Uttarakhand High Court
Ajay Kishor Bahuguna vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9128-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
14TH OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 439 OF 2025
Ajay Kishor Bahuguna.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned
counsel.
Counsel for respondent no. 1. : Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned
Additional Advocate General for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned
3. counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the
learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 -
University.
2. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :
"(i) Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of Quo
Warranto against Respondent No. 4, to declare such
continuation on the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri, Pauri Garhwal as
illegal, on the strength of appointment order dated 02-12-
2019, (Annexure no-13), and further the Respondent no 4 be
removed/divested from the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant
Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri, Pauri
Garhwal forthwith;
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari
for quashing the appointment order dated 02-12-2019,
wherein the respondent no 4 is continuing on the post of
Registrar, without there being requisite qualifications to hold
2025:UHC:9128-DB
the post of Registrar pursuant to advertisement dated 03-01-
2017.
(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no 1, to fix the
responsibility of Official concerned and punish in accordance
with law who permitted the wrong to perpetuate;
(iv) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;
(v) Award costs of this petition to the Petitioner."
3. The litigation, regarding the validity of the
appointment of the fourth respondent, commenced in the year
2019, with his appointment as the Registrar of the third
respondent-University. An inquiry came to be instituted, and
post the report of the Committee, the services of the fourth
respondent came to be terminated. It resulted in a Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 395/2022 being instituted before this Court,
and a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to reject the
said Writ Petition, and Review Application (MCC No. 04/2022)
filed in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 395/2022.
4. Aggrieved, the fourth respondent assailed the order
of the Coordinate Bench before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
SLP(C) No(s). 8788-8789 of 2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court,
by judgment dated 16.04.2024, was pleased to grant the
following reliefs as set-out in paragraph no. 20 of the
judgment :
"20. As a consequence, we pass the following directions: -
2025:UHC:9128-DB
(i) The impugned judgments dated 4th August, 2022
and 21st February, 2023 passed by the High Court are
quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order dated 19th May, 2022 whereby, the
services of the appellant on the post of Registrar of the
Institute were terminated is also declared to be illegal
and as a consequence, the same is quashed and set
aside.
(iii) That the appellant shall forthwith be reinstated
on the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Ghurdauri. He shall be
entitled to all consequential benefits.
(iv) The respondent-Institute is left at liberty to
conduct disciplinary proceedings against the appellant
as per law, if so desired."
5. It is imperative, at this juncture, to note the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph nos. 9,
10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 & 18. The same reads as under :
"9. Per contra, Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior
counsel representing the respondents, vehemently and
fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the
appellant's counsel. He urged that the very appointment
of the appellant on the post of Registrar was illegal
because he did not possess the requisite qualifications as
per the rules. He thus, urged that there was no
requirement to hold a regular enquiry before terminating
the services of the appellant. His contention was that the
appellant concealed a vital document in the writ petition
filed before the High Court and thus, he was not entitled
to equitable relief in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
10. However, Shri Tiwari was not in a position to
dispute the fact that before imposing the major penalty of
termination of service upon the appellant, no disciplinary
enquiry was conducted by the authorities.
12. The impugned judgment rejecting the writ petition
of the appellant is premised purely on the fact that the
appellant failed to place on record the minutes of the 26th
meeting of the Board of Governors dated 16th June,
2018, which are referred to in the termination letter dated
19th May, 2022. The Division Bench of High Court held
that these minutes would have shown that the
appointment of the petitioner (appellant herein) to the
post of Registrar was made contrary to the rules. We are
afraid that these observations of the Division Bench are
not fortified from the minutes of the meeting dated 16th
2025:UHC:9128-DB
June, 2018 which have been placed on record by the
appellant in these appeals.
13. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant
excerpts of the minutes of meeting dated 16th June, 2018
(Annexure P-8) are reproduced hereinbelow: -
"26.08: Approval of the recommendations/minutes
of various Selection Committee regarding the
Advertisement No. 01/Admn/ 2017 dated
03.01.2017 on the nonteaching posts and the
advertisement no. 01 / faculty /2013 - 14 dated
08.06.2013 of the teaching staff in reference to
25th meeting of the Administrative Council and the
Hon'ble High Court.
As per rule of the College Byelaws, the
envelopes of the recommendations/minutes of the
Selection Committee was opened by the
Administrative Council and the recommendations
and the minutes of the Selection Committee were
approved as per below: -
S. Name of the Name of the Name of Category
No. Candidate Department the Post
1. Dr Mahipal Civil Engineering Professor General
Singh
Chauhan
2. Dr Computer Associate General
Harvendra Science and Professor
Singh Engineering
Bhadoria
3. Mr. Vivek -do- Assistant SC
Kumar Professor
Tamta
4. Mr. Papendra -do- -do- SC
Kumar
5. Dr. Sachin Mechanical -do- General
Tejyan Engineering
6. Mr. Sunil -do- -do- General
Chamoli
7. Mr. Ravikant -do- -do- SC
Ravi
8. Mr. -do- -do- SC
Chandraveer
9. Mr. Suresh Biotechnology -do- General
Chandra
Phulera
10. Mr. Divyesh Civil Engineering -do- General
Sharma
11. Mr. MCA -do- General
Siddharatha
Chansela
12. Mr. Administration Registrar General
Sandeep
Kumar
*As a result of the selection of Shri Lalta Prasad,
Assistant Professor (Scheduled Caste) in NIT Shri
2025:UHC:9128-DB
Nagar, if he resigns/gives VRS from the post joining
there, the appointment letter may be issued to Shri
Chandraveer against this post. A number of
complaints have been received regarding the
candidate selected for the post of Registrar. Their
inquiry must 7 be carried out. How the norms of
selection have been fixed, the detailed report be
submitted. The proceedings of the appointment be
stayed until the next order."
15. In pursuance of the so called complaint(s), a three
member committee was constituted to scrutinize the
documents and qualifications/testimonials of the appellant
vide order dated 26th June, 2019 (Annexure P-36). The
committee submitted its report (Annexure P-37) on 11th
July, 2019 finding all the documents of the appellant to be
genuine and in order. It also opined that the appellant
fulfilled the eligibility criterion for being appointed on the
post of Registrar.
16. A letter dated 10th November, 2019 (Annexure P-9)
was issued by the Member Secretary, Board of Governors
of the Institute addressed to the members of the Board of
Governors including the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Minister of
Technical Education (Chairman of the Institution) and the
Additional Chief Secretary (Vice Chairman of the
Institution) seeking perusal and approval of the
recommendations of the Selection Committee and to
direct the Member Secretary, Board of Governors to issue
the appointment letter in favour of appellant.
17. Acting in furtherance of the said letter and the
approval granted by the competent authorities, an
appointment letter dated 2nd December, 2019 (Annexure
P-10) was issued and the appellant joined services on the
post of Registrar. As per the extracted portion of the
appointment letter (supra), the appellant was placed on
probation for a period of one year which was extendable
for another year in case, the performance during the first
year was found to be unsatisfactory. Clause (b) further
provided that during probation, services of the incumbent
may be terminated without assigning any reason by
giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. There is
no dispute on the aspect that the appellant had
satisfactorily worked on the post of Registrar in the
Institute for nearly two years and thus, apparently he
completed the probation period without demur.
18. On a bare perusal of the termination letter dated
19th May, 2022, it becomes apparent that the decision to
terminate the services of the appellant from the post of
Registrar was not preceded by an opportunity to show
cause or any sort of disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry
as referred to in the termination letter was in relation to
the qualifications of the appellant for being appointed on
2025:UHC:9128-DB
the post of Registrar. The letter further indicates that the
selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the
Board of Governors in its 26th meeting dated 16th June,
2018. The said observation in the letter dated 19th May,
2022 is totally erroneous and contradicted by the minutes
of the meeting dated 16th June, 2018.(reproduced supra)
6. A reading of the above would demonstrate that
the Hon'ble Apex Court has already negated the contention
that there was no confirmation of the appointment by the
Board of Governors. It is the case of the petitioner that,
pursuant to the remand, the University again instituted an
inquiry, whereby the fourth respondent was placed under
suspension, and which order of suspension came to be
stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
(S/B) No. 35/2025.
7. On a query, learned counsel for the respondent-
University would submit that the enquiry is pending, and a
charge-sheet has already been issued.
8. Thus, it is apparent that the law has been set in
motion, and the University/ employer appears to have
exercised the liberty reserved by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
In fact, the petitioner would go one step further and submit
that again an order of dismissal has been passed. The
veracity of this statement is itself in question.
9. Despite the law having been set in motion, and
despite this Court having intervened and stayed the order
2025:UHC:9128-DB
of suspension, we find one more Writ Petition seeking for
issuance of a writ of quo warranto. Though the facts are
disclosed, yet we find that this is a clear case of the abuse
of the process of the Court.
10. The instant Writ Petition, despite the directions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, setting aside the order of removal,
and directing the reinstatement of the fourth respondent,
and granting liberty to the University/ employer to continue
with the enquiry, if any, the present Writ Petition is clearly
an act of overreach. There being a clear direction from the
Hon'ble Apex Court, reserving liberty only to the University/
employer to carry forward the process, the instant Writ
Petition is clearly vitiated by mala fides, and appears to be
an attempt to create a supervening circumstance, and
nullify the interim relief granted by a Coordinate Bench.
11. This Bench had clearly indicated to the
petitioner's counsel that the petition lacks bona fides, and it
was also pointed out to the petitioner's counsel that this
Court would not be sitting in appeal over the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court. In fact after a few minutes of
hearing it was also clearly indicated to the petitioner's
counsel that cost would be imposed, and that the cost
would be an exemplary cost, and in fact certain figures
2025:UHC:9128-DB
were also mentioned to the petitioner's counsel. Despite
the same, the petitioner's counsel continued with
representation and demanded that the submissions be
considered.
12. Petitioner's counsel would place reliance on
Annexure No. 10 dated 26.06.2019, Annexure No. 11 dated
11.07.2019, Annexure No. 13 dated 02.12.2019, Annexure
No. 14 dated 20.09.2021, Annexure No. 15 - the inquiry
report dated 18.11.2021 and Annexure No. 16 dated
11.12.2021. We have recorded the dates for a particular
purpose. All these dates are prior to the date of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e. 16.04.2024. The
issues have been canvassed before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
which is demonstrated by a reading of the paragraphs
culled out hereinabove. Despite the same being pointed
out, the counsel for the petitioner insisted that the matter
be heard and despite this Bench expressing that it is not
inclined to sit in appeal over the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the petitioner's counsel continued with the
submissions and, in the course of the submissions, it was
also submitted that a Review Petition of the order dated
16.04.2024 of the Hon'ble Apex Court has also been filed.
2025:UHC:9128-DB
If that be so, then the instant Writ Petition is a clear case of
abuse of the process of Court.
13. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is
dismissed with exemplary cost, with cost quantified at
Rupees Five Lakhs. The cost shall be deposited into the
account of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority
within six weeks, failing which the Registrar General shall
initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions,
if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
___________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 14th October, 2025
Rahul
RAHUL
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e
66e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab,
PRAJAPATI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A
192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C
28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI
Date: 2025.10.16 14:44:02 +05'30'
