Anil Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner, who is serving as an Assistant Professor in the School of Basic Sciences in the respondent-University, is aggrieved by notice dated 11.10.2023, in terms whereof, he has been served upon one month’s notice of termination of services inter alia on the ground that the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission has directed removal of faculties of the University who did not fulfill minimum educational qualification laid down by the U.G.C. pursuant to directions passed by this Court in case No. 13 of 2023, titled as Suo Motu vs. Shoolini University and others and as the petitioner, in terms of his service record, was found to be ineligible to hold the post of Assistant Professor in the University, therefore, the notice.

On the last date, this Court had called upon learned Counsel for the petitioner to assist the Court with regard to maintainability of the writ petition as to whether writ petition was maintainable against the private University in issue which neither was a ‘State nor Other Authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Bahra University (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2010, i.e the Act which regulates the establishment, incorporation and regulation of the respondent University as well as the First Statutes of Bahra University, 2011, which has been framed in exercise of powers conferred under the 2010 Act and submitted that the respondent-University is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

While going through the First Statutes of the Bahra University, 2011, this Court found that in terms of the Statute 36(5), every employee or student of the University has been conferred a right to appeal within such time as may be specified by the subsequent statutes, to the Chancellor against the decision of any officer or authority, as the case may be, and thereupon, the Chancellor may confirm, modify or reverse the decision appealed against.

As in the present case, the termination notice has not been appealed against before the Chancellor by the petitioner, therefore, as prayed for, leaving the question of maintainability of the writ petition open, this writ petition is disposed of with direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appeal to the Chancellor against notice dated 11.10.2023, within two weeks from today, then, the interim protection that has been granted to the petitioner by this Court in terms of order dated 06.11.2023, shall continue till the adjudication of the appeal by the Chancellor and the appeal shall be decided on merit.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as far as merit of the case is concerned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.