Rooprani vs Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh
2025 Latest Caselaw 1891 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Rooprani vs Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh on 12 August, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2025 (S/S)

 Rooprani                                                     ........Petitioner

                                     Versus

 Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh
 Pant University of Agriculture and
 Technology and Others                                      ........Respondents

 Present:-
        Mr. Harendra Belwal and Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.
        Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate for the University, through video conferencing.


                                     JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks

directions that she may be reinstated in the position of Security Guard

in the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,

Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar ("the University").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was working in the

University since 2017 as Security Guard, but, suddenly, she has been

asked not to work. Despite various requests made by her, her services

has not been reinstated. Hence the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been working for many years in the University; she has

been stopped from working; despite multiple requests made by her,

her services have not been reinstated; in fact, the petitioner has also

moved a representation to the University on 17.07.2025, which is

Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Therefore, the University may be

directed to take a decision on it.

5. Learned counsel for the University submits that no

decision is to be taken by the University now; the petitioner had

committed theft of a bicycle from a hostel; when the issue was raised,

she admitted that she had committed theft, and after 20 days, she

returned the bicycle; the petitioner was deployed by some outsource

agency, therefore, the Security Officer of the University took up the

issue with the outsource agency, and on 30.11.2024, the petitioner

has been transferred from the University to SIDCUL area, and she has

been informed about it, and the University was also informed about it.

6. It is not the case of the petitioner that under any rules,

she is entitled to the relief claimed by her. Admittedly, she was

deployed on outsource basis. What is stated is that she has committed

a theft, and admitted that she had committed a theft. It is told that no

FIR was lodged against her, but action was taken by the Security

Officer, and she has been transferred.

7. In view of the above observation, this Court does not see

any reason to make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly,

the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.08.2025 Ravi Bisht