Punjab and Haryana High Court directs NLU Sonipat VC, Registrar to pay ₹1 lakh cost for "illegal action"

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Vice Chancellor (VC) and Registrar of Dr BR Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat, for repatriating the varsity's Deputy Registrar to Directorate of Secondary Education [Dr. Veena Singh V. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat and Ors]..Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya found the decision to be illegal and in derogation of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Haryana Act."The petitioner has been forced to file this petition due to illegal action taken by the Registrar with the Vice Chancellor’s approval in complete derogation of the University Act, which they are bound to protect and uphold. Accordingly, she is held entitled to costs of the litigation which are quantified as ₹1,00,000 (one lakh only)," the Court ordered. It specifically directed that the costs be paid by the VC and Registrar in equal terms - ₹50,000 each - out of their own pocket, within two weeks..The Court passed the order in the case of Dr Veena Singh, who was appointed as a Principal of a Government Senior Secondary School under the Department of Secondary Education in 2008.In 2020, Singh applied for the post of Deputy Registrar on deputation at the National Law University (NLU). Considering her qualification, work experience, profile and exigency of official work, her request was accepted and she was offered the post initially for a period of one year, extendable up to three years.Singh was later absorbed as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post after an approval from the Executive Council (EC).However, the Registrar in March this year repatriated Singh and relieved her to enable her to join her parent department - Directorate of School Education in Panchkula. She challenged the decision before High Court..Considering the facts and arguments before it, the Court observed that once the EC had decided to absorb Singh as the Deputy Registrar on a sanctioned post, she became permanent employee of the varsity."The EC Resolution to that effect was never modified or recalled at any stage. Accordingly, there was no occasion for the Registrar to treat the petitioner on deputation, and repatriate her to the parent Department," it added.The Court found that Registrar's official note asking for Singh's repatriation was approved by the VC the same day and then the order of repatriation was passed the very next day."The aforesaid facts establish that affairs of the University have been run in violation of the statutory provisions. The EC is Chief Executive Authority under the University Act. The Vice-Chancellor and other officers have been enjoined powers to ensure due observance of statutory provisions, as also decisions taken by the authorities. However, in passing the impugned order of repatriation, dated 01.03.2024, the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar have arbitrarily treated the petitioner as a deputationist and ignored the decision taken by the highest executive authority approving her absorption in University service, vide Resolution dated 10.09.2022.".The Court also recorded that Registrar's explanation was that he had taken the decision on the dictates of VC. However, it refused to go into the statement's veracity. "Without going into the veracity of statement made by the Registrar to the extent he attributes the recording of noting for petitioner’s repatriation to the dictates of Vice-Chancellor, it is apparent from notings on the file that these senior most officers, instead of exercising the administrative powers to ensure compliance of the decision taken by the EC, have acted in derogation thereof in repatriating the petitioner to the parent Department"The Court added that in doing so, these officers belittled the EC and acted without jurisdiction which must be strongly deprecated..It also rejected the "sham explanation" that the NOC issued by Singh's parent department could not be placed before the EC due to lack of quorum for want of Chancellor’s nominees and that decision on Singh's repatriation had to be taken in emergency."Firstly, the NOC was sent by the Directorate on the Vice-Chancellor’s request, vide letter dated 06.03.2023, based upon the EC approval to petitioner’s absorption as Deputy Registrar against a sanctioned post with effect from 02.03.2021, vide Resolution, dated 10.09.2022. The NOC, therefore, cannot have the effect of undoing the petitioner’s absorption in service, since it was sought only as a consequence thereof," it said..The Court further ruled that the Registrar was not the competent authority to pass any order on Singh's repatriation, since she has been absorbed in service pursuant to the EC Resolution. "Under Section 18(6)(g) of the Act only the Vice Chancellor has the emergency power to take a decision, which is meant to be taken by the EC, in anticipation of its approval; and such decision is to be placed before the authority in its next meeting. The impugned order was, however, passed by the Registrar by usurping the power vested in the EC, admittedly, with the approval of Vice Chancellor," the Court said.It found nothing on record to suggest that the VC took the decision in anticipation of the EC approval, by exercising his emergency powers. "Accordingly, the impugned order is per se illegal and without jurisdiction," the Court said..Thus, it set-aside the Registrar's order and directed NLU Sonipat to allow Singh to join the service immediately on being relieved from Directorate of Secondary Education. .Senior Advocate RK Malik and Advocate Anshul Labana appeared for the petitioner Dr. Veena Singh. Advocate Rajesh K Sheoran represented the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University.Additional Advocate General Ravinder Singh Budhwar represented the State. .[Read Judgment]