'ofo|ky; dks izR;kosnu izLrqr dj ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk fjV
la0&WPSS-1044/2022 fn0& 14-06-2022 dks fuxZr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa fo0fo0 esa lafonk
dkfeZd ds :Ik esa iqu% fu;qDr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA
Jh uUnu flag nso iwoZ esa prqFkZ Js.kh lafonk dehZ ds rkSj ij dk;Zjr jgs gSA lafonk dehZ dh
dksbZ lsok 'krsZ fu/kkZfjr ugha gS vkSj fu;qfDr furkar vLFkk;h gksrh gSA
mRrjk[k.M 'kklu ds dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 ds 'kklukns'k la[;k&
111¼1½@XXX¼2½@2018&30¼12½@2018 nsgjknwu] fnukad% 27-04-2018 ds }kjk lafonk ij fu;qfDr fd;s
tkus ij jksd yxkrs gq, ,slh fu;qfDr djus okys vf/kdkjh ds osru@isa'ku ls olwyh ds funsZ'k gSA
vr% mDr ds n`f"Vxr izkFkhZ Jh uUnu flag nso iq= Jh uSu flag] irk& lat; uxj] ua0&02]
fcUnq[kRrk] ykydqWvk dks iqu% lafonk ij rSukr djuk laHko ugha gSA vr% rnuqlkj izR;kosnu dk
fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA
4
¼fnus'k pUnzk½
dqylfpo
izfrfyfi%
¼1½ Jh uUnu flag nso] iq= Jh uSu flag] irk& lat; uxj] ua0&02] fcUnq[kRrk] ykydqWvkA
¼2½ futh lfpo dqyifr dks dqyifr th ds voyksdukFkZA
¼3½ vfHkys[k i=koyhA
¼fnus'k pUnzk½
dqylfpo"
8) The aforesaid order would show that the reason
for the non-employment of respondent No. 1 on
contractual basis disclosed by the appellants was that
there was a Government Order dated 27.04.2018, which
imposed the ban on contractual employments, and it
further directed that the officer who resorts to contractual
employment shall have to bear the salary and pension of
such an appointee.
9) Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 /
writ petitioner preferred the writ petition, wherein the
impugned order has been passed.
10) We find that the learned Single Judge has not
considered the reason disclosed by the appellants for the
rejection of the representation of respondent No. 1. The
impugned orders are completely unreasoned and,
therefore, cannot sustain. They, in effect, grant the final
relief at the interim stage, which should normally not be
5
done. We, accordingly, set aside the same. The special
appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
11) We have also heard learned counsels on the
merits of the writ petition, and it is clear to us that the
rejection of the representation of respondent No. 1 / writ
petitioner was completely justified. When the respondent's
contractual employment was terminated, there was a good
reason for the same. It cannot be said that the same was
arbitrary, whimsical, or mala fide. We have serious doubt
that, mere exoneration of respondent No. 1 of the criminal
charge levelled against him, would vest with him a right to
again seek contractual employment. Even if that be so,
the appellants herein had given good reason for non-
employment of respondent No. 1 on contractual basis.
Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition, in any
event, did not call for interference.
12) We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition, as
well. The writ petition need not be listed before the Court
on the date fixed.
__________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 20th SEPTEMBER, 2023
Negi
