THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 9 of 2020 Decided on : 18 .07.2026 Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu ...Appellant Versus Union of India and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents : None for respondent No.1. : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed in Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 636 of 2019, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/petitioner had applied as an in-service scholar with the respondent-institute for a two-year fellowship, vide application dated 29.11.2016. The application had been made in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) filed along with the writ petition. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? -2- 3. In clause 4 of the advertisement, which is reproduced in the impugned judgment at paragraph 7, it has been made amply clear that the fellowship for a period of two years would be awarded subject to the condition that continuation of the fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done by the fellow during the first year is positive. 4. In pursuance of the application dated 29.11.2016, whereby the appellant/writ petitioner had applied for grant of fellowship for two years, an offer letter dated 19.06.2017 was sent to the petitioner. Herein again, it was categorically stated that the continuation of the fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done during the first year by the writ petitioner/appellant is positive. 5. Besides the aforesaid, the relevant terms and conditions on which the fellowship for in-service fellows had been granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner have been reproduced in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. The relevant condition being condition No. 5, whereby it has been made clear that three months prior to the completion of one year, the appellant/writ petitioner was required to submit a progress report of the work done till date, papers presented, publications, etc. The same had to be sent to an external evaluator in order to determine whether the fellowship of the appellant/writ petitioner was to be extended. -3- 6. In terms of the offer letter dated 19.06.2017, the appellant/writ petitioner was to join within six months from the date of issuance of the letter. The petitioner had joined on 01.12.2017 and submitted her first seminar to the respondent institute on 12.12.2017. Subsequent thereto the appellant/writ petitioner had availed study leave with effect from 16.12.2017 to 28.02.2018, and thereafter had availed maternity leave, which was sanctioned in her favour with effect from 01.03.2018 to 27.07.2018. The petitioner resumed her fellowship on 17.08.2018 and presented her second seminar. 7. On 08.02.2019, the respondent institute granted continuation of the fellowship period to the petitioner/appellant for six months' time only till 31.5.2019. However, she filed a representation for reconsideration of the extension of the fellowship for the second year up to the tenure of the fellowship, i.e., 30.11.2019. The same was rejected by the respondent-institute and recovery of the fellowship grant was ordered from the month of February 2019. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the writ petitioner/appellant had approached the Gauhati High Court. The writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction vide order dated 25.03.2019. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 636 of 2019, wherefrom the present appeal arises, was filed. The same has primarily been filed seeking directions against the respondent-institute for according full-term extension for the second year fellowship to the writ petitioner/appellant and setting aside the letter dated 08.02.2019, -4- whereby extension for six months had been granted. Other than the aforesaid, the arrears of fellowship grant and payment of fellowship grant till the completion of the two-years period were claimed 9. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the first year of the fellowship was set to expire on 30.11.2018. In terms of condition No. 5, reproduced in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, the writ petitioner/appellant was required to submit a progress report three months prior to the completion of one year of the fellowship. The same was submitted by the petitioner only on 05.11.2018. The evaluator's report thereupon has been reproduced in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. The evaluator's report dated 10.01.2019 was placed before the governing body of the respondent institute during its meeting on 22.01.2019. At the said meeting, the governing body, vide Item No. 7, the relevant extract whereof has been reproduced in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, considered the proposal of the Director for a further grant of a provisional continuation of two months to the writ petitioner/appellant and to consider continuation of the fellowship for the second year of the writ petitioner/appellant. In view of the proposal submitted by the Director, the governing body resolved to approve the continuation of the fellowship for six months as against two months proposed by the director. 10. It is in this backdrop that the letter dated 08.02.2019 was sent to the writ petitioner/appellant, extending the continuation of the fellowship with effect from 01.12.2018 to 31.05.2019. The relevant -5- extract of the letter dated 08.02.2019 has been reproduced in paragraph 19 of the writ petition 11. It is in the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that the report of the evaluator dated 10.01.2019 and the decision taken by the governing body thereupon in its meeting held on 22.01.2019 are decisions taken by experts and, hence, the same are not open to judicial review. In support of the view taken by the learned Single Judge reliance has correctly been placed upon various judgments of the Apex Court, as detailed in paragraphs 22 to 37 of the impugned judgment. No infirmity in the view so taken has been pointed out calling for interference by this court in the present appeal. However, we are of the opinion that no recovery is liable to be effected from the appellant only on account of the fact that she was not able to complete her fellowship since it is a fact that interim orders had been passed in her favour during the pendency of the litigation. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the well- reasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed, along with the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 18th July, 2026 (Tarun Singh)