SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPSB No.402 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy A.G. for the State/respondent no.1. 3. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for Uttarakhand Technical University/respondent no.2. 4. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 5. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for respondent no.4. 6. Petitioner was engaged as Assistant Professor in Women Institute of Technology in the year 2012 and she served in the said capacity till the year 2020. While petitioner was still in service, she filed this writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the same benefits of services in terms of judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed in writ petition no.193 of 2014 S/B at par to the Faculty of the THDCIHET along with all consequential benefits and regular status in service keeping in view the terms of the advertisement and facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition along with all regular salary and other benefits of a regular faculty. II. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the respondent no.4 by directing the petitioner to appear in the interview for the purpose of extension/renewal of contract of service along with its effect and operation also, after calling the entire records and also direct the respondents not to alter or change the status of the petitioner in service and not to discontinue on the basis of the alleged exercise of interview for the purpose extension in service. III. Issue writ, rule or direction in that nature of declaration that the service of the petitioner is regular and permanent and the term used contractual is mere a sham show and camouflage and also against the UGC/AICTE Regulations and declared the same as unfair practice to exploit the employees just to deprive them from security of Job tenure and other benefits of services in view of the facts highlighted in the body of the writ petition. IV. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of declaration or any other suitable writ to this effect that in the constituent college which is run by the University, the competent authority for making appointment is the Vice Chancellor and the State Government has no say in the matter of the appointment and disciplinary control in respect of the constituent college of the University, so the autonomy of the University may be maintained. V. Issue writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus to declare the practice of the State Government for making contractual appointments in all technical institutions in violation to the UGC/AICTE regulations is arbitrary, illegal and void. VI. Issue order or direction appropriate in nature to award compensation to the petitioners in the tune of Rs. One crore to each of the petitioners and same may be recovered from the respondent no.3 on account of his malicious and malafide and tortuous act to harass the petitioners.” 7. After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation in the light of judgment dated 31.05.2018 rendered by Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.568 of 2017 (S/B) and connected matters. He submits that in the said judgment in para-13(C) there was a direction issued to engage the petitioners, in the said writ petition, on contract basis. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the writ petition can be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation. 9. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to petitioner to make representation to respondent no.3-Vice Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University, claiming benefit of the aforesaid judgment. If petitioner makes representation within three weeks from today, the Vice Chancellor shall examine her claim for re- engagement in light of judgment referred to above and take decision as per law within four months thereafter. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.06.2025 25.06.2025 Rajni RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac3701a9a e475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC80D4 557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.07.03 22:24:30 -07'00'