DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Plea challenging appointment of officiating principal dismissed

Petition was filed by a senior professor at Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of Dr Anshu as the officiating principal of the Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

The petition was filed by a senior professor at the college, seeking the setting aside of the November 2024 order appointing Dr Anshu to the post. The petitioner claimed seniority over Dr Anshu.

The petitioner, who holds the position of Professor, contended that Dr Anshu was designated as a Reader on February 18, 2013, but her designation was initially not approved by Panjab University. It was then approved with retrospective date. The petitioner further referred to a 2021 judgment in the case of Dr Priya Sareen, which set aside the retrospective confirmation order. “Thus, for all intent and purposes, it is the petitioner who is senior whereas respondent-Dr Anshu has been assigned charge of officiating principal,” said the petitioner.

Advertisement

After hearing advocate Kanan Malik for Dr Anshu and the rival contentions, Justice Jagmohan Bansal’s Bench asserted the retrospective approval was set aside. But a Division Bench vide order dated March 18, 2021, ordered the maintenance of status quo with regard to Dr Anshu’s appointment. “As there is stay in favour of the respondent, this court at this stage, especially when limited issue involved is of assigning charge of officiating principal, finds it appropriate to record that the respondent being designated as Reader on February 18, 2013, i.e. prior to petitioner, is senior and she was rightly assigned charge of officiating principal,” said Justice Bansal.

The Bench, among other things, added the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and was only continuing under interim orders. The Court emphasised that under such circumstances, the petitioner could not be assigned the charge of officiating principal.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper