HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1331 of 2025 (S/S) Rooprani ….....Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Harendra Belwal and Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate for the University, through video conferencing. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks directions that she may be reinstated in the position of Security Guard in the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the University”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was working in the University since 2017 as Security Guard, but, suddenly, she has been asked not to work. Despite various requests made by her, her services has not been reinstated. Hence the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working for many years in the University; she has been stopped from working; despite multiple requests made by her, her services have not been reinstated; in fact, the petitioner has also moved a representation to the University on 17.07.2025, which is Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Therefore, the University may be directed to take a decision on it. 5. Learned counsel for the University submits that no decision is to be taken by the University now; the petitioner had committed theft of a bicycle from a hostel; when the issue was raised, she admitted that she had committed theft, and after 20 days, she 2 returned the bicycle; the petitioner was deployed by some outsource agency, therefore, the Security Officer of the University took up the issue with the outsource agency, and on 30.11.2024, the petitioner has been transferred from the University to SIDCUL area, and she has been informed about it, and the University was also informed about it. 6. It is not the case of the petitioner that under any rules, she is entitled to the relief claimed by her. Admittedly, she was deployed on outsource basis. What is stated is that she has committed a theft, and admitted that she had committed a theft. It is told that no FIR was lodged against her, but action was taken by the Security Officer, and she has been transferred. 7. In view of the above observation, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.08.2025 Ravi Bisht