Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
DR. RICHA HIRENDRA RAI ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Akanksha Mehra and Mr. Lakshay Saini, Advocates
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) 8579/2024 & CM APPL. 35079/2024 (Stay)
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking inter alia the following reliefs:- “(a) issue a writ, order or direction being a Writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside Show Cause Notice bearing F.NO. 10/1178/Admin/DPSRU/2019/part file–II/1366-1368 dated 06.05.2024 issued by Respondent; and (b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or similar writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent to grant a fair opportunity of hearing before taking any coercive action against the Petitioner in regard to Show Cause Notice bearing F.No. 10/1178/Admin/DPSRU/2019/part file– II/1366-1368 dated 06.05.2024; and
(c) any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the 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:
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.
12. The Competent Authority shall keep in mind the interplay of the words 'and / or' as employed in the UGC guidelines while passing this order.”
6. In the present case, the issue is in regard to petitioner’s selection to the post of Professor. The Recruitment Rule for the post of Professor as stipulated in clause (iii) of University Grants Commission Guidelines, 2018, which stipulates as under:- “III PROFESSOR: Eligibility (A or B):
7. 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.
8. 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