Reinstate NIPER registrar within 4 weeks, rules HC
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, May 5
More than a decade after a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the selection and appointment of Wing Commander PJP Waraich as the registrar of the National Institute of Pharmaceuticals Education and Research (NIPER), a Division Bench has set aside the order after ruling the same cannot be sustained.
The Bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur also declared appellant Waraich was “validly appointed” as the registrar on July 4, 2011, for five years. His subsequent regular appointment vide regularisation order dated April 12, 2017, was also held valid.
Single Judge ‘erred’ in setting aside appointment
- HC Bench declared as valid appellant Wing Commander PJP Waraich’s appointment as registrar in 2011 for 5 years & his subsequent regularisation
- Appellant was relieved in 2018 on the basis of an erroneous order, it stated, while declaring the order and another relieving order of 2021 as invalid
- As it was not ‘public office’, Single Judge erred in setting aside appointment treating writ petition as one where quo warranto writ could be issued, it stated
- Also, comparison of merits of candidates for appointment was not within court’s purview when there was a proper selection process, it observed
The Bench took note of the fact that the Single Judge’s ruling setting aside the appointment was stayed by two separate orders.
“On the basis that the contractual term of the appellant of five years had ended, it was not open to the Division Bench of this court to vacate the stay on July 20, 2018, in the Letters Patent Appeal without deciding the main appeal itself, particularly when he had been regularised on April 12, 2017,” it was added.
The Bench observed the appellant was relieved on July 31, 2018, on the basis of the erroneous order dated July 20, 2018. Declaring as invalid this and another relieving order dated February 3, 2021, the Bench directed two of the respondents to reinstate Waraich in service within four weeks with all consequential benefits before treating him as having been regularly appointed. Two other respondents were directed to pay costs of Rs 20,000 each to the appellant, again within four weeks.
After hearing senior advocate Rajiv Atma Ram with Brijesh Khosla on the appellant’s behalf, the Bench added the issue of maintainability of the writ petition was nowhere dealt with by the Single Judge in the impugned order dated November 30, 2012, though the aspect was specifically raised by the appellant as well as the NIPER.
The Bench also ruled it was of the opinion that the post of NIPER registrar was not a “public office” in respect of which a “writ of quo warranto” would lie. As such, the Single Judge could not have treated the writ petition as one where a writ of quo warranto could be issued and erred in setting aside the appointment of the appellant to the post.
The Bench observed it was also of the view comparison of merits of the candidates for appointment was not within the court’s purview when there was a proper selection process. The Single Judge erred in interfering with the same and setting aside the appellant’s appointment.
