Disposed

Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Sept 2021WPSB/387/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the continuance of a professor in Uttarakhand Ayurved University beyond her superannuation age. The petitioners argued the extended retirement policy was not applicable. The court directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the Secretary, AYUSH, entertaining the matter within six weeks after a joint hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make fresh representation to Secretary, AYUSH, within two weeks; Authority to decide within six weeks after hearing respondent.

SL. No Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1		WPSB No. 387 of 2021 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J. Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondent no.1. Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. By means of this Writ Petition, petitioner has challenged the continuance of respondent no.4 on the post of Professor in Uttarakhand Ayurved University, on the strength of Government Order dated 29.06.2017. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 4 completed age of superannuation on 31.03.2017 and she was allowed to continue till the end of Academic Session, i.e. 30.06.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent no. 4 was to retire on 31.03.2017, therefore, benefit of policy decision taken by the State Government to extend age of retirement for teachers of Ayurvedic Colleges from 60 to 65 years was not available to respondent no. 4. On this ground alone, petitioner has challenged the extension of service given to respondent no. 4, by filing this writ petition of Quo Warranto. Writ ofQuoWarranto canbe

SL.
No
Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1

WPSB No. 387 of 2021
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.
Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.
S.S.
Chauhan,
Deputy
Advocate
General
for
the State/
respondent no.1.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Advocate for
respondent nos.2 to 4.
By means of this Writ Petition,
petitioner
has
challenged
the
continuance of respondent no.4 on
the post of Professor in Uttarakhand
Ayurved University, on the strength
of
Government
Order
dated
29.06.2017.
According
to
the
petitioner,
respondent no. 4 completed age of
superannuation on 31.03.2017 and
she was allowed to continue till the
end
of
Academic
Session,
i.e.
30.06.2017.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submits
that
since
respondent no. 4 was to retire on
31.03.2017,
therefore,
benefit
of
policy decision taken by the State
Government
to
extend
age
of
retirement for teachers of Ayurvedic
Colleges from 60 to 65 years was not
available to respondent no. 4.
On this ground alone, petitioner
has
challenged
the
extension
of
service given to respondent no. 4, by
filing
this
writ
petition
of
Quo
Warranto.
Writ ofQuoWarranto canbe

issued when there is lack of qualification on the part of holder of a public office, which is not a case here. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Registrar of the University has issued a letter to the Campus Director, Rishikul Campus, Haridwar against grant of benefit of policy decision to respondent no. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation to Secretary, AYUSH, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated time, the Secretary concerned shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order. It goes without saying that, before passing any order on petitioner’s representation, respondent no. 4 shall also be heard.
( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 Ravi

issued
when
there
is
lack
of
qualification on the part of holder of
a public office, which is not a case
here.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that Registrar of
the University has issued a letter to
the
Campus
Director,
Rishikul
Campus, Haridwar against grant of
benefit
of
policy
decision
to
respondent no. 4.
Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Writ
Petition is disposed of with liberty to
the
petitioner
to
make
fresh
representation to Secretary, AYUSH,
Government
of
Uttarakhand,
Dehradun within two weeks from
today. If such representation is
made within the stipulated time, the
Secretary concerned shall look into
the matter and take appropriate
decision, in accordance with law,
within six weeks from the date of
receipt of representation along with
certified copy of this order.
It goes without saying that,
before
passing
any
order
on
petitioner’s
representation,
respondent no. 4 shall also be heard.

( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 0 6 .0 9 .2 0 2 1
Ravi

Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Chandra Pant Vs State of Uttarakhand

Prerna Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chandra Singh Rautela Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nasheema Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shashti Ballabh Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand