the Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 9^th June 2020 in the case Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttarakhand and others (Writ Petition (PIL) No. 07 of 2020) the case was presided over by the Honourable chief justice Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan and Honourable justice Mr. R.C. Khulbe

FACTS OF THE CASE

This Writ Petition was filed in public interest seeking a writ, order or direction declaring the Uttarakhand Former Chief Ministers Facility (Residential and other facilities) Act, 2019 as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India; and for a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Uttarakhand not to implement and follow the provisions of Act 5 of 2020.

The petitioner is an organisation espousing causes in public interest, had hitherto filed Writ Petition (PIL) No. 90 of 2010 before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash various proceedings issued by the State Government extending certain facilities to Ex-Chief Ministers; a writ of mandamus directing the Government of Uttarakhand not to provide any facility, from the government exchequer, to respondents 2 to 6 as entitlement of the Ex- Chief Ministers; a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to get the government accommodation, occupied by respondents 2 to 6 respectively, vacated; and a writ of mandamus directing the State of Uttarakhand to recover the amount spent, on behalf of respondents 2 to 6, with respect to the facilities provided to them as Ex-Chief Ministers of the State.

JUDGEMENT

 As both Section 4(a) which permits recovery of a lesser amount, than the market rent, as rent for the accommodation provided to former Chief Ministers, and Section 4(c) whereby various facilities were extended to them free of cost, suffer from manifest arbitrariness, they are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, and are declared void and unenforceable. Consequently, on Sections 4(a) and (c) being struck down, Section 4(d) becomes redundant and ceases to have any effect. The words “or any order” in Section 8 of Act 5 of 2020 are also liable to be struck down to the extent any facility provided by any such order falls within the ambit of Sections 4(a) and (c) of Act 5 of 2020.

The Writ Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

click here to view the judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANANTH PAI

The Uttarakhand high court passed a judgement on 9^th January 2020 in the case Smt. Rashmi Nautiyal Vs. Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar and others (writ petition no. 82 of 2019) the case was presided over by the Hon’ble chief justice Mr. Ramesh Ranganathan and Hon’ble justice Alok Kumar Verma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 78 of 2019, a Ph.D with nearly eight years of service as an Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting), applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short the ‘Commission’) dated 04.08.2017, on 12.08.2017. A screening test was held on 06.05.2018, the results of which were declared on 21.08.2018. The petitioner was among the candidates successful in the screening test, and was therefore called to appear before the interview board constituted by the Commission on 28.12.2018. The results of the interview were declared by the Commission on 04.01.2019, and respondent nos.6 to 9 were declared to have been selected ie two in the General category (ie respondent nos.7 and 9), and two in the Scheduled Castes category (ie respondent nos.6 and 8). The petitioner belongs to the General category. In the interview, respondent no.7 secured 74 marks and respondent no.9 secured 72 marks, whereas the petitioner was awarded only 57 marks resulting in her not being selected to the post of Assistant Professor (Drawing and Painting). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

JUDGEMENT

If there are clear indicators that the decision-making process may have been compromised by bias, actual or apparent, this may lead to a decision, that has been reached, being challenged and nullified. The principal issue is not whether the decision itself is legitimate but whether the decision-maker ought to have taken the decision in the first place, as the possibility of bias would undermine its credibility. Even if a person believes that he is acting impartially and in good faith, his mind may be unconsciously affected by improper considerations that affect his judgment. In defining the scope of the rule against bias and its content, at least three requirements of public law are in play: The first seeks accuracy in public decision- making, the second seeks the absence of prejudice or partiality on the part of the decision-maker. An accurate decision is more likely to be achieved by a decision-maker who is in fact impartial or disinterested in the outcome of the decision, and who puts aside any personal prejudices. The third requirement is for public confidence in the decision-making process. Even though the decision-maker may in fact be scrupulously impartial, the appearance of bias can itself call into question the legitimacy of the decision-making process.

 In the light of what we have held here in above, selection of respondent nos.6 to 9 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.78 of 2019, as Assistant Professors (Drawing and Painting), is set-aside as the presence of Dr. Shekhar Joshi, in the Interview Board, has resulted in the entire selection process being vitiated by bias. Writ Petition (S/B) No.78 of 2019 is allowed to this limited extent. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Writ Petition (S/B) No.82 of 2019 is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

click to view the judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANANTH PAI

The Uttarakhand High Court passed a judgement on 1^st of August, 2022 in the case of Kamini Verma vs State of Uttarakhand and others (WP(S/B) No.204 OF 2020) and the case was presided over by THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI AND JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE

FACTS OF THE CASE

Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 24.09.1984 as Assistant Teacher, Government Girls Inter College, Kotdwar. Before her retirement, a charge-sheet was issued against her. The petitioner denied all the charges, the petitioner retired as Principal, Girls Inter College, Namjala, Pithoragarh. After her retirement, an inquiry was set up nominating one – Bhupinder Singh Negi as the inquiry office

The petitioner remained present before the Inquiry. She was supplied with the copy of the charge- sheet (a questionnaire and documents)., the petitioner sought information about status of the inquiry against her. In reply to the said application, a note-sheet was provided in which the inquiry report was mentioned. The petitioner, vide her explanation had mentioned that none of the charges were made out against her and her entire retiral dues had wrongly been withheld. Again, a show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner.

 The show-cause notice was again duly replied through registered post. When her retiral benefits were wrongly withheld, she filed a writ- petition WPSB No.399 of 2019, “Kamini Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand”. The said writ-petition was disposed of on 29.08.2019 with the direction to finalise the payment of retiral benefits as well as to conclude the disciplinary inquiry within two months.

Since, no compliance of order dated 29.08.2019 was being made by the respondent authority, accordingly, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petition No.71 of 2020, “Kamini Verma Vs. R. Meenakshi Sundaram and Others”. In reply, the respondent no.1 issued a letter dated 09.06.2020 to the writ-petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that the inquiry officer has found that the petitioner belongs to OBC but she has been promoted under SC quota while many senior teachers are still working on the post of Principal. Consequently, the promotion order dated 26.07.2013 relating to the petitioner was cancelled. Accordingly, the recovery order of Rs.13,33,688/- has been issued vide letter dated 08.07.2020. Hence, the present writ-petition was preferred.

JUDGEMENT

In the order court cites Shyam Babu Varma and others v. Union of India and others (1994) 2 SCC 521, the Apex Court, while dealing with a similar situation, held out that since the petitioner received higher pay scale not due to fault or his own, it shall not be just and proper to recover the salary already paid to him.

It is well settled principle of jurisprudence that the proceedings qua a delinquent employee must be just, fair and reasonable, and negation thereof offend Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also well settled law that principle of natural justice is an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity of being heard along with supplying the material, which is the basis for the decision. The inquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The failure to supply copy of proceedings to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice

Accordingly, the present writ-petition is allowed and the impugned order 09.06.2020 (Annexure-12) as well as the order dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure-13) are hereby quashed and set aside

click here to view the judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANANTH PAI