Himachal Pradesh High Court
_____________________________________________________________________ vs Dr. Y. S. Parmar University Of ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.17955 of 2025
.
Date of Decision: 19.11.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja
.........Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate.
rt
For the respondents: Mr. Ramesh Sharma,
respondent No.1 and 3.
Advocate, for
Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, grouse of the petitioner, who at present is working as Professor, Head of Floriculture and Landscape Architecture is that though he is Senior Most Professor, but purposely, he is being denied placement to the post of Director of Research by respondent No.3, who is unhappy with him for his having filed writ petition praying therein for his repatriation.
2. Before cognizance, if any, could be taken of the averments contained in the petition as well as reliefs, as prayed for, Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2 i.e. Worthy Vice Chancellor of the University placed on record communication dated 18.11.2025 to state that Vice Chancellor of the University has been directed to decide the case of the petitioner in ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:53 :::CIS -2- accordance with the statutory provisions, applicable rules and .
regulations of Himachal Pradesh University of Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Act, 1986.
3. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 states that present petition is premature because decision, if any, is yet to be taken upon the representation of filed by the petitioner for the reliefs, as have been otherwise prayed for, in the writ petition.
4. rt Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while fairly admitting factum with regard to pendency of representation, states that respondent No.3 has biased attitude towards the petitioner and is unhappy with him for his having filed CWP No. 5771 of 2025, which was allowed on 19.6.2025. He submits that since despite there being repatriation of the petitioner in terms of the afore judgment, petitioner was not made Dean, as a result thereof, rightful claim of the petitioner qua the post of Director of Research, shall be scuttled by respondent No.3. Mr. Goel, fairly states that now since worthy Chancellor has intervened, this court may dispose of the present petition with direction to respondent No.3 to decide his pending representation expeditiously without being influenced by earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.3 to dispose of the pending ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:53 :::CIS -3- representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably, within two .
weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall not be influenced by earlier petition filed by the petitioner, which is otherwise allowed and further not stayed in the LPA filed by the respondent-University. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
of
November 19, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:31:53 :::CIS