RAKESH PRAKASH THAPALIYAL v. HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWLA CENTRAL UNVIERSITY SRINAGAR
WPSS/511/2022 · 2026-01-06
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4122 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 4122 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:243 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
W PSS/ 5 1 1 / 2 0 2 2 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
2. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.
3. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Advocate for the intervener.
4. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2021, passed by Deputy Registrar (Administration), HNB Garhwal University. By the said
order, the representation made by petitioners, for considering their claim for promotion was rejected by solely relying on the opinion given by one retired judicial officer.
5. Petitioner has challenged the said
order on the ground that judicial officer’s opinion is not binding and it cannot be relied for rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. It is further contended that there is nothing in the impugned order to indicate that the opinion given by retired judicial officer was accepted by the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the University.
6. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the University concedes that there is nothing to indicate that the judicial officer’s opinion was accepted by the competent authority in the University.
2026:UHC:243
7. Law is well settled that decision, if any, has to be taken by administrative or quasi judicial authority after application of mind to the relevant facts. The representation was made by petitioners, pursuant to order passed by Division Bench of this Court in special appeal. The manner, in which that representation was dealt with indicates absolute non- application of mind to the relevant aspects. Thus, the
order impugned cannot be sustained.
8. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 is set aside. The Registrar of the University is directed to re-visit the issue and pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioners, as per law, within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this
order.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
6.1.2026
Navin
NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131 bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D6 53D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.07 17:19:35 +05'30'