Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14631 (UTT)

RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY v. GURUKUL KANGRI DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY HARIDWAR

WPSB/496/2022 · 2025-11-12

G Narendar, Subhash Upadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:10015-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (S/B) No. 496 of 2022 12th November, 2025 Rajesh Kumar Pandey -----------Petitioner Versus Gurukul Kangri Deemed To be University Haridwar and others -------Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Parmeet Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the certiorari quashing the advertisement no. GK(DU)/Estt. II/05/2022 (contained as Annexure No., 1 to the writ petition) so far concern to the petitioner and provide the protection to the petitioner like it has been provided to the writ petitioners of Writ Petition No. 451 (S/B) of 2021, “Pankaj Kaushik and others vs. Gurukul Kangari Deemed University and others” (contained as Annexure No. 21 of the writ petition) by this Hon’ble Court. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the certiorari calling for the records and quashing the condition no. 4 of the communication dated 6th May, 2019 (contained 1 2025:UHC:10015-DB as Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition) issued by the Under Secretary, UGC to the Registrar, Gurukul Kangari University so far as it directs that the sanctioned posts will be filled by as per the approved Recruitment Rules, in as much as the appointment of the petitioner was made after following the procedure prescribed in the Recruitment Rules of 2012 of the University. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus directing the respondents to provide the same treatment to the petitioner like it has been provided to the appellants of Civil Appeal No. (s) 3922-3925 of 2017, “Somesh Thapliyal and another vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University & another”, (contained as Annexure No. 23 to the writ petition). iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to modify the appointment letter dated 11.04.2014 of the petitioner (contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) so far concern to the consolidated salary of Rs. 65,150/- which is in violation of term of the advertisement no. GKV/Estt./01/2014 dated 24.03.2014 and provide the accrued service benefit of service to the petitioner as per term of the advertisement no. GKV/Estt./01/2014 dated 24.3.2024 (contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) in the favour of the petitioner. v. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus directing the respondents to maintain the status quo as on today in the tune of order dated 04.10.2021 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 451 (S/B) of 2021 “Pankaj Kaushik and others vs. Gurukul Kangari deemed University and others” (contained as Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 2 2025:UHC:10015-DB that the petitioner may be permitted to file a detail representation before the Vice Chancellor, Gurukul Kangri (Deemed to be University), Haridwar for the redressal of his grievance and the respondent no. 1 may be directed to take a decision on the said representation within a stipulated time. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, on instruction, submits that he has no objection to the said prayer made by the petitioner and the representation of the petitioner shall be considered within the time fixed by the Court. 4. The submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are placed on record. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to submit a detail representation before the respondent no. 1 within two weeks. In case, such a representation is filed before the respondent no.1, then the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this Order. (G. NARENDAR, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 12.11.2025 Kaushal 3