Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
AJITKUMAR THAKUR ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Yashvardhan, Ms. Smita Kant, Ms. Kritika Nagpal and Mr. Gyanendra Shukla, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra and Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocates for R-3 and 4.
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 8215/2024 & CM APPL. 33675/2024 (Stay)
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:- “(a) to issue I an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice dated 06.05.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 and declare the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in consonance with the relevant rules / provisions / applicable norms as notified by the competent authority; (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondents to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner;
(c) grant pr6tection after the order is passed by the respondents for a period of 30 days from the said date, allowing the Petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievance as given in similar case bearing W.P. (C) No. 6946/2024 (Annexure P-14).
(d) issue any other writ/ direction that this Hon'ple Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of this case.”
4. The controversy in the present writ petition is similar to the one which had been raised before this Court in the case of Dr. Minakshi Garg vs. Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University & Ors [W.P.(C) No. 6853/2024], as also Dr. Harvinder Popli vs. Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research University & Ors [W.P.(C) NO. 6946/2024]. Both of which were disposed of on 14.05.2024 and 15.05.2024 respectively.
5. Without going into the merits as were noted in the previous judgements, suffice it to state that in the present case, the petitioner has already tendered her detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.05.2024. The relevant paragraphs in terms of judgment of this Court in Dr. Harvinder Popli (supra) as noted above and applicable to the petitioner are as under: “10…In view of the fact that the petitioner was in service of the respondent for a period of eight years, it would be just and appropriate to grant protection post the order to be passed by the Competent Authority for a period of 10 days from the said date for the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of her grievance.
11. It is informed that the time to file the reply to the show cause notice is expiring on 16.05.2024. The petitioner is therefore granted ten days time to file her substantive reply. The Competent Authority is directed to consider the reply holistically taking into consideration that the petitioner was in fact employed by the University previously as also the fact that after having verified each and every document and testimonies the petitioner was confirmed in the year 201. The Competent Authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The date, time and venue will be intimated well in advance.” (emphasis supplied)
6. Since the issues raised in the present writ petition are similar to the ones which have been raised earlier in the judgements noted above, apart from the directions being made applicable to the present petitioners too, the petitioner would also be granted the same protection of 10 days post the order to be passed by the Competent Authority to enable the petitioner to take appropriate steps for redressal of her grievances.
7. With the above observation the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Pending application also stands disposed of.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. MAY 31, 2024