HC terms Dr BR Ambedkar National Law University’s action to repatriate deputy registrar as illegal

Instead of exercising administrative powers to ensure compliance of the decision taken by the executive council, senior officers have acted in derogation thereof in repatriating the petitioner to the parent department, observed Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Setting aside the decision of Dr BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat, to repatriate a deputy registrar, Veena Singh, to her parent department, the Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday said the action was illegal and in complete derogation of the university Act.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the high court, in his order, said that the facts have established that the affairs of the university have been run in violation of the statutory provisions. (Shutterstock)

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the high court, in his order, said that the facts have established that the affairs of the university have been run in violation of the statutory provisions.

“The petitioner has been forced to file this petition due to illegal action taken by the registrar with the vice-chancellor’s approval in complete derogation of the university Act, which they are bound to protect and uphold,” the bench said.

The HC said that university’s executive council (EC) is the chief executive authority under the university Act. “The vice-chancellor and other officers have been enjoined powers to ensure due observance of statutory provisions as also decisions taken by the authorities. However, in passing the March 1, 2024, orders to repatriate Veena Singh, the vice-chancellor and the registrar have arbitrarily treated the petitioner on deputation and ignored the decision taken by the EC, the highest executive authority, to absorb her in the university service,” the court said.

The court said that in an attempt to justify its action, a sham explanation has been put forth by the university that the no-objection certificate issued by the directorate on February 12, 2024, could not be placed before the EC due to lack of quorum for want of chancellor’s nominees, and the decision on repatriation had to be taken in emergency.

The bench said that once a decision was taken by the executive council to absorb her as deputy registrar, she stood absorbed and became a permanent employee with effect from March 2, 2021. The executive council resolution to that effect was never modified or recalled at any stage. Accordingly, there was no occasion for the registrar to treat the petitioner on deputation and repatriate her to the parent department. A perusal of the record shows that ignoring the executive council resolution to absorb the petitioner in the university service, she was treated as deputation. The registrar recorded a note on the office file on February 29, 2024, asking for Dr Singh’s repatriation to the parent organisation, which was approved by the vice-chancellor the same day and an order was passed the next day, the HC order said.

It is apparent from the file notings that senior officers, instead of exercising administrative powers to ensure compliance of the decision taken by the executive council, have acted in derogation thereof in repatriating the petitioner to the parent department. In doing so, these officers have belittled the executive council by their disparaging action, which is without jurisdiction and strongly deprecated, the court said.

The HC also ordered that Dr Veena Singh is entitled to get ₹1 lakh as cost of litigation which would be paid by two officers (the registrar and vice-chancellor) in equal terms out of their own pocket within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.