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 & 3. : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned 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 1 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: - 2 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 3 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. No. Name of the Candidate Name of the Department Name of the Post Category 1. Dr Mahipal Singh Chauhan Civil Engineering Professor General 2. Dr Harvendra Singh Bhadoria Computer Science and Engineering Associate Professor General 3. Mr. Vivek Kumar Tamta -do- Assistant Professor SC 4. Mr. Papendra Kumar -do- -do- SC 5. Dr. Sachin Tejyan Mechanical Engineering -do- General 6. Mr. Sunil Chamoli -do- -do- General 7. Mr. Ravikant Ravi -do- -do- SC 8. Mr. Chandraveer -do- -do- SC 9. Mr. Suresh Chandra Phulera Biotechnology -do- General 10. Mr. Divyesh Sharma Civil Engineering -do- General 11. Mr. Siddharatha Chansela MCA -do- General 12. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Administration Registrar General *As a result of the selection of Shri Lalta Prasad, Assistant Professor (Scheduled Caste) in NIT Shri 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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. 8 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 9 RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e 66e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A 192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C 28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2025.10.16 14:44:02 +05'30'