Dismissed¶¶29

Sanghmitra Sadhu v. Union of India and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Jul 2026LPA/9/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fellowship extension; in-service scholar; two-year fellowship; external evaluation report; expert decision not open to judicial review; governing body resolution; six-month continuation; recovery of fellowship grant barred owing to interim orders; writ petition 636/2019; Gauhati High Court jurisdiction refusal; Letters Patent Appeal; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; LPA 9/2020; Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu v Union of India.

What did the court decide?

No recovery of the fellowship grant liable to be effected from the appellant; appeal otherwise dismissed with no other relief granted. ¶¶29

Sanghmitra Sadhu Vs Union of India and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No recovery of the fellowship grant liable to be effected from the appellant; appeal otherwise dismissed with no other relief granted.

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the decisions of the external evaluator (report dated 10.01.2019) and the governing body (meeting of 22.01.2019) on continuation of the appellant's fellowship are open to judicial review, and whether the learned Single Judge's judgment upholding them should be interfered with by this court. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

The report of the external evaluator dated 10.01.2019 and the decision of the governing body thereon (meeting of 22.01.2019) are decisions taken by experts and are not open to judicial review; the learned Single Judge correctly relied on the various judgments of the Apex Court detailed in paragraphs 22 to 37 of the impugned judgment.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

No infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge was pointed out calling for interference by this court in the present appeal.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

No recovery of the fellowship grant is liable to be effected from the appellant on account of her inability to complete the fellowship, because interim orders had been passed in her favour during the pendency of the litigation.ratio¶¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court, LPA No. 9 of 2020 (decided 18.07.2026; coram: G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin Chander Negi, J; judgment authored by Negi, J): appeal against the Single Judge's judgment dated 29.11.2019 in Civil Writ Petition No. 636 of 2019 dismissed. The appellant, an in-service scholar awarded a two-year fellowship (application dated 29.11.2016; offer letter dated 19.06.2017) made conditional on a positive external evaluation for second-year continuation, submitted her progress report late (05.11.2018); on the evaluator's report dated 10.01.2019 the governing body (meeting of 22.01.2019) approved only a six-month continuation (letter dated 08.02.2019, effective 01.12.2018 to 31.05.2019), rejecting her representation and ordering recovery of the fellowship grant from February 2019. The Division Bench upheld the learned Single Judge, holding that the evaluator's report and the governing body's decision were decisions taken by experts and hence not open to judicial review, reliance having correctly been placed on various judgments of the Apex Court detailed in paragraphs 22 to 37 of the impugned judgment, and found no infirmity calling for interference. However, because interim orders had been passed in the appellant's favour during the pendency of the litigation, the court held that no recovery of the fellowship grant was liable to be effected from her despite her inability to complete the fellowship. Appeal dismissed along with pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No. 9 of 2020 Decided on : 18 .07.2026 Dr. Sanghamitra Sadhu ...Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

Union of India and another …Respondents

¶5

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents : None for respondent No.1. : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶8

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶9

The present petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed in Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 636 of 2019, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶10

The appellant/petitioner had applied as an in-service scholar with the respondent-institute for a two-year fellowship, vide application dated 29.11.2016. The application had been made in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) filed along with the writ petition.

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶12

-2-

¶13

In clause 4 of the advertisement, which is reproduced in

¶14

the impugned judgment at paragraph 7, it has been made amply clear that the fellowship for a period of two years would be awarded subject to the condition that continuation of the fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done by the fellow during the first year is positive.

¶15

In pursuance of the application dated 29.11.2016, whereby the appellant/writ petitioner had applied for grant of fellowship for two years, an offer letter dated 19.06.2017 was sent to the petitioner. Herein again, it was categorically stated that the continuation of the fellowship for the second year would only be granted if the external evaluation report of the work done during the first year by the writ petitioner/appellant is positive.

¶16

Besides the aforesaid, the relevant terms and conditions on which the fellowship for in-service fellows had been granted in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner have been reproduced in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. The relevant condition being condition No. 5, whereby it has been made clear that three months prior to the completion of one year, the appellant/writ petitioner was required to submit a progress report of the work done till date, papers presented, publications, etc. The same had to be sent to an external evaluator in order to determine whether the fellowship of the appellant/writ petitioner was to be extended.

¶17

-3-

¶18

In terms of the offer letter dated 19.06.2017, the

¶19

appellant/writ petitioner was to join within six months from the date of issuance of the letter. The petitioner had joined on 01.12.2017 and submitted her first seminar to the respondent institute on 12.12.2017. Subsequent thereto the appellant/writ petitioner had availed study leave with effect from 16.12.2017 to 28.02.2018, and thereafter had availed maternity leave, which was sanctioned in her favour with effect from 01.03.2018 to 27.07.2018. The petitioner resumed her fellowship on 17.08.2018 and presented her second seminar.

¶20

On 08.02.2019, the respondent institute granted continuation of the fellowship period to the petitioner/appellant for six months' time only till 31.5.2019. However, she filed a representation for reconsideration of the extension of the fellowship for the second year up to the tenure of the fellowship, i.e., 30.11.2019. The same was rejected by the respondent-institute and recovery of the fellowship grant was ordered from the month of February 2019.

¶21

In the aforesaid backdrop, the writ petitioner/appellant had approached the Gauhati High Court. The writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction vide order dated 25.03.2019. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 636 of 2019, wherefrom the present appeal arises, was filed. The same has primarily been filed seeking directions against the respondent-institute for according full-term extension for the second year fellowship to the writ petitioner/appellant and setting aside the letter dated 08.02.2019,

¶22

-4-

¶23

whereby extension for six months had been granted. Other than the aforesaid, the arrears of fellowship grant and payment of fellowship grant till the completion of the two-years period were claimed

¶24

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the first year of the fellowship was set to expire on 30.11.2018. In terms of condition No. 5, reproduced in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment, the writ petitioner/appellant was required to submit a progress report three months prior to the completion of one year of the fellowship. The same was submitted by the petitioner only on 05.11.2018. The evaluator's report thereupon has been reproduced in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. The evaluator's report dated 10.01.2019 was placed before the governing body of the respondent institute during its meeting on 22.01.2019. At the said meeting, the governing body, vide Item No. 7, the relevant extract whereof has been reproduced in paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment, considered the proposal of the Director for a further grant of a provisional continuation of two months to the writ petitioner/appellant and to consider continuation of the fellowship for the second year of the writ petitioner/appellant. In view of the proposal submitted by the Director, the governing body resolved to approve the continuation of the fellowship for six months as against two months proposed by the director.

¶25

It is in this backdrop that the letter dated 08.02.2019 was sent to the writ petitioner/appellant, extending the continuation of the fellowship with effect from 01.12.2018 to 31.05.2019. The relevant

¶26

-5-

¶27

extract of the letter dated 08.02.2019 has been reproduced in paragraph 19 of the writ petition

¶28

It is in the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand the learned Single Judge has correctly observed that the report of the evaluator dated 10.01.2019 and the decision taken by the governing body thereupon in its meeting held on 22.01.2019 are decisions taken by experts and, hence, the same are not open to judicial review. In support of the view taken by the learned Single Judge reliance has correctly been placed upon various judgments of the Apex Court, as detailed in paragraphs 22 to 37 of the impugned judgment. No infirmity in the view so taken has been pointed out calling for interference by this court in the present appeal. However, we are of the opinion that no recovery is liable to be effected from the appellant only on account of the fact that she was not able to complete her fellowship since it is a fact that interim orders had been passed in her favour during the pendency of the litigation.

¶29

Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the wellreasoned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed, along with the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶30

(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge

¶31

18^th July, 2026 (Tarun Singh)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 29.11.2019 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 636 of 2019 dismissing the appellant's writ petition, which had sought full-term second-year fellowship extension, setting aside of the letter dated 08.02.2019, and payment of fellowship arrears.¶¶9
High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Single Judge) · 29.11.2019
Prior proceeding
Appellant applied as an in-service scholar with the respondent-institute for a two-year fellowship vide application dated 29.11.2016, in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure P-1).¶¶10
Prior proceeding
Clause 4 of the advertisement made clear that continuation of the fellowship for the second year would be granted only if the external evaluation report of the first year's work was positive.¶¶14
Prior proceeding
Offer letter dated 19.06.2017 sent to the petitioner pursuant to her application, again stating categorically that second-year continuation depended on a positive external evaluation report.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Condition No. 5 of the terms reproduced in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment required submission of a progress report three months prior to completion of one year, to be sent to an external evaluator to determine extension.¶¶16
Prior proceeding
Petitioner joined on 01.12.2017 (within six months of the offer letter dated 19.06.2017) and submitted her first seminar on 12.12.2017.¶¶19
Prior proceeding
After study leave (16.12.2017 to 28.02.2018), petitioner availed sanctioned maternity leave from 01.03.2018 to 27.07.2018, resumed the fellowship on 17.08.2018 and presented her second seminar.¶¶19
Prior proceeding
Progress report required three months prior to completion of the first year (first year expiring 30.11.2018) was submitted by the petitioner only on 05.11.2018.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
Evaluator's report dated 10.01.2019 was placed before the governing body of the respondent institute at its meeting on 22.01.2019.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
At the 22.01.2019 meeting (Item No. 7), considering the Director's proposal for a provisional continuation of two months, the governing body resolved to approve continuation of the fellowship for six months.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
On 08.02.2019 the respondent institute granted continuation of the fellowship period for six months only, till 31.5.2019.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 08.02.2019 extended the continuation of the fellowship with effect from 01.12.2018 to 31.05.2019.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's representation for reconsideration of extension up to the full tenure (30.11.2019) was rejected by the respondent-institute, and recovery of the fellowship grant was ordered from the month of February 2019.¶¶20
Prior proceeding
Writ petitioner first approached the Gauhati High Court; that writ petition was dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction vide order dated 25.03.2019.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Thereafter Writ Petition No. 636 of 2019, from which the present appeal arises, was filed seeking directions for according full-term extension of the second-year fellowship and setting aside the letter dated 08.02.2019.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
The writ petition additionally claimed arrears of fellowship grant and payment of fellowship grant till completion of the two-year period.¶¶23

Sanghmitra Sadhu v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanghmitra Sadhu v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Saroop Vs Mc Shimla

Sansar Chand Vs Union of India and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Roshan Lal

State of Hp through Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) Vs Bir Singh

State of Hp and Ors. Vs Sunil Kumar

Yashpal Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Another