Full Text
MOHAMMAD KASIM, Through:
1.6th April, 2013 ......Petitioner Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate.
)
Through: ..... Respondents Xdr. M.A.Siddiqui and Mr. T.Siddiqui and
Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate for R-3/UOI. ......Petitioner
Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate. w.P.(o 8634/2011 NAAZISH HUSAINI
Through:
Through: Mr. M.A.Siddiqui and Mr. T.Siddiqui and
Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocates for R-1.
I\{r. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for R-2.
Ms. Archada Gaur, Advocate for R-3AJOI Page 1 of4
2013:DHC:7487 \ VALMIKI J. MEHTA. J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No.8633/2011
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) Set aside the Inquiry Report dated 09.01.10 being violative of the Principle of Natural Justice as well as in violation of Article 14,16 & 2l of the Constitution of India which causes serious prejudice to the petitioner; (b) Call for the records the entire Inquiry report dated 9.1.2010, records with regard to appointment of the petitioner, records and proceedings related to the earlier advertisements issued for the post in2006 and2007.
(c) Pass such other or further order(s) as may deem fit and proper to meet. the ends ofjustice." (,"
2. The facts of the present case are that the enquiry report dated 9.L20I0 was a report prepared by a Retired Judge of this Court in view of the issue of. irregularities in appointments of various persons pursuant to the advertisements issued by the respondent no.1-University. The enquiry report dated 9.I.2010 gives a finding that the appointments were irregular inasmuch as various persons did not nT. the qualifications required for the appointment.
3. The counsel appearing for respondent no.l before me has made two submissions. The first submission is that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated, there is no process in motion for termination, and in fact, the services can be terminated only after the President of India gives approval to the decision of the Executive Council which superseded the selection procedure. It is w. P. (c) 8633/ 20t[1] & 8634/ 2077 v stated that this approval of the President of India is awaited. The second submission is that if the petitioner is sought to be removed from services, the same will only be after following the due process of law on holding an enquiry proceedings wherein the petitioner wiil have complete tiberty to rebut the contents of the enquiry report dated 9.I.2010 so far as the same relating to the petitioner is concerned.
4. In my opinion, not only the writ petition is premature but the same is also misconceived. I say that the writ petition is premature because the President of rlndia may in fact not give approval to the decision of the Executive Council for setting aside the selection proceedings. If that happens, petitioner would not be removed from services. Therefore as of today, the petitioner has no grievance or cause of action.
5. The next aspect is that counsel for the respondent no.l has stated that services of the petitioner as of today have not been terminated and;will not be \ tenhinated without follpwing due process of law and holding of an enquity, and which is bound to be held before any action is taken as, against the petitioner. Therefore, even for this reason, the petition is misconceived and premature at this stage because no action has been taken or is presently proposed to be taken against the petitioner. w. P.(c) 8633I 20tL & 8634/ zOLt (,d^PRIL 161 2013 ib \nuA,"t u^t4-ttr'\ VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. I v
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed giving liberlry to the petitioner to approach this Court in caSe the respondent no.l terminates or seeks to illegally terminate the services of the petitioner. w.P.(c) 8634/201,[1]
7. In view of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 863312011 above, this writ petition is also accordingly dismissed with the szrme observations. w. P. (c) 8633lzOLL & 8634/ 20tt. Page4of[4]