Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vivek Pal Singh vs The Institute Of Advanced Studies In ... on 2 December, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 3) [CW-10044/2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10044/2020 Vivek Pal Singh S/o Shri Vikram Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Near Roadways Bus Stand, Behind Hotel Rajdeep, Sardar Sahar District Churu.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The Institute Of Advanced Studies In Education (Iase), Deemed University Of Gandhi Vidhya Mandir, Sardar Sahar, District Churu Through Its Registrar.
2. The Registrar, Iase Deemed University, Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardar Sahar, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Shrimali } both through
Cisco Webex App
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/12/2020
1. The present writ petition has been preferred laying challenge to order dated 05.03.2020 whereby the petitioner has been asked to serve as computer operator at Delhi Office of the respondent- Institute.
2. The basic contention raised by the petitioner is that the same has been done vindictively, being aggrieved of the execution proceedings launched by the petitioner, against the Institute.
3. Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, invited Court's attention towards the proceedings dated 05.02.2019 and 05.03.2019 initiated by him against the respondent-Institute and submitted that the petitioner has been shunted to Delhi essentially being annoyed of the said execution proceedings taken up by him.
4. It is also contended by Mr. Mahesh Thanvi that petitioner, a low paid employee getting a meagre amount of Rs.14,000 per (Downloaded on 02/12/2020 at 08:43:08 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-10044/2020] month would face financial and other hardship, if he is required to discharge his services in Delhi.
5. An additional affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner, highlighting that the UGC has not given any permission to the respondents to establish office outside registered office.
6. Inviting attention of the Court towards the averments made in the additional affidavit, Mr. Thanvi argued that sans permission of the UGC, no University or educational institution can establish its office outside the State boundaries and thus, not only the office established by the respondent-Institute but also the petitioner's transfer to Delhi is illegal and contrary to norms.
7. Mr. Hemant Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondent- Institute submitted that the office in Delhi has been established in a bid to ensure coordination at regional and country level in furtherance of a resolution passed by the Board of Management in its meeting held on 11.05.2004.
8. It was also asserted that five employees are working at the office at Delhi and doing correspondence and coordination activities with UGC, Ministry of Human Resource Development, NCTE, AICTE etc. He added that the petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Institute cannot raise the issue of necessity or legality of establishment of the office at Delhi.
9. It was argued by Mr. Shrimali that the petitioner's (a Computer Operator) services are required at Delhi office and the, impugned transfer has been done in administrative exigency.
10. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner firstly could not join at Delhi in wake of lockdown imposed by the Central/State Government on 22.03.2020 and thereafter on account of spread of COVID-19, (Downloaded on 02/12/2020 at 08:43:08 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-10044/2020] whereafter he has preferred the present writ petition in a hope of getting indulgence from this Court, as the respondents are in the process of initiating disciplinary inquiry against him, and if that is done, petitioner's future would be adversely affected, submits Mr. Thanvi.
11. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly assured that in case the petitioner joins at Delhi, no disciplinary action would be taken against him for not joining pursuant to transfer order dated 05.03.2020.
12. It was also submitted that in case, petitioner is having genuine problem, he may make a representation, which would be sympathetically considered by the respondent-Institution.
13. Having regard to the submissions made by the rival counsel, though not interfering in the impugned order dated 05.03.2020, the present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to join pursuant to transfer order dated 05.03.2020 on or before 14th of December, 2020. In case, petitioner so joins, respondent-Institute will not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for not joining pursuant to order dated 05.03.2020.
14. After joining at Delhi, if petitioner moves a representation, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks of receiving the same.
17. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 13-Amar/-
(Downloaded on 02/12/2020 at 08:43:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)