Anupama Singh v. TERI School of Advanced Studies

1. The petitioner in the instant petition challenges the impugned orders dated 03.10.2018, 10.10.2018 and 21.01.2019, passed by respondent No.1/University. He, further prays for direction to respondent No.1/University to register the petitioner on the rolls of her Ph.D. programme and permit her to continue her course.

2. The petitioner in terms of order dated 25.10.2021, had confined his relief only to the extent of directing the Ombudsman of respondent No.1/University to decide her appeal.

3. Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that there is no decision by the Ombudsman on his pending appeal despite lapse of more than one year.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 states that the Ombudsman is to be appointed by the respondent No.2/University Grants Commission (UGC). The grievance of the petitioner was considered by the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Respondent No.1/University; by giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and her request was declined.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2/UGC states that as of now, he does not have proper instructions as to whether the Ombudsman is to be appointed by the UGC or by the University. According to his understanding, respondent No.1/University has to appoint the Ombudsman.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner being faced with the aforesaid situation, states that his case be considered on merits. According to him, the petitioner's Ph.D. course has already been discontinued in the year 2018 and there is no decision on her appeal.

7. In view of the aforesaid, this court permitted the petitioner to argue the matter on merits.

8. The matter is heard on merits.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a singular argument. He states that if the impugned order is perused, the same indicates that the petitioner was not heard before passing of the order dated 03.10.2018.

10. This court has perused the order dated 03.10.2018, which reads as under:- "Ms Anupama Singh October 3, 2018 Registration No- 1216RBB 5/103, Orange County Society Indirapuram Ghaziabad- 201010 Sub: Termination from the Ph.D programme Dear Ms Anupama, Since you have not registered for the current semester (July- December 2018), as per rules of the University, you have been struck-off the rolls of the University. Capt. Pradeep Kumar Padhy (Retd.) Cc: Chairperson SRC Chairperson DRC"

11. A bare perusal of the order dated 03.10.2018, clearly indicates that the petitioner has not been heard before taking the decision to strike-off her name from the rolls of the University. The subsequent hearing by the Grievance Redressal Committee and the additional reasons assigned therein will not cure the defect in the passing of the original order. Under the facts of the present case, this court finds it necessary to direct respondent No.1/University to hear the petitioner as to why, her name does not deserve to be struck-off from the rolls of the University. The petitioner is directed to appear before the University within 15 days' from today, along with a copy of the order passed by this court with her written explanation. After receipt of the representation and copy of the order passed by this court, respondent No.1/University is directed to pass a fresh order with respect to the continuation or non-continuation of the name of the petitioner in the rolls of the University.

12. The impugned orders dated 03.10.2018, 10.10.2018 and 21.01.2019 are set aside.

13. In case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

14. All rights and contentions are left open.

15. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.