Rajeshwar vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

This common order shall dispose of the aforementioned civil writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-5323-2025.

The present civil writ petition(s) has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned speaking order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-21) and impugned relieving order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-22) passed by the respondents on the basis of public notice dated 16.01.2025 (Annexure P-18). Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as Extension Lecturer till the age of superannuation as prescribed in ‘The Haryana Extension Lecturers and Guest Lecturers (Security of Service) Bill, 2024’ notification dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-17). Further prayer has been made to stay the operation of the impugned speaking and impugned relieving order (Annexures P-21 & P-22, respectively). Furthermore, a prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to re-join till the final outcome of the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), at the outset, submits that a composite impugned order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-21) was passed in respect of 292 candidates without considering the facts and circumstances of each individual case particularly with regard to the respective subjects and universities from which the petitioners obtained their Ph.D. degrees. It is contended that grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner(s) by passing such a blanket order, as the petitioners in the present bunch of petitions have obtained their Ph.D. degrees from different universities and in different subjects, rendering each case liable to be considered independently.

It is further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that an adverse order having civil consequences cannot be passed without affording the affected persons an effective opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, till date, no separate show cause notice or individual opportunity of hearing has been afforded to any of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the joint show cause notice dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-19) was addressed to all the Principals of Government Colleges in the State of Haryana and the manner in which the impugned composite order came to be passed clearly reflects non-application of mind as well as failure to undertake an individual assessment of the cases of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that some of the petitioners in the present bunch of petitions have since been taken back in service, as such, their claim is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.9965 of 2026 titled as Dr. Jile Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, decided on 03.08.2026. It is, therefore, submitted that the claim of such petitioners for salary for the intervening period from the date of their initial termination till the date of their rejoining is required to be considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Dr. Jile Singh's case (supra).

Learned State counsel is not in a position to controvert the fact that an omnibus show cause notice was issued to the Principals of all the Government Colleges situated in the State of Haryana followed by a speaking order, which is also a composite order. He further does not dispute that no individual show cause notice was issued to each of the affected petitioners. However, he submits that in terms of the order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-19) passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, the concerned Principal of the College had issued separate show cause notices to the teachers concerned.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioners were working as Extension Lecturers in the Higher Education Department, Government of Haryana. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners on the ground that respondent No.4-UGC had issued a public notice dated 16.01.2025 (Annexure P-18), whereby three Universities were debarred from enrolling scholars in Ph.D. programmes for a period of five years, i.e. from the academic year 2025-26 to 2029-30. The UGC subsequently clarified, vide communication dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-32), that the said public notice operates prospectively and does not affect the validity of degrees already awarded. The petitioners, therefore, contend that they had acquired their respective Ph.D. degrees much prior to 16.01.2025, i.e. the date on which the aforesaid public notice was issued.

Be that as it may, a composite impugned speaking order (Annexure P-21) was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, thereby, condemning them unheard. The impugned order was passed in an omnibus manner in respect of 292 candidates, out of whom, 158 candidates have been removed.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-21) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to issue individual show cause notices to each of the petitioners. Thereafter, upon affording an effective opportunity of hearing, the respondents are directed to pass a fresh speaking order satisfying the objective standards of reasons and justice within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents are also directed to duly consider the judgments or regulations relied upon by the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners who have since been taken back in service for salary for the intervening period be also considered in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Dr. Jile Singh's case (supra).

Accordingly, the above mentioned all writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.